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 am constantly circling getting back into mass battle fantasy wargaming. My favourite era of WFB was 6th edition and early 7th, and I have a bunch of armies from that time.

However, I also really like Kings of War, at least to look at, but have never really gotten many games in due to lack of a local scene wherever I was. I have a large collection of fantasy miniatures now from a variety of sources, and they are more usable in KoW than Warhammer because it is designed with proxy models in mind.
Which do you reckon is the better choice for trying to bring in new players or find a game? (I realise posting it here might bias the responses, but I think people here are more likely to have played both perhaps than regular posters in the KoW forum).
Here is what I was thinking in terms of advantages and disadvantages
KoW Pros
- Reasonably simple rules to learn
- Generous with regard to model use and base size - as long as you fill the footprint it does not matter what things are based on
- Interesting army scale variety with more scope for using my dungeons and dragons collection of monsters and beasties
- Fast to play and reasonably balanced
KoW Cons
- Uninspiring art and background material
- Army lists somewhat samey - nothing like the all skirmishing beasts of chaos, similar unit types in every army despite different aesthetics
- Need for larger model counts for a game

WFB 6th Pros
- Cool artwork and background material
- More individual and customisable feel to the forces, your individual dudes and especially characters feel more personal
- Funky armies and set ups more possible
- Siege rules work well with the individual model focus for some very exciting battles
- Game is very fun at low model count levels (some of my favourite games in the old days were 1500 point games with only heroes)
WFB 6th Cons
- Base size very important, not good when I have 25mm based stuff that "should" be on 20mm bases
- Game is fiddly and harder to learn - wheeling and individual attacks can be intimidating for newbies
- Balance is not as good
- Some of my miniatures would not be usable, and newer miniatures do not have any rules.

I know, I know, "Why not both?" but I think I am going to be trying to introduce this to non-wargamers as I do not know any local wargamers (basically, my dungeons and dragons group or some kids in my school) and I think pushing two systems would lead to confusion. Does anyone know of extended list rules for 6th that incoprorate newer models? Edit to add: And are there Siege rules for KoW that are as fun as the old Siege for 6th? (I love sieges).

I mean, if we were comparing "pure" 6th, ie the 6th rulebook and Ravening Hordes, they might be more comparable, but it seems the things you like about 6th are the same ones I do - it lasted for a long while and was during IMO "peak" GW, so it has absolutely tonnes of material and loads of customisation.

KoW is almost completely at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of design philosophy, it's kinda like asking "cake or pizza?". For myself, I'm doing a kind of Frankenhammer with a mix of 6th army books(except WE and Brets who will use the Chronicles lists) and the 7th rulebook, plus a few house rules.

Which is better for you though depends entirely on your local circumstances, but if your target is non-wargamers it would maybe pay to start with something a smidge less daunting - Mordheim perhaps? It might also be worth hitting up the Middlehammer, WHFB, and WHFB 6th Facebook groups to see if there's anyone local to you - even if you still decide to bring in some new folk, that would be easier if you already have one or two other experienced people to join in.

I enjoy the characters and uniquenessi of 6th. I have tried other systems and always go back to 6th. We go with "if there's rules for it, you can use it" so all the chronicles units, gw webpage characters, etc. are allowed to give it the most variety. Sure, the rules are complicated, but that's one of the draws of it for my group.

We've got quite a big group around here, more than ever before, all playing 6th.

Yeah, I really think 6th was a golden age for Warhammer. So much cool stuff released, and overall balance was pretty solid back then, particularly if you did not go too crazy with magic.

Siege is my favourite add on rule, I clearly remember every siege game we ever played.

The problem with KoW is that each army pretty much feels like each other army in how it is put together - blocks plus monsters and individual heroes. Fantasy has more variation with skirmishers, heroes in units, more variety in the types of units, and so on. But for beginners that simplicity in KoW could be helpful too, as it is less to get your head around.

