PDA

View Full Version : Will you remain loyal? to 7th ED?



Gundobad
13-06-2010, 12:43
So from what I have heard from people i know who have read the book, I am not liking 8th ed very much at all, and know quite a few other veteran gamers who feel the same way and are contemplating not using the new ED rules because how unnecessarily drastic the changes are to the game.

If It aint broke dont fix it we say. The game as of now is very good except for a few things a new ed could improve upon or change, but they are completely srewing with the rules to the point where its not warhammer FB anymore. We love this game for the strategy, not the move shoot assault BS that is 40k, and many of us feel the game is heading that way with all this crap that it doesnt need.

SO, does anyone else feel the same? Will any of you stick to 7th ed if you do not like these changes?

Tymell
13-06-2010, 12:50
We had a thread recently about the same thing, refusing to use 8th edition. My take here is the same: give it a chance first. And not just one or two games with your mind already made up. Actually try the game out in a variety of scenarios for a good length of time, then come back to this.

I honestly don't feel anyone can have a true understanding of a new edition until they've spent some good time using it first, and over-simplifications like saying it's just being turned into 40K don't help.

If you truly want to keep using 7th ed. rules you certainly can, but you'll be hard-pressed to find many games like that. You could always just try a few house rules if there are certain points that really bother you (I never use kill points in 40K, for example).

MajorWesJanson
13-06-2010, 12:53
This happens every edition change. I remember a lot of this sort of muttering in the leadup to 40K fifth edition, but within a month or two after it came out, posts about it seemed to have vanished.

Hragged
13-06-2010, 12:55
No, I'm done with 7th. Looking forward to the change.

Dai-Mongar
13-06-2010, 12:57
Change is the one constant in the galaxy.
The wise adapt.
Believe in our destiny.

Desert Rain
13-06-2010, 12:57
As I play in a store I have to use the newest rules whether I like them or not. Even if I had the choice I would use 8th since I like the rumours and I'm looking forward to a change in the game system, which has basically been the same since I started in 2003.

Ultimate Life Form
13-06-2010, 13:02
The game was broken, and it needed drastic changes. In parts it was so cumbersome and awkward as to severely affect my experience. Or to put it bluntly, it wasn't as much fun as it should be. 7th Ed rules are the opposite of elegant. They work, but they're simply not beautiful. At times they feel overcomplicated, overly strict and put on restrictions that I feel are simply not necessary. I'm fed up with the old game of 'he who gets the charge off wins the game'.

If you like 7th better than 8th (how come you know, you haven't even tried) then you can of course stop evolving, stick with it and eventually be left behind like Chaos Dwarves and other relics of the past while I enjoy an entirely novel wargaming experience with my friends.

BigBossOgryn
13-06-2010, 13:15
LMFAO.

So long 7th! Make my Chaos army good again 8th!

Sharkboy
13-06-2010, 13:34
I won't be shedding any tears at the passing of 7th and look forward to 8th bringing back some joy to the game. Hope I won't be saying this when 9th comes around.

Urgat
13-06-2010, 13:52
No, I'm looking forward to 8th with barely contained anticipation.

Stuffburger
13-06-2010, 13:56
Judging from the rumors I'm getting the feeling that 8th ed will be a wash for me. On one hand I like the streamlining, on the other the shift towards huge units seems like a way to improve sales and not the game. As above though, gonna give 8th a fair try first and make my decision later. I only have one main opponent so playing the old edition would be easy.

When 4th ed. D&D came out I did roughly the same thing- my group is still playing 3.5.

BigBossOgryn
13-06-2010, 14:01
I fail to see how the shift has gone towards large units. There's the stubborn for more ranks but apart from NGoblins and Skaven, it's not going to make any odds to anyone. I don't think 8th is encouraging people make bigger units, just makes the units that are already big as effective as they should be.

rtunian
13-06-2010, 14:07
i will play 8th edition.

@ people who say they will remain loyal to 7th edition: does this mean that if a new army book comes out for your army, you will not use it, and instead keep using the old one? (this extends to beastmen, and possibly to skaven) if not, then you are hardly remaining loyal to the edition.

BeatTheBeat
13-06-2010, 14:11
8th ed seems incredibly good, giving a lot more flavour to the game. Adding stuff that adds more depth (more variety in magic, magic items, army customizability and so on) while reducing stuff that just slows the game down (making movement simpler =/= making the GAME simpler and/or less tactical) makes me look forward to this edition really, really much.

Cheers,
BTB

ChaosVC
13-06-2010, 14:16
This question is best answered after the book is released.

Alathir
13-06-2010, 14:17
I am looking forward to leaving 7th edition in my dust; surely this current edition is good enough to warrant holding onto it for dear life. The amount of whining on these boards about 7th edition would have me believe that no one was satisfied with how it currently works - certainly not enough to outright refuse to play the next edition which they haven't even tried yet.

stroller
13-06-2010, 14:21
Were you "loyal" to 6th edition? 5th? 4th? 3rd? And so on...

So loyalty isn't the issue. Try 8th when it comes out. Give it a decent try. If you don't like it, play a version you prefer, but expect that MOST people (as distinct from most people you PLAY) will be on 8th... for now.... and expect the same thread when 9th comes out, as it inevitably will. Life is change.

ivrg
13-06-2010, 14:28
Ofc i will play it to see what i think of it. But its not like i will run to the store already and buy all those models because they are sooooooooooo cool and just think about it, now standard will be 3k pts!! isnt that just magic? I mean could it be any better?

Ofc the rules have to be tried out. Although i am highly hesitant i will buy a book for like 70 dollar or what it is. All i want is just the core rules. I dont need the other stuff.

But it will be a little onesided to entierely diss 8th. Although TLOS is what bothes me most.

But to all of this people who is angry on GW and on 8th edition, i just say go and try something else and try to get your friends to play other games.
There are many good and enjoyable games out there.

Nuada
13-06-2010, 14:35
Personally i enjoy playing 8th. I'm not much of a powergamer or anything, so i don't take the game to its' extremes. But i think it plays well.

101st Vostroyan
13-06-2010, 14:42
7th ed has so many loopholes in the rules and the meta game is so screwed up that we drastically need a new edition.

The game has turned into how many monsters...*cough* Hydras.... can you fit into a list and how many power dice can I get? People don't like change because they have to change their lists up and some of the good units are now bad while bad units are now good.

From What I have heard from a 22 year veteran of Fantasy and a person who has ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK, this new edition is the best on so far and the game has been rebalanced so that all armies are now on even footing.

Quit Crying about everything until you have actually READ the book and played a few games because anyone can put up negative changes that are simply rumors and fail to put up other balancing aspects of the game to suit their case that the new edition sucks...

Walgis
13-06-2010, 14:53
i will judge everything when the book comes but now it seem like a big mistake. too much wardsaves, lost controll is idiotical, as a lvl 1 mage has the same chance of loosing controll as a thousand years old lvl 4 lord mage slann seems way off. random charges aint so bad but the bad thing is that infantry has basicaly the same charge as fast cav. the middle charge will be smaller but the max charge is only few " smaller totaly mest up.
i really really really hope they play tested everything 10000000000x times better than chaos deamons army becouse from the rumourse its seams that alot of things are off.

but like i said i want to see the actual book. although is bad that the $.$ makes GW to make a new ED not the game. they would earn twise as much money if they made a realy good game than a money taker from new commers. thats my two cent.

Damocles8
13-06-2010, 14:55
...on the other the shift towards huge units seems like a way to improve sales and not the game....


Wait you mean medieval to 15th Century like warfare was done with small units? :shifty:

Orktavius
13-06-2010, 15:36
i will judge everything when the book comes but now it seem like a big mistake. too much wardsaves, lost controll is idiotical, as a lvl 1 mage has the same chance of loosing controll as a thousand years old lvl 4 lord mage slann seems way off.

as opposed to now where it's the same thing except the thousand year old slann mage lord has the same chance of casting a spell as a lvl 1 beginner apprentice? :)

8th is shaping up to be awesome imho.....as an ogre player I look forward to it

Tarliyn
13-06-2010, 16:35
There are a few things that really ruin 8th for me:

True Line of Sight
Step Up (will get to this in one sec)
Magic System
Skirmishing Change
Change to March Blocking
Strike in Int Order

Explanations:
True Line of Sight: This is purely subjective here. Some people will hate this system and others will like it. I personally hate it. I feel like it put limits on what people can convert, what the sculpters can sculpt, etc. It weakens screening which some armies need, but I suppose the increase in unit size will help make up for this. If it works as a pure true line of sight, I can guarantee this will get house ruled out of our games. If it works based off base size rather than what the model can see I am okay with that and will use the new system. For instance if a skink can't block los to a saurus due to base size, cool.

Step: Glass Cannons units can now not function.

Magic System: I don't understand now why people think they should be able to shut down 800 points worth of magic with no magic themselves, and I won't understand that in 8th either. You can't shut down 800 points worth of shooting. 8th edition is only going to make this worse by providing more dd for free. Rather than fixing the magic imbalances where they should have (the army books, and special characters) they fixed it in the brb, dumb. that being said I could learn to live with the new system.

Skirmishing Change: Making skirmishers run around in a formation is silly. Again something else that will be getting house ruled in our games.

March Blocking: I like march blocking. I think it is a great tactical thing. I also think it was a weakness built into some armies to help them stay balanced, take that away or make it weaker and we could run into problems.

Strike in Int Order: Some units simply will never charge, which seems silly to me.

Closing
While some of these can be house ruled out pretty easily, others cannot. I will try 8th out as it was written for a health amount of games (10-20), to see if it grows on me. Then we will start house ruling stuff we don't like. If we still enjoyed 7th edition better than we will either switch back or kitbash together the two systems.

Right now while willing to get it a try I wary of the new edition.

Orktavius
13-06-2010, 17:17
There are a few things that really ruin 8th for me:

True Line of Sight
Step Up (will get to this in one sec)
Magic System
Skirmishing Change
Change to March Blocking
Strike in Int Order

Explanations:
True Line of Sight: This is purely subjective here. Some people will hate this system and others will like it. I personally hate it. I feel like it put limits on what people can convert, what the sculpters can sculpt, etc. It weakens screening which some armies need, but I suppose the increase in unit size will help make up for this. If it works as a pure true line of sight, I can guarantee this will get house ruled out of our games. If it works based off base size rather than what the model can see I am okay with that and will use the new system. For instance if a skink can't block los to a saurus due to base size, cool.

Step: Glass Cannons units can now not function.

Magic System: I don't understand now why people think they should be able to shut down 800 points worth of magic with no magic themselves, and I won't understand that in 8th either. You can't shut down 800 points worth of shooting. 8th edition is only going to make this worse by providing more dd for free. Rather than fixing the magic imbalances where they should have (the army books, and special characters) they fixed it in the brb, dumb. that being said I could learn to live with the new system.

Skirmishing Change: Making skirmishers run around in a formation is silly. Again something else that will be getting house ruled in our games.

March Blocking: I like march blocking. I think it is a great tactical thing. I also think it was a weakness built into some armies to help them stay balanced, take that away or make it weaker and we could run into problems.

Strike in Int Order: Some units simply will never charge, which seems silly to me.

Closing
While some of these can be house ruled out pretty easily, others cannot. I will try 8th out as it was written for a health amount of games (10-20), to see if it grows on me. Then we will start house ruling stuff we don't like. If we still enjoyed 7th edition better than we will either switch back or kitbash together the two systems.

Right now while willing to get it a try I wary of the new edition.

I'm going to try and respond to each and everyone of these as I for the most part disagree with you.

TLOS: Your right, it is purely subjective, but I think it will clear up alot of the silliness currently in the game such as 2 ft tall gnoblars blocking LOS to 9 ft tall ogres. Does it limit conversions...no not really, people who love to convert models will still convert models even if it makes their unit more visable, hasn't really stopped 40k players. Also, unlike 40k which has a cover save system, in fantasy it's going to make it harder to hit, quite frankly I don't really think I'll bother shooting at much if I'm going to need 6's or better to hit it.

Step up: In response to your answer...GOOD. Glass cannons shouldn't function as they do right now where they smash things with impunity and never take a hit back. Now there's an ACTUAL downside to taking that super killy unit that was supposed to have been balanced in game by the fact that it had low saves. The "I charge you wipe your front rank" win button is no more and I'm very happy for that. Now that game will have a use for both anvil AND hammer units as opposed to now where really...it's all about who has the faster hammer as the anvil is just going to break and run at the first sign of trouble.

Magic system: I'm fine with this...while I do see your point, the magic system was a bit ridiculous with some armies able to get 20+ power dice or simply spam a spell over and over and over again. I don't care that you paid 800 points to do that, what I care about is that you were doing it because you could abuse the hell outta it. Now you can't and now EVERYONE is pretty much standing on equal footing in regards to power/dispel dice. The problem lay not only in the army books that gave you the option to abuse it, but in the fact that it was as abusable as it was.

Skirmishing change: They had to do something, skirmishers were totally being abused in ways they weren't intended to be and they were a little awkward rules wise in my opinion....it was like trying to shove a square peg in a circle hole. Fantasy was designed with formations in mind, not 40k squad tactics. Still, the nerfing may have gone to far.

March blocking : I call BS on this, why the hell should a cheap battle budgie be able to stop a block of 25 chosen of chaos from marching? What...are they afraid of it? REALLY? The new rules that require you to take a leadership test are FAR better and make far more sense then the old rules. It should always have been a leadership test to determine whether or not the unit was worried about some flea ridden bird or rickety gyrocopter suddenly behind them.

Strike in Int. Order: IMO this is one of the better ideas and I'm running around with an I2 army. Quite frankly initiative should be important and the game should not be boiling down to charge=auto win as it pretty much does now. Initiative now has a purpose in the game whereas before it was basically for determining which ASF character got to go first as combat rarely went past a round. When looked at in the context of the stepup rule and charging giving you +1 CR and US no longer exsisting people will still be charging all day long.

SPSchnepp2
13-06-2010, 17:21
i will play 8th edition.

@ people who say they will remain loyal to 7th edition: does this mean that if a new army book comes out for your army, you will not use it, and instead keep using the old one? (this extends to beastmen, and possibly to skaven) if not, then you are hardly remaining loyal to the edition.

Quite probably. I might wind up writing my own book, to be honest. I play Bretonnians - we're not getting a new book anytime soon.

I can say this, though. I won't be one of the early converts to 8E, and I'm not above houseruling up my own system. I did it with D&D, I'll do it again.

Walgis
13-06-2010, 17:25
i totaly agree with you! how can a non magical army stop the awsome slann, theres just no way. but yet it seems it can.
there are many broken things that seems to have totaly no logic in 8ed. and that stuff is made up just for one thing "big change", we dont need it if it *******$ the game.
where there was rumor that dispell scroll is just +1DD i was happy, now its back to auto stop spell, while theres no unstopable spell i mean IF is totaly bad for your own army and it wont be something casters would like to get. i see the magic phase shut down for 2-3 turns, or even more, becouse of the DD and DS. just plain stupid.
True line of sight is totaly broken. i mean my saurus has eyes on theyr side not front of theyr head so i should be able to see more than puny humman. but that wont happen.

8ed is few good things i agree but theres a total $h**out with other rules that makes apsolutly no sence. and if they play tested them just like chaos deamons then LOL

Walgis
13-06-2010, 17:36
Magic system: I'm fine with this...while I do see your point, the magic system was a bit ridiculous with some armies able to get 20+ power dice or simply spam a spell over and over and over again. I don't care that you paid 800 points to do that, what I care about is that you were doing it because you could abuse the hell outta it. Now you can't and now EVERYONE is pretty much standing on equal footing in regards to power/dispel dice. The problem lay not only in the army books that gave you the option to abuse it, but in the fact that it was as abusable as it was.

i disagree. how can an non wisard army stop lets say slann and 3 skin priests? i roll 7 for pd (1 and 6) enemy has 6 DD and he can dispell allmost all my spells? not so likely.
GW need to fix the armys that can spamm the same spell or thousands of times, not ruin normal armys. if army can get 20+ power dice for a dicent price its okey becouse they spend points for it and has less for other things and you can take advantage of that. Why do i have to get the same amount of PD as 1 wizards againts 4-5? oh yeah i can get additional dice in 6+? lol how often that will happen?

all in all GW tottaly disbalanced magic for sure and theres no arguing. if they wont come up with something letting a 4 lvl wizard get to channel more dice than lvl 1 wizard, or lvl 4 wizard does Loss controll as much as lvl 1 its non logical and totaly unbalanced for the game. i pay 200+ pts for a lvl 4 wizard but can be out maged by a 65pt+few items cost lvl 1 mage?

SPSchnepp2
13-06-2010, 17:52
I'll agree with being able to stop 800 points' worth of spellcasters with nothing just as soon as I can stop 800 points' worth of Lord on Dragon with nothing.
Though, to be fair, that change helps out my Brets a lot.

bork da basher
13-06-2010, 17:53
i love 7th edition and didn't think it needed anything changed that a few army book fixes wouldn't solve. the drastic changes in 8th edition don't sound like something i want to be a part of, they alter the way i play my armies way too much to be bothered with reorganising the lists, buying more stuff, selling now redundant units etc etc.

i sold up warhammer a few weeks back and got back into 40k which i wanted to do for a while now. i may pick up 8th edition somewhere down the road but we'll see.

Walgis
13-06-2010, 18:11
I'll agree with being able to stop 800 points' worth of spellcasters with nothing just as soon as I can stop 800 points' worth of Lord on Dragon with nothing.

a realy good point there!!!

popisdead
13-06-2010, 18:18
I doubt 7th ed sentiments like this will last much. People who don't like change will just complain and be ignored.

Archaon
13-06-2010, 18:30
Anyone who's claiming he will stay with 7th is deluding himself.. within a few weeks or months they'll realize that at best they'll be able to play within a very small group while others have moved on so they will move too.

Anyone who believes 7th edition is fair and balanced with a tight rulesset is deluding themselves too.. only time will tell how 8th will turn out (knowing GW and my pessimistic stance on the game i'm not holding any hope but i like to be surprised).

Pete_x
13-06-2010, 18:38
i disagree. how can an non wisard army stop lets say slann and 3 skin priests? i roll 7 for pd (1 and 6) enemy has 6 DD and he can dispell allmost all my spells? not so likely.

that right here is a math/rumour knowledge fail!

sorry I don't intend to be mean but do the math. lvl4 wizard a +4 on casting roll. So let's say you cast 3 spells (2dices/2d/3d) and for some obscure reason your slann doesn't have the free +1pd. On average : 1st spell roll 11, 2nd roll 11 and 3rd roll 14. Now how do you dispell that with 6 dd 3 dices on average won't dispell 11. so you'd get 2 spell thru. And here I didn't account for the many things like the +d3 from fire lore or the free pd from death, power stones, etc. Also the BRB lores seem more powerfull in 8th to compensate the changes to magic.

All this whining is pretty amusing actually. Some complaints makes sense, like tlos, I can understande ppl not liking that one. But all those : I'm losing my auto-win button, 8th is bull%$&#, is just hilarious.

logan054
13-06-2010, 18:53
When you can find me a group still playing 6th ed then i will believe people will refuse to play 8th, i really cant see why people are getting upset about the changes, most of them are good! I will be glad to see the end if the broken lists of the current edition, sure people will find new ones but atleast they will actually be new!!

MalusCalibur
13-06-2010, 18:58
Anyone who's claiming he will stay with 7th is deluding himself.. within a few weeks or months they'll realize that at best they'll be able to play within a very small group while others have moved on so they will move too.

Incorrect. I am 'claiming' to stay with 7th because no better ruleset exists, in my opinion. I have no personal interest in playing the game that 8th edition makes Fantasy into, and the small group I play in shares that sentiment.


Anyone who believes 7th edition is fair and balanced with a tight rulesset is deluding themselves too.. only time will tell how 8th will turn out (knowing GW and my pessimistic stance on the game i'm not holding any hope but i like to be surprised).

The core rules are in fact excellent. Breakable army books and abusive-minded tournament-level players are what made 7th unbalanced, and both can be avoided by sensible players who understand that the game is not about just playing to win, and that tournaments are not what it was intended for. Even Daemons are not broken just by the expedient of existing.

Honestly, though, this entire thread is pointless. Many supporters of 8th have already decided to write off those who don't like it as powergamers who don't want to change their 'uberlists'. So anyone who posts here saying that yes, they will remain 'loyal' (though that's not the right word really) to 7th will be ridiculed and insulted by the 8th crowd, while the rest will just be 8th supporters saying 'No, death to 7th! It's broken and therefore it needs a total rewrite to include more random/realism/infantry!'

And for the record, I'd be willing to bet that there will be no 9th edition.

AngryAngel
13-06-2010, 18:59
I'm looking forward to the new edition to breath some life into the fantasy game around these parts. 7th edition is dead, Long live the 8th edition !!!