The downside to 6th is that it is limited to the model range from the time. There are some great models released since, or from other ranges, that I would really like to use.
And a lot of my stuff is based on 25mm for Dungeons and Dragons, KoW would let me use it since the tray is the important thing. I can use my LOTR models, my Dungeons and Dragons plastics, or my Frostgrave Gnolls and Barbarians, and it doesn't matter that the basing is inconsistent with my historical celts and vikings. The draw to being able to use all of my collection by making use of Kingdoms of Men (designed for using Historicals), or the various monsters and other stuff I have is quite strong, because at least the aesthetic variety would be larger. The "cool" factor is just bigger with 6th.

Your Arguments above nail it pretty much. WHFB 6th ist like a 70s muscle Car, very cool, but lacks some newer Gimmicks, and ist not very beginner friendly.
KoW ist like a Vauxhall/Opel Astra without Extras. Economically built, and easy total handle, but not very exciting.

Always go rule of cool.

 Moscha wrote:
Your Arguments above nail it pretty much. WHFB 6th ist like a 70s muscle Car, very cool, but lacks some newer Gimmicks, and ist not very beginner friendly.
KoW ist like a Vauxhall/Opel Astra without Extras. Economically built, and easy total handle, but not very exciting.

KoW is also quite impersonal, that is why I dislike it in 28mm. I would say KoW is less like a car and more like a carriage in a train (without graffiti).

I was looking through the General's Compendium. Has to be one of the best books GW ever put out. Inspiration on every page.

So much creativity from that period in the hobby. They haven't done anything like that for AoS, have they?

I also went looking to see if KoW had any Siege rules, and it seems they do not. I found a blog post from one of the Rules Committee saying that he did not see the point of Siege games because of the limited room for tactical movement. Seemed like a really one eyed view of siege gaming! Sieges have a totally different flow to a normal battle, it is true. It is a slow grind of escalating tension, with the release only coming at the very end. That is the point! A siege is as much a narrative experience as it is a tactical challenge.

Some people have made their own rules for that sort of thing in KoW and there is some hope that the new Vanguard system might be used, but I have to say I am disappointed that nothing more concrete exists. Vanguard looks heavily board game influenced to me, and I am not arsed with all that fuss. I want something that works with the basic KoW rules rather than a new system I have to bolt on, because otherwise I may as well just go play 6th.

I might have a go at coming up with some rules for it, but it is actually one of the cases where I think the model by model nature of Warhammer is an advantage rather than an annoyance. I remember a wall collapsing on a unit of goblins in an old siege game, and only three survived, passed their panic test and stormed into the courtyard to somehow win a fight against a diminished unit of Bretonian peasants and rout them! I was so happy I promoted the unit champion to be a Big Boss by giving him a new sword and a spiffy new cloak.

I picked up almost the full library of books for 6th for myself including siege, skirmish, general's, 2002-2004 books etc. So much stuff.

We just started again, but total in our group in the last year for 6th:
25 armies
8 collectors/army owners
4 other player non-collectors

there's at least one to two games per week.

Can only echo what's been said on here so far. The sad fact is that it will depend on what players you can find. If there are only people playing T9A, for instance, that's your lot unless you can scrape up players for your system via social media. I was lucky insofar as my brother having an almost identical mindset regarding 6th, and that there seems to be a few more players coming out of the woodwork recently.


I would personally go with 6th, but that's more to do with my preferences in gaming and list construction.

For me... I like both. I haven't play 6th edition yet. I have the books and I'm rebasing my AoS Greenskinz to squares to bolster my O&G Army. So I'm good, I'm waiting to learn and play with someone. I am go.

KoW I really like, it reminds me a lot of Warhammer Fantasy, but when I say this at my FLGS or with my friend that I play KoW with. I get the same reaction, "KoW is nothing like Warhammer Fantasy."

Which I disagree. KoW to me is a more streamlined version of Warhammer Fantasy. But which edition of Fantasy KoW relates to? Personally, I want to say 6th edition. Though I only skimmed through 6th edition's rulebook. I need to actually sit down and read the book to fully understand and make an educated opinion.

 Da Boss wrote:
They haven't done anything like that for AoS, have they?