Hell at our store we're even having a nice cook out, and a 40k apoc game the weekend after its released to herald its arrival. Strange to play 40k to herald fantasy, we consider it a 21 gun salute to a brave new future.

SPSchnepp2
13-06-2010, 19:02
I doubt 7th ed sentiments like this will last much. People who don't like change will just complain and be ignored.

I don't like change for the worse. I'm not sold on this new edition being entirely better. Especially considering I'll have to shell out another sixty or more for it.

arkirk246
13-06-2010, 19:03
Well i definitely will be happy to see the back of 7th Ed
1) Because 8th ed is going back to %, this will dramatically cut down character/wizard spamming and Cheese-Star armies
2) For the very same reasons Orktavius has already mentioned

8th ed will be 1000x better the 7th no question about it!!!!!

Morathi's Darkest Sin
13-06-2010, 19:06
Nope, actually looking forward to 8th.

rtunian
13-06-2010, 19:06
And for the record, I'd be willing to bet that there will be no 9th edition.

eh... there are only 2 ways i can see there not being a 9th edition. either gw goes under, or gw decides to stop supporting wfb. but the only way i see the latter happening is if gw's about to go under and has to strip its operations to the bone, dropping all but the single most profitable system.

in any case, what are you betting? this is for the record, after all~

Walgis
13-06-2010, 19:12
1) Because 8th ed is going back to %, this will dramatically cut down character/wizard spamming and Cheese-Star armies

LOL. that dramaticaly is what? 200 pts :D dont make me lough, you get 50% of army on heros/lords thats way too much. 25% on chars would be dramatical and would be awsome!!!!

SPSchnepp2
13-06-2010, 19:17
He's talking about lists like the LM list that takes a pair of skink priests on stegs, a slann, and not much else. Percentages are pretty much the only thing I don't dislike about this new version.

Urgat
13-06-2010, 19:20
Just to say, I hope those that say they're going to keep playing with 7th ed have friends who share their opinion, otherwise they're going to end up playing solitaire :p

Ultimate Life Form
13-06-2010, 19:29
Just to say, I hope those that say they're going to keep playing with 7th ed have friends who share their opinion, otherwise they're going to end up playing solitaire :p

That's the way evolution works I'm afraid. If the environment changes you have two possibilities: adapt or disappear.

Apparently this is happening right now. Looks like the culling of the weak has begun. Let's hope the losses aren't too severe and the new environment will allow a strong community to grow from the ashes of the old world.

By the way anyone who still thinks 8th Edition is released as a kind of 'cure' to 'fix' balance issues is under severe delusions and has got it all backwards. The books that caused the balance issues aren't a problem but a symptom as they were written at a time when the new edition was in the step of being finalized. Those books were already designed to work under 8th so I'm afraid even if you ban the edition itself you'll still have an (un)healthy splash of 8th un your game in the form of broken army books. Yeah, sounds like a great solution to me. :rolleyes:

Argent
13-06-2010, 19:42
When 4th ed. D&D came out I did roughly the same thing- my group is still playing 3.5.

While I hear you on 4th Edition (its designed to be almost exactly like playing an MMO), I don't think its a fair comparison to use on the change from 7th Edition to 8th Edition.

4th Edition was clearly trying to grab a new crowd of potential consumers, but in the process it completely threw away everything that older D&D players loved about the game. Based on what I've read on the new rumors, Warhammer 8th Edition is doing just the opposite; they're trying to simplify complicated, but preexisting rules to make the game quicker and more enjoyable for the veterans, and doing so will also make the game easier to pick up for the newbies (it took me six months to figure out the bare basics of 7th Edition; as a new Player, I can tell you that it was and continues to be a hassle sometimes).

Orktavius
13-06-2010, 19:47
Well i definitely will be happy to see the back of 7th Ed
1) Because 8th ed is going back to %, this will dramatically cut down character/wizard spamming and Cheese-Star armies
2) For the very same reasons Orktavius has already mentioned

8th ed will be 1000x better the 7th no question about it!!!!!

*high fives*

That being said..... Walgis....I can't help but wonder if your being entirely sarcastic with your support of 7th because your reasons sound like a ridiculous joke or the overblown fantasy of a powergaming 12 year old. 8th ed is pitching miscasts out the window but you seem to think there should be NO RISK at all in regards to magic because your precious IF now causes a boo boo to your bloody army? gimme a break. Walgis...just to clarify for you, SPSchnepp2 made a TERRIBLE point not a good one as that 800 point dragon lord can't show up until at least a 3200 point game...unlike now where you get to deal with it at 2000 points, so chalk that up to the fail column. 8th is taking alot of the insanity out of the game and with them limiting dispel scrolls to one an army as opposed to the current system magic is getting easier to cast. From your arguments I assume you want a magic system with no miscasts, IF with no downsides, no dispel scrolls a billion powerdice and slann spells can never be countered.....welcome to the fantasy land of a piece of crap rule system.

Malus...while I can understand your points of view and your arguments, the sad fact is you seem to be the most sane of the 8th haters as the rest truly do make inane arguments entirely based on not being able to abuse one rule or another. However I think the core rules in 7th are far from perfect and while armybooks contribute to the abuse it's the core rules that allow it to get out of hand. Do I expect 8th to be perfect? Hell no, but I expect it to be a far more interesting game then it is now where the only tactics are who has a bigger hammer and "lookit all my PD". Core troops are rendered all but useless by the current ruleset unless they are uber elite core like saurus or chaos warriors, at least under the new rules they will have a better chance of doing something...like holding or even killing a few models before they flee.

You accuse 8th supporters of just writing off lovers of 7th by saying their powergamers, but 7th supporters are just as guilty of writing off people enthusiastic about 8th by saying they just don't know how to play fantasy. 7th is broken, 7th does not work like it should and as a result can lead to some incredibly unfun games even when nothing is abused. Cavalry is overpowered, the magic phase has gotten ridiculous, getting the charge is practically an autowin, skimishers are far to abusable and because of what the 7th ruleset allows many army books are far to abusable. 8th isn't a sure fix and there will probably in the end be plenty of things broken, but they won't be the same hideously broken things that exsist now and that's good enough for me.

Ulf:
I don't think it's entirely a fix...but after my last read of the rumors...the books considered broken weren't exactly getting a boost by the new rules, in fact alot of them seem to be getting tamed a bit....though they will likely still be top tier armies

Miredorf
13-06-2010, 20:12
Theres no issue really, most people saying that they dont like 8th play in closed groups with house ruled stuff, they will have no problem in remain stagnant. Those who just live for tournaments will have to adapt they like it or not.

I understand that those people who have the bad luck of only being able to play pick up games in gaming clubs or stores are embracing 8th edition like if it was a new religion. I am so sick and worn out of 7th edition army book hardassing and anti ancient battles feeling that did rewrite them all.

For my part, even being a detractor of 8th, i feel that 90-95% of the changes are from good to very good, the problem is that the 5-10% of bad things are key to the game. I think this is the problem of most detractors anyway, and as most detractors i also have the luck of playing within a small group of people who are all for making the game more balanced, realistic, troop based and challenging. So using a housed ruled 8th or a mix of both systems will just come in time.

The objetive is have fun with our favourite game and i hope everyone finds it with the new edition, be it vanilla or modded.

Of course im gonna be giving 8th full credit for a few months while continious working on the re-ruling which suits better our group tastes.


EDIT: in fact, the only change i find totally unbearable is the random 2D6'' charge bonus. I found really good when it was rumoured to be 2D6'' pick highest though.

Gundobad
13-06-2010, 20:21
I really just dont like being told what i can bring in my list. Point restrictions i do NOT agree with. But restrictions on how many special/rare I can bring iI believe is fine. If I have already spent my rare/special points with say a large block of Hammerers and a medium block of Ironbreakers, I now HAVE to spend my points on core, whereas before I had 2 units of medium-large blocks of warriors and longbeards, and a unit or two of thunderers. I do not like being told okay you have to spend the rest of your points on core, NO BOLT THROWERS FOR YOU LLOLOOLLOLOL!!!111.

A unit of Ionbreakers and hammerers can easily exceed 500 points. I spend 265 pints on my LONBEARDS for god sake. It is stupid and a change that is not needed. I do not mind change, but this does NOT seem like change for the better for me and for others. It's becoming more like 40k, a game tat has crap tactics and little strategy to be able to do things effectively, and thats why I do not like it and I become bored after turn 2.

Gundobad
13-06-2010, 20:26
IDEA! WELL IF YOU HATE % FREAKING DONT USE IT! OMFG IT IS SO SIMPLE! New Ed comes along, awesome new rules, new army books stc... but those few gambreaking things that many of us feel will ruin it, WE DONT USE! Bring on the 4 units of miners for a meaty Dwarf Sandwich, Bring on my MOVING MOUNTAIn of dwarves, and my Shooty Ogre army of death!

I cannot believe nobody suggested this yet or that I have not thought of it before, might not use random charges either as those are the two main things for me.

Pete_x
13-06-2010, 20:35
I really just dont like being told what i can bring in my list. Point restrictions i do NOT agree with. But restrictions on how many special/rare I can bring iI believe is fine. If I have already spent my rare/special points with say a large block of Hammerers and a medium block of Ironbreakers, I now HAVE to spend my points on core, whereas before I had 2 units of medium-large blocks of warriors and longbeards, and a unit or two of thunderers. I do not like being told okay you have to spend the rest of your points on core, NO BOLT THROWERS FOR YOU LLOLOOLLOLOL!!!111.

A unit of Ionbreakers and hammerers can easily exceed 500 points. I spend 265 pints on my LONBEARDS for god sake. It is stupid and a change that is not needed. I do not mind change, but this does NOT seem like change for the better for me and for others. It's becoming more like 40k, a game tat has crap tactics and little strategy to be able to do things effectively, and thats why I do not like it and I become bored after turn 2.

Are you saying you're pissed because you can't spend a minimal amount on core and then proceed to take every abusable unit in your army book?:wtf:?

@Malus saying a system isn't broken because you CAN decide not to break it is a little bit silly don't you think??

Gundobad
13-06-2010, 20:44
Are you saying you're pissed because you can't spend a minimal amount on core and then proceed to take every abusable unit in your army book?:wtf:?

@Malus saying a system isn't broken because you CAN decide not to break it is a little bit silly don't you think??

Bringing a Dwarf list of a bunch of large blocks of Infantry is not abuse in any sense of the word, I spend a decent amount on core as it is, and saying I can only bring now 2 specials because I like my army run with lots of infantry supported by 2 bolt throwers and maybe some slayers is retarded. OTHER armies and OTHER people may abuse such things but that does NOT mean I should be punished for liking my fluffy army and now I cannot run it anymore. That is an ARMY BOOK problem, not a problem with the core set of rules. If they want less big Monsters then increase their damn prices and STOP punishing gamers for GOD FORBID AND MAYBE ALLAH SMITE DOWN those who like a unit of hammerers AND ironbreakers

Tymell
13-06-2010, 20:47
I really just dont like being told what i can bring in my list. Point restrictions i do NOT agree with. But restrictions on how many special/rare I can bring iI believe is fine. If I have already spent my rare/special points with say a large block of Hammerers and a medium block of Ironbreakers, I now HAVE to spend my points on core, whereas before I had 2 units of medium-large blocks of warriors and longbeards, and a unit or two of thunderers. I do not like being told okay you have to spend the rest of your points on core, NO BOLT THROWERS FOR YOU LLOLOOLLOLOL!!!111.

But the whole point is core is, as the name implies, the core of your army. The slots system was in place to try to stop people from maxing out on the elite units, but people found a way around it by just taking the token bare minimum core units.

8th edition limitations aren't truly new, they're just a more focused way of achieving exactly what the slots system was supposed to achieve.

Again though, I'm sure you can play some friendly games where the limits can be ignored. But in the core game rulebook there need to be some limits, and percentages are just a better way of enforcing that than slots.

Pete_x
13-06-2010, 20:52
Bringing a Dwarf list of a bunch of large blocks of Infantry is not abuse in any sense of the word, I spend a decent amount on core as it is, and saying I can only bring now 2 specials because I like my army run with lots of infantry supported by 2 bolt throwers and maybe some slayers is retarded. OTHER armies and OTHER people may abuse such things but that does NOT mean I should be punished for liking my fluffy army and now I cannot run it anymore. That is an ARMY BOOK problem, not a problem with the core set of rules. If they want less big Monsters then increase their damn prices and STOP punishing gamers for GOD FORBID AND MAYBE ALLAH SMITE DOWN those who like a unit of hammerers AND ironbreakers

So, just so I know, those 2 special take up 50% of your army, your core has to be 25% and I'm guessing the remaining 25% goes to your characters. And you'd like to pay less then 25% on core to buy bolt throwers??? Are those hammerers/ironbreakers THAT expensive or are you playing at a very low point level???

MalusCalibur
13-06-2010, 21:21
Malus...while I can understand your points of view and your arguments, the sad fact is you seem to be the most sane of the 8th haters as the rest truly do make inane arguments entirely based on not being able to abuse one rule or another.

I don't think that's entirely true - though there of course are those who are reacting exactly that way. Walgis, in this very thread, for example. It saddens me that my overall opinion is shared by such people.


However I think the core rules in 7th are far from perfect and while armybooks contribute to the abuse it's the core rules that allow it to get out of hand.

Agreed that 7th is not perfect, though I'd argue that no rules GW produce will ever be even close. I'd also disagree that the core rules allow the books to get out of hand - as far as I understand the complaints about the broken armies, they seem to be entirely the fault of the books themselves. For example, taking up to two Rare choices for a standard game seems like a reasonable enough core rule, but when an army has access to an underpriced choice like the Hydra, power-players are naturally going to take two of them.


Do I expect 8th to be perfect? Hell no, but I expect it to be a far more interesting game then it is now where the only tactics are who has a bigger hammer and "lookit all my PD". Core troops are rendered all but useless by the current ruleset unless they are uber elite core like saurus or chaos warriors, at least under the new rules they will have a better chance of doing something...like holding or even killing a few models before they flee.

I'd have to disagree again about the summary of 7th. Yes, magic heavy armies are a problem, but the magic system is one of the few things from 8th that I do like, on the whole (not entirely). Perhaps it is just the crowd I play in, but I have never seen 'Who has the biggest hammer' being a deciding factor, as in my experience the bigger and more powerful a single unit has been made, the less impact it has had on the game!


You accuse 8th supporters of just writing off lovers of 7th by saying their powergamers, but 7th supporters are just as guilty of writing off people enthusiastic about 8th by saying they just don't know how to play fantasy.

Honestly, I have never seen that being used as a summary of 8th supporters. Perhaps I have somehow avoided the worst of my 'side'. And I certainly would not accuse 8th supporters of not knowing how to play. If I were to 'write off' supporters of 8th in the same way I accuse many of them of doing, it would be that they seem to blindly support the notion of the new edition under the premise that it will fix and balance things, which I have no belief that it will.


7th is broken, 7th does not work like it should and as a result can lead to some incredibly unfun games even when nothing is abused.

Again, I have never experienced that. In what way does 7th 'not work like it should'?


Cavalry is overpowered

Strongly disagree. It seemed to me that 6th edition was where heavy cavalry dominated most, and that since then they were reduced significantly in effectiveness, at least comparatively. Otherwise, how else can the army based entirely around cavalry (Bretonnians) have fallen so far from their position of 'uber-army'?
I believe that the resurgence of cavalry was due to specific units (in the respective army books) getting more and more boosts - Knights of Blood Keep, for example. And I still don't think that cavarly alone is overpowered.


The magic phase has gotten ridiculous

Agreed, for some armies it got too far out of hand. But the magic system itself is probably the biggest weakness in 7th's core rules.


Getting the charge is practically an autowin

This is another one I can't understand, and it's used a lot by supporters of 8th to justify the reduction (to the point of almost complete redundancy) in the importance of charging in 8th. There are so many examples where charging would not equal an 'autowin' I couldn't begin to list them, and I think there are plenty of units in the game at the moment capable of holding a charge. Perhaps charging is a touch too important at the moment (though personally I don't think it is), but if that's the case, I don't agree with 8th's complete polar opposite to that. I have also never, in more than 8 years of playing, encountered the oft-quoted 'shuffling to get the charge' scenario.


Skimishers are far to abusable

Only for Wood Elves, because a)they can field an entire army of them, b)they [justifiably] get the best skirmishing units in the game, and c)they can be supported by Treemen and powerful [as in, game-influencing] characters. Other than that, I think skirmishers work perfectly well at the moment, and the 8th ed rules for them are one of my biggest oppositions to it.


And because of what the 7th ruleset allows many army books are far to abusable.

What do you mean by 'what the 7th ruleset allows'? If you're talking about force organisation (slots), then I have to strongly disagree, since no one was complaining about those until the breakable books started arriving, and even then no one was suggesting that the core rules should change to accomodate. Surely the books broke the system, rather than the system breaking the books? If you see what I mean.


8th isn't a sure fix and there will probably in the end be plenty of things broken, but they won't be the same hideously broken things that exsist now and that's good enough for me.

Like GW always does, it will fix some things but in the process break others, so overall balance will not change much. It'll just end up being a different army/armies with a different 'uberlist' that dominates the game. As such, I bring it down to personal preferences, and I don't like several key changes to the core rules that I don't feel were neccesary, nor do I think they were introduced for balance reasons, or indeed for making the game better for us, the players.

Broken lists and combinations will always exist, and I don't really have any reason to believe that the magnitude of said breakages will be any less than now. So in the transition, you really won't gain anything except a new set of things to be annoyed about - this happens every edition. A few years down the line and Warseer will be the same hive of complaints about 5-6 specific things (or armies). If and when a 9th edition is announced, the reaction is likely to be the same as now, too: '8th is broken and dead because of *army x*, *build y*, *item/spell/unit z*, bring on 9th! That'll fix everything!'

I think that's what annoys me the most about the majority of 8th supporters that I have seen - so many seem blindly convinced that 8th is going to be utterly brilliant, the 'best edition ever' and will 'fix' the problems 7th has, when the reality is that it will just change what's broken, not fix the problem. Whether or not 8th's rules make a good game is always going to be down to preference, outside of that.



eh... there are only 2 ways i can see there not being a 9th edition. either gw goes under, or gw decides to stop supporting wfb. but the only way i see the latter happening is if gw's about to go under and has to strip its operations to the bone, dropping all but the single most profitable system.

in any case, what are you betting? this is for the record, after all~

The former would be my belief. Such is the exodus from GW (prices mainly being the cause, but not the only one), combined with the rising number of alternative manufacturers (such as the fantastic Mantic Games), mean that by the time the next edition would be 'due', I don't personally believe GW will be in a position to make it.
As for what I'd bet, nothing material. Simply a sportsmans bet.



@Malus saying a system isn't broken because you CAN decide not to break it is a little bit silly don't you think??

Except that isn't what I'm saying. I acknowledge that 7th has it's problems, but I am of the mind that those problems a)Did not require such a drastic rewrite of the core rules, and b)Can be avoided. Not everyone who plays an army takes its most powerful list. Not every Dark Elf player takes two Hydras and a Dragon Lord, for example. If players don't break a book, then there's no problem!
And yes, of course, there will always be players that do, but you don't have to play against them.

Denny_Crane
13-06-2010, 21:42
Im not sure what bubble the original poster was sitting in while typing "If It aint broke dont fix it we say". I wish i was a naive little boy again...

logan054
13-06-2010, 21:48
The bubble that includes daemons being fixed me thinks ;)

@ MalusCalibur - The problem isnt just the army books, the who combat system is a joke, charge, kill front rank, run down unit, repeat till army is dead, that is nothing to do with the army books, thats the rules system. Magic in 7th ed is the reason why people spam wizards, not the army books, by me saying this im not for one second even pretending the army books are well balanced because they are not, half of this is because certain books didnt get updated for 7th ed, part i they simply cant have tested the books.

Ultimate Life Form
13-06-2010, 21:59
by me saying this im not for one second even pretending the army books are well balanced because they are not, half of this is because certain books didnt get updated for 7th ed, part i they simply cant have tested the books.

So... reading that makes me actually a bit sad because it is true. :( Half of the army books are hopelessly stuck in the past, the other half have been developed for the edition to follow. In addition the short lifespan. Does that mean that 7th was actually a makeshift edition? :wtf:

All in all I think that, with a few years distance, the whole venture will be rated a first-class mess. I mean, what the heck were they thinking? If one likes the Core rules or not is a matter of personal taste, but this botch job with the army books is unarguably an affront. Maybe altogether reverting to 6th Edition would be an overall better idea if stagnancy is desired. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing it right!

Odin
13-06-2010, 22:05
"Remain loyal"? 7th edition was decent enough, but I've been playing for 20 years and every new edition has been better than the last. I'm pretty sure that will continue, and frankly I cannot wait to get my hands on the 8th edition rulebook - the rumours I've heard sound awesome.