Not yet, but its assumed that GW hiring former user on this site, “Bottle”, who wrote a supplement called “Hinterlands” that was populer with fans means that something is coming. Thats the hope at least. He could be washing dishes in Bugmans Bar for all I know. There was a blurb about AoS “Skirmish” in next months White Dwarf preview, we’ll see then I suppose.

Agree with your sentiment that you remember every Siege battle, as its the same for me. The Warhammer Fortress is the only thing I have left from that era, and I intend to keep it for the forseeable future because of the nostalgia it gives me. Everything else has been sold, lost by shipping companies when in the Army, or thrown away by “accident”, but that Fortress remains inviolate.

And The Generals Handbook of that era was insanely fun. I knew and gamed with some of the folks that wrote it here in the States when GW had their US HQ in Glen Burnie. Great times! Makes me wish that the current GHB’s(which have been great in their own way for AoS) were called something different because of how iconic that old Handbook was.

Oh, and 6th Edition over KoW, is my preference.

You pay for the better balance of KOW with the more bland feeliing. The more complex and unique the army building rules, the more imbalances will creep in.

KOW does feel samey. There's no doubt. That was what held me back from it for a very long time. Its what holds most of my community back from it.

However it is supported, you have a wide array of models you can use, and you can find material. You can even just port whfb themes and narratiive fluff into your kow games if you wish.

I loved WHFB 6th. It is my favorite edition of WHFB. But finding players is going to be the main issue. If you have the players, rock out what you like the most.

In the end, I decided to go for KoW instead of 6th. I really prefer the art and fiction of 6e, and I love all the stuff that was made for it, but in the end it is too limiting in model choice for me. KoW just offers me the chance to use all my minis in some fun armies, and it is much more forgiving about basing, which is important to me as I have some stuff based on 25mm rounds now.

That said, I am looking to recreate a lot of the cool stuff from the General's Compendium and Siege in KoW. Seems like it will be a bit of work, and maybe siege will be better with some other rules set.

Heh. I feel bad, because everyone advised me to go with 6e apart from auticus. But I suppose in the end it is about priorities, and for me being able to make full use of all of my fantasy miniatures without worrying about game balance being effed up by my nonstandard basing is more important than the "feel" of the rules. (As KoW is fine, it just isn't as exciting rules wise as 6e.)
I might look around my local area and see if there are any 6e players around anyhow.

Here's the deal: if you can't find opponents for 6th, you won't be going back to 6th. Plain and simple. If there are KOW players local for you, you got your question answered for better or worse.

Well, I reckon I am going to have to CREATE a playerbase around me, because as far as I can tell, there is little going on with either game. So part of the question is, which will be easier to create a playerbase with, and for that reason the simplicity of the KoW rules are a plus, even though they are pretty bland.

There was a WM-Hordes community but it seems to have tanked, and there is a pretty small AoS community. Further north they have some KoW communities, but I couldn't find much locally. This may all be a pipe dream, as I might not be able to find people to play against at all. But that has been my situation for the past 7 years or so.

I would suggest posting on FB or some other site looking for opponents from either system. If you have to get someone not exactly local to pop in and play either system, but you get people watching and interested because of it, then it's a net win.

My 3rd Ed. 40K group expanded from being me and my brother to at least three more players currently with three considering the jump. What made that happen? My brother brought two of our armies to the armory I was serving at, and a Sergeant there brought two of his armies he had started for 6th/7th. We hammered out two games with us three and another person who was familiar but had never played. It was successful, and the best part? EVERYONE but my brother had to drive an hour to show up at that armory that we drilled at, so it spread the love.

Now, will that Sergeant recruit others from his local area? Time will tell, and it may take me going to where he lives to make it happen. My brother and I have been playing 6th at a local shop in my town, and we already have garnered quite a bit of interest. Not sure it'll pan out to opponents, but I'm hopeful.

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, I reckon I am going to have to CREATE a playerbase around me, because as far as I can tell, there is little going on with either game. So part of the question is, which will be easier to create a playerbase with, and for that reason the simplicity of the KoW rules are a plus, even though they are pretty bland.