Every time a new edition comes out, people talk about sticking with the current one. Nobody ever does.

TheSil
13-06-2010, 22:32
Why on earth would I still play 7th ed again, ever??

Frankly I don't see why anyone should. For as far as I can tell the new edition among other things is going to be a lot
- less static (movement, maneuverability)
- less repetitive, dull and boring (I hate pitched battles, scenarios FTW)
- hopefully more fun and not as clunky and "this-is-how-you-win" based

It seems to have a more thought out magic system and changes combat around for good (well hopefully)

Most things about 8th sound a lot better than the predecessor handled it, others will be interesting to test out on the battlefield in order to see their full effect


If 8th can keep its promise of putting more weight on ranked non-elite units and less on characters and monsters than I am more than happy

Anyhow, at least the era of "play the same scenario always" seems to be over and I am very glad for that (not that I played more than 3% pitched battles, but there is a principle involved :D)

Agnar the Howler
13-06-2010, 22:44
I will in some respects, my Lizards will continue as a 7th edition army (we do have a small base of players that are sticking to 7th at my LGS) but my WoC will be my 8th (as we also have a base of players continuing into 8th).

Before I get jumped on for my choice of which army stays in 7th, I will state that I don't play Slann + Double EotG, I play at 2k with a Slann, no TG and a single EotG, and i'm going to be facing 7th Edition Daemons and possibly 7th edition VC too, so it's not as if i'm sticking with 7th edition LM because of their power-combos.

At some point I might get around to playing 8th edition with my Lizards, but they're currently configured as a 7th edition army, and i'd prefer to learn 8th edition with a fresh army and fresh tactics.

Dai-Mongar
14-06-2010, 00:36
I wasn't particularly active on internet forums back in 2000, but does anyone remember the same kind of discussion about the change from 5th to 6th?

mdauben
14-06-2010, 03:43
I hear people all the time saying they will keep playing the old edition. You hear this seemingly whenever a new edition of 40K or WFB comes out. After watching four editions of 40K and so far three of WFB, and the only time I saw anyone actually try it was with 2nd ed 40K, and even there it did not last. The people either moved on to the newer edtion or quit the game.

I'll just accept 8th edition and move on, so that I can take advantage of the larger player base that will accompany the new editions. Honestly, as much as I can enjoy WFB, there are better game systems available, but they don't have the large player base of GW games. So I figure why give up the large player base just to stick with an inferior system? :p

Adjustquantity
14-06-2010, 05:46
I only picked up WHFB because of the new edition. I got into 40K right as 5th edition came out and no one complained about it then. I don't hear much whinning or complaining about 8th edition at my LGS either so I expect the transition to be mostly smooth!

BigbyWolf
14-06-2010, 13:11
The only reason I play 7th edition is because it's the current version of the rules. I'm going to play 8th edition when it comes out because it will then be the current version of the rules.

I don't write the rulebook, I expect others to do it for me, then I reward them with money for their effort. When it comes down to it, this IS GWs game, and we're just guests in their world. Yes we may get frustrated and not be too happy with the new rules, or the way it affects our army, but I the end if I want to be able to play WFB on all fronts, I just have to get on with it.

I've played from 3rd Edition onwards, and trust me when I tell you that after 6 months to a year after playing the new edition you'll look back on the old rules with nostalgia, and then get on with the current game. Change isn't always the best, but if I'd wanted to play a game that stagnates, I'd stick with Monopoly.

There was a post earlier about 8th edition supporters treating people who wanted to stick with 7th like thay were all powergamers. I don't think that's fair, just because you're not brave enough to adapt your game to meet the new criteria of WFB doesn't mean you powergame. If you really feel this bad about it, just quit, go and play another game system, and sell me your useless armies at a knockdown price.

mdiscala
14-06-2010, 13:38
I actually got tired of the game in 7th edition and I'm hoping that 8th makes it fun again.

freddieyu
14-06-2010, 13:42
Sayonara 7th! Hello 8th!!! Time to dust off my empire infantry!!!

8th looks to be fun. Can't wait for the encyclopedia like rulebook!

logan054
14-06-2010, 14:05
So... reading that makes me actually a bit sad because it is true. :( Half of the army books are hopelessly stuck in the past, the other half have been developed for the edition to follow. In addition the short lifespan. Does that mean that 7th was actually a makeshift edition? :wtf:

I would say yes, i think they just stuck a few plasters on 6th and hoped for the best, im really happy about what might be coming in 8th ed! roll on July!

MalusCalibur
14-06-2010, 15:53
There was a post earlier about 8th edition supporters treating people who wanted to stick with 7th like thay were all powergamers. I don't think that's fair, just because you're not brave enough to adapt your game to meet the new criteria of WFB doesn't mean you powergame. If you really feel this bad about it, just quit, go and play another game system, and sell me your useless armies at a knockdown price.

You say you don't think it's fair, but then you follow that with a veiled insult. It isn't a question of not being 'brave' (and the use of that word is entirely wrong in this context anyway) enough, it's a question of not liking the direction of the new rules. This is exactly the kind of generalisation I was talking about before - it seems anyone who doesn't like 8th edition is being treated with disdain and ridicule.
I have no intention of quitting entirely, since I have spent countless hours (not to mention £'s) on the armies I have and enjoyed the game as it stands, despite its flaws. To direct the 'Oh, if you don't like it just quit and sell everything' line at people like me is derogatory and needless behaviour.

I've been told that my generalisation isn't fair, but I'm starting to wonder about that when nearly every supporter of 8th edition regards those who are not as whiners, fearful of change, or powergamers. Rarely has a disliker of 8th been treated with any kind of respect for a difference in opinion.

Rogue
14-06-2010, 15:54
When you can find me a group still playing 6th ed then i will believe people will refuse to play 8th, i really cant see why people are getting upset about the changes, most of them are good! I will be glad to see the end if the broken lists of the current edition, sure people will find new ones but atleast they will actually be new!!

The reason why you dont see anyone still playing 6th edition is that there was not the fundimental changes from 6th to 7th as we have with 7th and 8th. 8th edition is about as different as the 3rd edition is from the 7th now in my opinion. Broken lists of the current edition has everything to do with the poorly written armybooks, not of a poorly written BRB. If you like the changes, feel free to play the edition. I had very few issues with the 7th edition general rules, but I had great problems with the armybooks that came out. I will try out the 8th edition and see if I like it. From what I am reading there are a few changes that do interest me and I would like to see how it works out, other than that I really dont like many of the changes that I am reading about. However if it really is intolerable I will either play strait 7th edition still or make a hybrid of 6th, 7th, and perhaps 8th edition rules. I will not be in tournaments anymore but I am leaving that scene as well anyways.

Miredorf
14-06-2010, 16:14
I wasn't particularly active on internet forums back in 2000, but does anyone remember the same kind of discussion about the change from 5th to 6th?

I dont think i had internet back then, but i remember very well how i really liked 6th edition because it meant a huge step away from herohammer back in the day. And i mean a REALLY huge step.

Also the changes were minimal, mainly adjustments (just like 6th to 7th) not something radical like what we are facing now. Remember that what really changed from 5th to 6th was not the main core rules but the armybooks and unit stats, that is really what was needed this time again (i think the biggest change to the rules was moving the magic phase, which made more sense).

Magic, anyway, has been severely changed in every edition except from 6th to 7th which was only further streamlined i think to remember.

In all editions have been slight changes here and there but changes as big as the ones going on now have not ever happened (at least since 4th edition which i barely remember from reading WD battle reports but which rulebook i never played).

ChaosVC
14-06-2010, 16:33
I dont think i had internet back then, but i remember very well how i really liked 6th edition because it meant a huge step away from herohammer back in the day. And i mean a REALLY huge step.

Also the changes were minimal, mainly adjustments (just like 6th to 7th) not something radical like what we are facing now. Remember that what really changed from 5th to 6th was not the main core rules but the armybooks and unit stats, that is really what was needed this time again (i think the biggest change to the rules was moving the magic phase, which made more sense).

Magic, anyway, has been severely changed in every edition except from 6th to 7th which was only further streamlined i think to remember.

In all editions have been slight changes here and there but changes as big as the ones going on now have not ever happened (at least since 4th edition which i barely remember from reading WD battle reports but which rulebook i never played).

And in 6th ed, it was a golden age of tactical game play where you can beat tooled up or min max armies with balance ones until Bretonnian crap all over the game system thanks to Anthony Reynold...then came 7th ed power creep books of PWNAGE... Ya for GW. I think 8th ed will balance things off since everything is pretty much random now. Beer and pretzels for GW war games baby.

hd.40
14-06-2010, 16:51
I'm gonna try and give the new edition a chance. But honestly, its seems to be adding more complications to simple rules. Plus a lot of dice heavy scenario's.

I could see 7th edition leagues showing up.

Bac5665
14-06-2010, 17:01
From what I've read, 8E sounds mostly like a train wreck, for reasons I've articulated many times in other threads. But, that said, I will almost certainly play it, at least for a while. I'm open minded, and I certainly hope that the game is good.

I'd love to stay with 7E, but two problems; others wont, and new books probably won't really work with 7E. So I need to play 8E if I want to keep up with tournaments and my club. If they play 7E, then great, but 8E would have to be an unmitigated disaster, and even I don't predict that. The game will still be playable, its just that it will be the kind of game I like much less.

Miredorf
14-06-2010, 17:11
And in 6th ed, it was a golden age of tactical game play where you can beat tooled up or min max armies with balance ones until Bretonnian crap all over the game system thanks to Anthony Reynold...then came 7th ed power creep books of PWNAGE... Ya for GW. I think 8th ed will balance things off since everything is pretty much random now. Beer and pretzels for GW war games baby.

Well this is somehow true but where bretonnia was really OOT, if you remember well, was in 5th!!! Anthony reynolds actually did a very good job somehow nerfing the army. Basically in 5th with bretonnia i would never lose a game. (im not saying the 6th ed book wasnt abusable but certainly was a step towards balance if you made ''balanced lists'' normally), remember those S4 knights of the realm lance formation charges without flanks where there was not even +1CR for superior US and the complete lack of real elite infantry units.. Nothing could stand those charges and the only chance was to use bait units all around.


From what I've read, 8E sounds mostly like a train wreck, for reasons I've articulated many times in other threads. But, that said, I will almost certainly play it, at least for a while. I'm open minded, and I certainly hope that the game is good.

I'd love to stay with 7E, but two problems; others wont, and new books probably won't really work with 7E. So I need to play 8E if I want to keep up with tournaments and my club. If they play 7E, then great, but 8E would have to be an unmitigated disaster, and even I don't predict that. The game will still be playable, its just that it will be the kind of game I like much less.

Well i really dont think they wont work, they say beastmen are made for 8th dont they? and it works perfectly for 7th, Anyway if all 8th ed books are going to be as boring and dull as beastmen i rather not use them :p.

Anyway all armybooks (cept maybe lizardmen) are pure crap, i recommend everyone who can play within a group of friends to modify all armybooks so all players are 100% happy about them. This is what we have done in my group anyway and i guarantee we have reached a level of fun and equalness between armies that i never experienced before in WH. Especially because you no longer have that supercool looking unit that the rules make useless or the mega OOT unit that noone wants to play agaisnt.

Malorian
14-06-2010, 17:14
Like the new rules or not, they are the rules, and I will follow them.

Voss
14-06-2010, 17:45
Good riddance to bad rubbish, says I. I may still be disappointed by 8th ed as a whole, but at least they are attempting to fix some of the major problems with the various phases of the game, particularly magic and close combat, rather than doing a series of minor tweaks for the sake of putting out a new edition. That was the biggest problem I had with 7th: it was really 4.9 edition, and didn't even attempt to fix any of the embedded problems of the warhammer fantasy rules.

The changes of 8th may not end up working out, and some of it may break in the army books, as writers try to power up the armies by breaking fundamental rules (my army doesn't have to hold to the 12 power dice cap, for example), but attempting actual fixes is worth a lot in my mind.

Gundobad
14-06-2010, 17:47
So, just so I know, those 2 special take up 50% of your army, your core has to be 25% and I'm guessing the remaining 25% goes to your characters. And you'd like to pay less then 25% on core to buy bolt throwers??? Are those hammerers/ironbreakers THAT expensive or are you playing at a very low point level???



Is math hard? a unit of 20 Ironbreakers with Full command is 290 points, HALF my special points allotment. I throw in a unit of 20 hammerers with FC and thats 270, oh crap look what happened in a 2k game im over my 500 points of special and cannot bring bolt throwers and and any other special, not even a small unit of 5 miners for ONE war machine. I now spend all the rest of my points on core, which YES are reliable, but I now have nothing to kill ONE steam tank with, let alone 2, or 2 hydras, which are STILL possible in 8th ED. (OH LOOK 8th ISNT SOLVING THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS THE ARMY BOOK)

It is Stupid and not solving any problems for most armies, the flaws are in the ARMY BOOKS for not placing restrictions on how man god damn stegadons you can take, NOT in the core rule book.

I do not appreciate being insulted either by people who feel my opinion is wrong. I am not a naive little boy who likes his dinosaurs, I am a 21 year old man who enjoys a good wargame and fluffy lists of his favorite races.

It is absolutely ludicrous to change the game in such a radical way and basically destroy themed/fun armies and STILL not solving the problems with the books people are pissed off at. Your two Hydras are not goin anywhere, your two stanks are not either. 7th has its problems. mostly with certain units being overpowered/undercosted, but the magic phase is pretty screwed up as well. Most of 7ths problems are in the army books but because GW is lazy they decided to make a new ED to try and fix it all (which it wont) and guess what? we have the same overpowered crap with more randomness in a strategy game thats slowly becoming 40k.

the more you people are making me type out and explain why I do not want a new ed, and would rather have new army books, the more I am starting to think I am right. I think what I will be ding is not using a % system and not using random charges. The Dice gods rule over enough of this game IMO.

Skyros
14-06-2010, 18:39
I think 7th edition is broke and badly in need of fixing. I think 8th ed sounds like it drastically changes the game, and for the better.

I see no reason at all for me to stick to 7th instead of going with 8th.

If your new edition is only going to involve minor tweaks, don't bother making me buy a new rule book, please.


Is math hard? a unit of 20 Ironbreakers with Full command is 290 points, HALF my special points allotment. I throw in a unit of 20 hammerers with FC and thats 270, oh crap look what happened in a 2k game im over my 500 points of special and cannot bring bolt throwers and and any other special, not even a small unit of 5 miners for ONE war machine. I now spend all the rest of my points on core, which YES are reliable, but I now have nothing to kill ONE steam tank with, let alone 2, or 2 hydras, which are STILL possible in 8th ED. (OH LOOK 8th ISNT SOLVING THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS THE ARMY BOOK)

You cannot take 2 steam tanks at 2k points. They are 600 points. Also, why are you are assuming that you only get 25% points on special and 25% on rares (instead of a joint 50% on the two combined) ?

You are correct that the hydra's extreme undercostedness won't be solved until a new DE army book comes out, but 8th ed has made a hydra much much less scary to ranked infantry blocks.

Tae
14-06-2010, 18:49
Is math hard?

Apparently it is ... :rolleyes:


a unit of 20 Ironbreakers with Full command is 290 points, HALF my special points allotment.

True ... if you're playing a 1,000 point game


I throw in a unit of 20 hammerers with FC and thats 270, oh crap look what happened in a 2k game im over my 500 points of special

Special is 50%, not 25. So again, is maths hard? :)

But on a more serious note, as pointed out above 2 Steam Tanks wont happen and Hydras, whilst still slightly undercosted, are being toned down. One breath weapon per game, they wont negate ranks, I2 means it will strike near the end and almost all units will be stubborn against it. Does this mean it isn't still a good unit? No, of course not. But honestly I'd quite fancy the chances of one Dwarf unit (since that's what you're using) being able to hold it up for a round whilst another unit rams it in the sides and causes it to **** off sharpish.

skuller
14-06-2010, 18:53
moving to 8th ....

Lars Porsenna
14-06-2010, 19:01
I have been involved in GW games -- either actively or as a "collector" -- for as long as the internet has been popular and people that play the games have posted to it. In all those years (really since 4e on up to today for WHFB, and 2e for WH40K), every time a new edition comes out, there will be those that say GW is ruining the game, they're not going to play, etc. I've even heard of people grousing about the change from WHFB 1-3e on to 4e, or the people talking about and (claiming) they still play RT40K.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Damon.

Pete_x
14-06-2010, 23:12
Is math hard? a unit of 20 Ironbreakers with Full command is 290 points, HALF my special points allotment. I throw in a unit of 20 hammerers with FC and thats 270, oh crap look what happened in a 2k game im over my 500 points of special and cannot bring bolt throwers and and any other special, not even a small unit of 5 miners for ONE war machine. I now spend all the rest of my points on core, which YES are reliable, but I now have nothing to kill ONE steam tank with, let alone 2, or 2 hydras, which are STILL possible in 8th ED. (OH LOOK 8th ISNT SOLVING THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS THE ARMY BOOK)

It is Stupid and not solving any problems for most armies, the flaws are in the ARMY BOOKS for not placing restrictions on how man god damn stegadons you can take, NOT in the core rule book.

I do not appreciate being insulted either by people who feel my opinion is wrong. I am not a naive little boy who likes his dinosaurs, I am a 21 year old man who enjoys a good wargame and fluffy lists of his favorite races.

It is absolutely ludicrous to change the game in such a radical way and basically destroy themed/fun armies and STILL not solving the problems with the books people are pissed off at. Your two Hydras are not goin anywhere, your two stanks are not either. 7th has its problems. mostly with certain units being overpowered/undercosted, but the magic phase is pretty screwed up as well. Most of 7ths problems are in the army books but because GW is lazy they decided to make a new ED to try and fix it all (which it wont) and guess what? we have the same overpowered crap with more randomness in a strategy game thats slowly becoming 40k.

the more you people are making me type out and explain why I do not want a new ed, and would rather have new army books, the more I am starting to think I am right. I think what I will be ding is not using a % system and not using random charges. The Dice gods rule over enough of this game IMO.

The post you replied to wasn't an insult. It was an honest question. By know, you must have realized the sillyness of your response, as we had all right to be confused since you can do all that you were claiming you couldn't. You simply were misinformed.

Have a nice day ;)

brynolf
14-06-2010, 23:27
I will be quite happy to leave 7th behind and move on to something fresh.

Tymell
14-06-2010, 23:32
Is math hard? a unit of 20 Ironbreakers with Full command is 290 points, HALF my special points allotment. I throw in a unit of 20 hammerers with FC and thats 270, oh crap look what happened in a 2k game im over my 500 points of special and cannot bring bolt throwers and and any other special, not even a small unit of 5 miners for ONE war machine. I now spend all the rest of my points on core, which YES are reliable, but I now have nothing to kill ONE steam tank with, let alone 2, or 2 hydras, which are STILL possible in 8th ED. (OH LOOK 8th ISNT SOLVING THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THE PROBLEM IS THE ARMY BOOK)

As Tae says, it seems either your maths is off, or you're not up to date with rumours: current rumours state you can take 50% special, not 25%. So in a 2000 point game, yes you can take your hammerers, ironbreakers and bolt throwers, problem solved :)

I also suggest calming down a little. You may not be a "little boy", but typing lines in all caps and making sweeping statements like the new rules will "basically destroy themed/fun armies" can make it sound that way.

And just to be clear, that isn't an insult. It's just a piece of advice.

nzdarkelf
15-06-2010, 00:14
The game was broken, and it needed drastic changes. In parts it was so cumbersome and awkward as to severely affect my experience. Or to put it bluntly, it wasn't as much fun as it should be. 7th Ed rules are the opposite of elegant. They work, but they're simply not beautiful. At times they feel overcomplicated, overly strict and put on restrictions that I feel are simply not necessary. I'm fed up with the old game of 'he who gets the charge off wins the game'.

If you like 7th better than 8th (how come you know, you haven't even tried) then you can of course stop evolving, stick with it and eventually be left behind like Chaos Dwarves and other relics of the past while I enjoy an entirely novel wargaming experience with my friends.

Well Said.

willowdark
15-06-2010, 03:57
By the time I've played enough games to know whether or not I like 8th, I'll probably have established a status quo and be too use to 8th ed to honestly consider going back to 7th.

8th would have to be a colossal failure to drive me back to 7th once I've adjusted enough to have an honest opinion of it.

Lord Solar Plexus
15-06-2010, 05:28
Well, seeing that I've already played my first five or so games of 8th edition, I must say it is decent enough and there is no reason to go back to an outdated ruleset.

I also think it is rather difficult to do that without any kind of official support. Having played 2nd edition 40k until mid 4th, I know what I'm talking about.