There was a WM-Hordes community but it seems to have tanked, and there is a pretty small AoS community. Further north they have some KoW communities, but I couldn't find much locally. This may all be a pipe dream, as I might not be able to find people to play against at all. But that has been my situation for the past 7 years or so.

I did that around here, the scene was dead for wfb, but i had three playable armies, and just kept inviting people over to play, now we're up to 30+ armies, 10 collector/players, and 5 player-only players. My house has a big enough place to play, so we mainly play here, with others having space to play if i'm not around.

 Da Boss wrote:


That said, I am looking to recreate a lot of the cool stuff from the General's Compendium and Siege in KoW. Seems like it will be a bit of work, and maybe siege will be better with some other rules set.

No need, there are siege rules in the Clash of Kings 2019 booklet

Yeah I saw that! I had a look at the rules, they seem pretty good, pretty much a port of 6e rules into KoW.

Pretty excited to give them a go. Need to find me some opponents!

Never played 6th edition, so can't compare the games.

I do strongky reccomend KoW though (in general and for this thread). I must add that KoW plays much better than it reads, the rules seem bland, but it all comes together on the table.

The seemingly slight differences in rules, stats amd available units make a big difference on the table. Having +1 nerve as thier thing make Varangur noticibly thougher, for example. Abyssals have no access to long range shooting and do have the fury rule as standard, making them play more aggressively. Few high defense options but lots of regen an ensnare make trident realms a very different army. It's tuned finely enough that seemingly small differences have a big impact.

KoW doesn't rely on weird rules and crazy abilities to be interesting, having to outdo your opponent is what makes it interesting.

Also, Mantic is working on the background.

This thread made me nostalgic for Warhammer 6th Ed. Those were the golden years of Warhammer. I loved playing 1500 or even 2000 point games with no Lords.

Social media is your friend, you'll be surprised that you may indeed be able to find an opponent locally. Hell, if you were in Indiana, my brother and I would play you.

 Gallahad wrote:
This thread made me nostalgic for Warhammer 6th Ed. Those were the golden years of Warhammer. I loved playing 1500 or even 2000 point games with no Lords.

I have fond memories of hanging out with people in 5th-7th, but I much prefer the game play of 8th. All too often in 6th it's one of two stories 1)cavalry charge kill everyone in the front rank and no attacks back OR 2)it's a shooting match because no one wants to get charged.

At least in 8th, thanks to "Step up" and "Supporting Attacks", even the lowest foot sluggers get their chance to swing back. Magic can be strong but a lot depends on the group you play with. But to each their own, whatever keeps your dice rolling

Add step up to 6th, problem solved. Supporting attacks take away the point of spears, so meh on that rule lol

 brr-icy wrote:
Add step up to 6th, problem solved. Supporting attacks take away the point of spears, so meh on that rule lol

Not really, spears are still very useful. Normal units get Supporting Attacks from the second rank. Spears give you Supporting attacks from an extra rank, so you usually get 3 ranks with spears.

Step up could be added to 6th with little change, but supporting attacks would change too much IMO

I'm honestly of the opinion that Step up in 6th would be a bridge too far. DEFINITELY don't want additional ranks for everyone.

Step up works fine in 6th, we house ruled that at the beginning of last year. since 99% of the time, the regular troopers lose 4-5 guys on the charge, whoever is getting charged doesn't get to roll, it gets boring.

Hi Guys:

As the purveyor of www.classichammer.com I am ever supportive of someone getting their feet wet in a more classic game of Warhammer. With that in mind it would be the 6th for me.

Wading into the step-up argument, probably foolishly, I have seen it happen where my Dwarf army gets owned on the front by a lucky roll of dice, and have someone have their dice totally crap out on them. There are other rules from WAB that I would prefer to use before I would use step-up.

Having said that, if you do use step-up, I would reduce the lethality of it for the 6th. Making it so that you can attack without any buffs from your weapons seems more reasonable to me.

PS. First post on here