BigbyWolf
15-06-2010, 09:28
You say you don't think it's fair, but then you follow that with a veiled insult. It isn't a question of not being 'brave' (and the use of that word is entirely wrong in this context anyway) enough, it's a question of not liking the direction of the new rules. This is exactly the kind of generalisation I was talking about before - it seems anyone who doesn't like 8th edition is being treated with disdain and ridicule.
I have no intention of quitting entirely, since I have spent countless hours (not to mention £'s) on the armies I have and enjoyed the game as it stands, despite its flaws. To direct the 'Oh, if you don't like it just quit and sell everything' line at people like me is derogatory and needless behaviour.

I've been told that my generalisation isn't fair, but I'm starting to wonder about that when nearly every supporter of 8th edition regards those who are not as whiners, fearful of change, or powergamers. Rarely has a disliker of 8th been treated with any kind of respect for a difference in opinion.

I apologise if you thought I made a veiled insult, I thought I was being quite clear. In my mind "being afraid of change" and "not liking the direction the rules are going" is pretty much the same thing, and quite frankly the latter a daft comment considering the game isn't out yet and the majority of the people complaining about it have yet to try the new rules.

TBH people were probably willing to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone complaining about the new rules, but that was before we started getting a new thread whining about exactly the same thing every couple of days.

I've decided that in the end it doesn't matter, everyone will end up playing 8th anyway, and they'll enjoy it. The same way the nay-sayers did when we switched from % to slots back in 5th/6th edition.

MalusCalibur
15-06-2010, 15:21
I apologise if you thought I made a veiled insult, I thought I was being quite clear. In my mind "being afraid of change" and "not liking the direction the rules are going" is pretty much the same thing, and quite frankly the latter a daft comment considering the game isn't out yet and the majority of the people complaining about it have yet to try the new rules.

Considering that the rumours we have now encompass almost the entire ruleset, and are unlikely to change, I don't see how one needs to actually play a game to see the direction the game is taking. Since the idea of such idiocies as random charge ranges and skirmishers essentially no longer existing is appalling to me, I don't see how playing a game with said rules would change my opinion.
I am not 'afraid' of change, as I have stated many times before that I like the majority of the new magic rules. I am not against the idea of change, but I am against the specific changes 8th is bringing when compared to 7th.
I think you've thrown the veil off now, yes. It's a direct insult at this stage, because you are simply writing my opinion off as fear of change, which is far from the truth.


TBH people were probably willing to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone complaining about the new rules, but that was before we started getting a new thread whining about exactly the same thing every couple of days.

Though I have not seen any such 'whining' threads, and only two or three discussion threads that suggest a mindset not completely convinced by 8th, perhaps the fact there are supposedly so many complaining about the new edition suggests that support for 8th isn't as all-encompassing as you would like to believe?


I've decided that in the end it doesn't matter, everyone will end up playing 8th anyway, and they'll enjoy it. The same way the nay-sayers did when we switched from % to slots back in 5th/6th edition.

Quite a sweeping statement, and again untrue. I for one have no interest in playing the game 8th makes Fantasy into. Unless the book comes out and there are drastic discrepencies between the rumour collection we currently have, and the book's contents (something I severely doubt). I'm sure I am not the only one, either. And to use your example, I'm sure that there were people back in the 5th -> 6th days that stuck with 5th, or just stopped playing, because they didn't like the new rules, so to suggest 'everyone will end up playing 8th anyway' is very arrogant.
We will not all be drawn in by this needless rewrite.

innerwolf
15-06-2010, 15:37
7th edition was perfectly ballanced, the unbalance came with the armybook power creep.
I play with 3 friends of mine on a closed gaming group with no interest for tournaments.
Staying 7th instead of changing edition leave us room to implement house rules to fit the core rules and the armies to our style.

I think it's a legit decision.

T10
15-06-2010, 15:40
SO, does anyone else feel the same? Will any of you stick to 7th ed if you do not like these changes?

No.

-T10

etancross
15-06-2010, 15:41
my take on it is this...

A new edition of the game is coming out and lots of changes are instore for EVERYONE! For someone to cry and say "no im not gonna change", "I'm gonna just use 7th"! Is silly and really whinny "BUT" if you decide to stay in the past with what you have known and seen a hundred times over then hey thats your choice....:cries:

Whats not being concidered is all the cool NEW things that we will see, all the new situations that occur on the table that make you bust out laughing, make you want to wave your fist in the air in anger, and that make you say "WOW" this edition is effen fantastic.

So if you chose to live in the past then thats your choice, im moving forward and looking for the fun new games and adventrues ahead.

:D

EC

etancross
15-06-2010, 15:45
Considering that the rumours we have now encompass almost the entire ruleset, and are unlikely to change, I don't see how one needs to actually play a game to see the direction the game is taking.

Im sorry this is a DUMB statement, i can tell you that all the rumors are NOT true and we still ahve things that need to be found out, im shocked more info hasn't hit the boards yet but saying you dont need to play a game to see how the new rules are going to come into effect and just "thinking you know" based on the rumors you've read and not seeing the whole picture is dumb.

ChaosVC
15-06-2010, 15:48
7th edition was perfectly ballanced, the unbalance came with the armybook power creep.
I play with 3 friends of mine on a closed gaming group with no interest for tournaments.
Staying 7th instead of changing edition leave us room to implement house rules to fit the core rules and the armies to our style.

I think it's a legit decision.

You have no idea how many times this have been repeated and yet people still bs about how bad the 6th and 7th ed core rules are... I can't help but notice about the similarities of the avatars and sigs of these people...

stashman
15-06-2010, 16:40
We love this game for the strategy, not the move shoot assault BS that is 40k, and many of us feel the game is heading that way with all this crap that it doesnt need.


What army do you play? Orcs & Goblins, Empire... or VC and Deamons?

Roba-Fett
15-06-2010, 17:25
I've had a glimpse of the new book in GW. I really don't care about most of the changes - honestly. I do care about one change though. This fight in two ranks rule. I've been screaming at the top of my lungs that obviously GW wouldn't do this to the game, because they wouldn't be that stupid...then they bloody well did it.
They simply should have had 2nd ranks being able to step forward and fight IF FIRST dies that round. That would make sense. This? What the hell is this? Why are WoC players saying this is going to be great for them? Your actual Warriors, you know the models your army is NAMED after are now even more dire than they ever were. You're either forced to spend mad points on having a big unit of warriors (most would agree that you're pressing an auto lose button by doing that) or have your warriors lose their 2nd rank QUICKER than the other army and have the amount of attacks slow down first. Other units will be like duracell bunnies, still going against a poor whithering Warriors unit.

Now, I don't know if my friend read another aspect of the rule wrong or not (a part he read that I didn't) - but he claimed that the 2nd rank only get one attack, nomatter what special bonus, weapons, frenzy or profile attacks say. If THAT is true then the already stupid state of Warriors becomes retarded on an entirely new level of stupid. Because that second rank is still paying full points for half their attacks in second rank yet their enemy is paying full points for all of their normal attacks, namely 1 anyway.
Then there's the 3rd rank if 10 wide - horde rule...yeah we're going to do that with warriors right :P

My point being, surely the already doubtful warriors (in 7th) are now dead (in 8th).

MalusCalibur
15-06-2010, 17:31
Im sorry this is a DUMB statement, i can tell you that all the rumors are NOT true and we still ahve things that need to be found out, im shocked more info hasn't hit the boards yet but saying you dont need to play a game to see how the new rules are going to come into effect and just "thinking you know" based on the rumors you've read and not seeing the whole picture is dumb.

And equally dumb would be you yourself, for a)Not reading my statement properly, and b)Still clinging to this idea that the 'whole picture' of having the actual book is going to make such a huge difference to what we know about the rules.
I said that one doesn't need to play a game with these rules to see the direction the game is taking. I.e. the major changes to the rules (not the piddling minor ones that we won't see til the book is out) that are in the rumour summary, and at this late stage in the proceedings I would not expect these major changes to turn out incorrect. What would the point of the rumour summary threads on Warseer be if such big mistakes were frequently made in them? Thus, I think we can take it as given that the big changes (like random charge ranges, for example) are in, and there are many of those that are turning me away from the game. The minor clarifications and rule wordings that we will need the actual book for are not the focus of my concerns.

Also, how exactly do you know that 'all the rumours are NOT true', and that 'more information hasn't hit the boards'? As far as I'm aware you are not one of Warseers reliable rumour sources, so I have no reason to believe those claims. And unless you can reliably tell me that random charge ranges, skirmishers who arn't skirmishers, TLoS, measure-whenever, no guess ranges, and a multitude of other rules that I dislike, arn't going to be in the book, then my opinion regarding the edtion is unlikely to change.

kardar233
15-06-2010, 17:34
What army do you play? Orcs & Goblins, Empire... or VC and Deamons?

Yeah, VC. Main opponent plays DE. We have fun. Army choice doesn't make things less interesting as long as you're reasonable.

Malorian
15-06-2010, 17:36
Roba-Fett, your warriors should spend more time looking into the changes to redirecting charges, reforming after you win a combat, and being stubborn if you have more ranks.

A local WoC player runs warriors in blocks of 25 and these are going to be very scary in 8th.

Lordmonkey
15-06-2010, 17:40
Funniest thing about this thread is use of the word "loyal". Does this make me a traitor to... um... the dice gods... if I go and play 8th edition?

Oh dear.

Skyros
15-06-2010, 18:42
7th edition was perfectly ballanced, the unbalance came with the armybook power creep.

Not true. The magic system had severe flaws, the psychology/fear/terror system had flaws, and even skirmishers were too powerful.

TeddyC
15-06-2010, 18:48
again? wow. just wow....

8th ed puts the emphasis back on core troops and makes it less 'math hammer' with less certainty in your actions.

I assume the OP and the vertyeran gamers are VC or daemon players that are gonna be bought into line?

TeddyC
15-06-2010, 18:49
Not true. The magic system had severe flaws, the psychology/fear/terror system had flaws, and even skirmishers were too powerful.

also, the later books would have been written with 8th ed in mind so maybe appearing broken in 7th.... now 'fixed' in 8th

rtunian
15-06-2010, 19:05
Funniest thing about this thread is use of the word "loyal". Does this make me a traitor to... um... the dice gods... if I go and play 8th edition?

no, you made a commitment to 7th edition when you purchased the 7th edition rule book: for better or worse, in sickness or health, whether current or outdated. this thread wants to know if all you people are going to cheat on 7th with that harlot, 8th.

remember, 7th was your high school sweetheart. 7th bore your kids. what history do you have with 8th? sure she's young and fresh, but 7th is tried and true. 7th has always been there for you. will you be there for her?

:angel:

MalusCalibur
15-06-2010, 19:31
again? wow. just wow....

8th ed puts the emphasis back on core troops and makes it less 'math hammer' with less certainty in your actions.

I assume the OP and the vertyeran gamers are VC or daemon players that are gonna be bought into line?

And instead it makes it 'Randomhammer' or 'Blockhammer', or whatever other needless moniker is most appropriate, and like yours equally fails to give any real summary of the game it describes.

As for your latter comment, it just displays even more of this 8th ed elitism that's going around. As it happens, I do collect both Vampire Counts and Daemons (for reasons other than in-game ability, believe it or not) among other armies, and have done so since 6th. The Vampires have never seen a game, and the Daemons are currently two mono-god armies, neither of which is Tzeentch, neither of which has any special characters, neither of which uses more than a single unit of Flesh Hounds, and neither has Obsidian Armour in it. So I'll thank you to keep your ill informed comments about the armies of non-supporters of the new edition to yourself.

etancross
15-06-2010, 19:41
Also, how exactly do you know that 'all the rumours are NOT true', and that 'more information hasn't hit the boards'? As far as I'm aware you are not one of Warseers reliable rumour sources, so I have no reason to believe those claims.

Ill just ignore your other statements because if you seem to be just another "Cryer" that the edion is changing and im so tried of cry babies… and how do I know all these rules aren’t true…

I SAW THE BOOK BEFORE I CAME TO WORK TODAY THAT’S HOW I KNOW!!!

The book is out and most Local game stores have it…. I live in Richmond, Va and stores in our area have it…. Not only that once I get off myself and some other friends are going up to see it again….

So to your “how do you know this or that question” im gonna just smile and say “Ha”!

-----edit----
also for you non belivers if anyone wants to ask me where the book is in the Richmond Area its at "FTW" (For the Win) games... Give them a call yourself if you dont belive it.... Matter of fact ill be there after work... you can come in and ask for Nate... thats me (Etan = Nate) ill be the big guy reading the new book.

Tae
15-06-2010, 19:51
no, you made a commitment to 7th edition when you purchased the 7th edition rule book: for better or worse, in sickness or health, whether current or outdated. this thread wants to know if all you people are going to cheat on 7th with that harlot, 8th.

remember, 7th was your high school sweetheart. 7th bore your kids. what history do you have with 8th? sure she's young and fresh, but 7th is tried and true. 7th has always been there for you. will you be there for her?

:angel:

8th has a boob job and likes to wear a skimpy bikini though :(

chivalrous
15-06-2010, 20:10
I have to be honest and say I played very little 7th edition and saw very little difference between it and 6th edition.
With my MSc about to come to an end though I'll be playing again and very much looking forward to trialling the new magic rules.
I do feel a little disappointed by the change to the charge and guess weapon rules, I quite like the finesse of accurate movement but I also know that some players just don't have the innate spacial awareness* and in changing the rules the playing-field is levelled. As a Dark Elf player, I could also guarantee I could get the drop on most opponents by planning my movement; now I have to be more cautious (and while I have stubbornly fielded Executioners since 5th edition, I doubt very much they'll see the tabletop now.)

So I am a little apprehensive about some of the changes but l'm thoroughly looking forward to the new edition.
And just to qualify myself as sympathising with those who won't make the step from 7th to 8th: I have very much the same attitude to 40K; I very, very rarely play using any rules after 2nd edition and thoroughly enjoyed the rules coming out of my ears and the endless application of modifiers.


*In a similar way you can be a brilliant chemist but a lousy artist or a great darts player but have no aptitude for snooker.


no, you made a commitment to 7th edition when you purchased the 7th edition rule book: for better or worse, in sickness or health, whether current or outdated. this thread wants to know if all you people are going to cheat on 7th with that harlot, 8th.

remember, 7th was your high school sweetheart. 7th bore your kids. what history do you have with 8th? sure she's young and fresh, but 7th is tried and true. 7th has always been there for you. will you be there for her?

:angel:

Ah, the simplicity and inexperience of youth. Wait until you've lived through a few more edition changes and see how your attitude evolves. Remember that the relationship with an edition is a polyamorous one and without a third partner (and there will be many) the relationship between you and your edition will stagnate. Is it not better to separate now and move on, while you are still respectful of your edition, go your separate ways and always think fondly of your ex... or will you stubbornly cling on ostracising yourself from your friends, with your children slowly becoming more and more traumatised by the effects that estrangement from the wider community?;)

innerwolf
15-06-2010, 20:16
Not true. The magic system had severe flaws, the psychology/fear/terror system had flaws, and even skirmishers were too powerful.

I don't agree. Magic worked pretty good until you hit 10+ dices.
And skirmishers have been overnerfed.

Miredorf
15-06-2010, 20:33
again? wow. just wow....

8th ed puts the emphasis back on core troops and makes it less 'math hammer' with less certainty in your actions.

I assume the OP and the vertyeran gamers are VC or daemon players that are gonna be bought into line?

I have O&G, empire, HE, bretonnia, WoC, Beastmen and i dislike 8th edition. Where do i stand? :p

etancross
15-06-2010, 20:36
I do feel a little disappointed by the change to the charge and guess weapon rules, I quite like the finesse of accurate movement

I do agree with this statement... Im looking foreward to the new challanges that lay ahead but I dont like Mr. Random jiggling his hand in my pocket.

MalusCalibur
15-06-2010, 20:37
Ill just ignore your other statements because if you seem to be just another "Cryer" that the edion is changing and im so tried of cry babies…

An attitude which just shows you up to be the kind of rude, snobbish and thoroughly unpleasant person I'm coming to associate with 8th edition's defence to my criticism. If you would actually bother to read my statements with any kind of open mind then you'd see that my issues are with specific changes that I see as detrimental to the game, which is always going to be down to opinion. If the changes were to my liking, or if I believed for a second that there was motivation for them linked to balance and game improvement, I'd be all for a new edition. As it is, though, they are not, I do not, and therefore I am not (respectively).


and how do I know all these rules aren’t true…

I SAW THE BOOK BEFORE I CAME TO WORK TODAY THAT’S HOW I KNOW!!!

The book is out and most Local game stores have it…. I live in Richmond, Va and stores in our area have it…. Not only that once I get off myself and some other friends are going up to see it again….

So to your “how do you know this or that question” im gonna just smile and say “Ha”!

Your immaturity is quite remarkable. I couldn't care less if you claim to have seen the book, and there's certainly no need for you to shout the fact. Like I said before, I don't care what's true and what isn't in terms of tiny little clarity statements, the likes of which I am certain are what you 'know to be untrue'. I care about the major rules changes which are, if not all then at least most, going to be in the book.
So you saying 'Nerr nerr, I know something you don't' in the thoroughly childish fashion that you have means nothing to me.

rtunian
15-06-2010, 21:01
Ah, the simplicity and inexperience of youth. Wait until you've lived through a few more edition changes and see how your attitude evolves.

guess you didn't get the joke~

in short: the whole point of my post was to satirize the concept of remaining loyal to an edition of game rules.

L1qw1d
15-06-2010, 21:05
I like sarcasm.

I think being loyal to one iteration of the game when others won't be is ineffective, just like expecting specific companies to be loyal to some idea we like.

selone
15-06-2010, 21:09
OP. Don't be silly, no.

TeddyC
15-06-2010, 21:18
And instead it makes it 'Randomhammer' or 'Blockhammer', or whatever other needless moniker is most appropriate, and like yours equally fails to give any real summary of the game it describes.

As for your latter comment, it just displays even more of this 8th ed elitism that's going around. As it happens, I do collect both Vampire Counts and Daemons (for reasons other than in-game ability, believe it or not) among other armies, and have done so since 6th. The Vampires have never seen a game, and the Daemons are currently two mono-god armies, neither of which is Tzeentch, neither of which has any special characters, neither of which uses more than a single unit of Flesh Hounds, and neither has Obsidian Armour in it. So I'll thank you to keep your ill informed comments about the armies of non-supporters of the new edition to yourself.


Never mentioned the make up of the army... just that it was VC or Deamons....:rolleyes:

Randomhammer? maybe.... but blockhammer... thats what warhammer should be about for the most part. emphasis on core troops.

Mathhammer is a pretty well coined phrase, hardly something jumping on the bandwagon with here, in the same way as previously it was herohammer.

MalusCalibur
15-06-2010, 21:57
Never mentioned the make up of the army... just that it was VC or Deamons....:rolleyes:

The implication was that, because I own those two armies, I must be a powergamer who is only displeased with the new edition because the 'power builds' belonging to them will no longer be as viable. Of course, that assumption was being made by a total ***** and was completely out of touch with the truth. Not to mention that they are far from my only armies.


Randomhammer? maybe.... but blockhammer... thats what warhammer should be about for the most part. emphasis on core troops.

Like I said, no one word nickname of that nature is a fair summary of any game, so it was more a parodical response. 'Randomhammer' for all the new dice-based features, essentially.
As for blocks being what Warhammer should mainly be about, I'm not sure I agree. My personal assumption was that Warhammer was meant to be about fantasy armies, which includes infantry blocks (of course) but also fun things like monsters, magic, cavalry, and the like. I'm not saying infantry (and specifically core infantry) should not be a strong component of that, but it also shouldn't be the only one - there should be room for other units to have influence too. After all, a game consiting of two lines of infantry blocks that march towards each other and then whoever gets luckiest wins as they slowly grind each other down sounds just as boring as some of the monster/magic heavy armies of 7th.


Mathhammer is a pretty well coined phrase, hardly something jumping on the bandwagon with here, in the same way as previously it was herohammer.

Yes, I'm aware of the term 'Mathhammer' to describe the practice of using probability to predict dice-based results within the game (a practice I always found rather dull). What I was getting at was that using single-word terms to desribe an edition (so 5th's 'Herohammer', 6th's 'Cavalryhammer', apparently 7th's 'Mathhammer', at least judging by today, and my own for 8th ['Randomhammer' and 'Blockhammer']) are all equally stupid phrases to throw around.

Mudkip
15-06-2010, 22:35
Regarding the person that said 800 pts of magic can be shut down by 200 pts of it: don't spend 800 points on magic then. The metagame will change in 8th edition and people will adjust their armies accordingly. There won't be a problem of people bringing 800 pts of magic and not thrashing a person who spends less, because people won't spend 800 pts on magic in the first place anymore and rightly so. This sounds like "I don't want to have to change my army" complaint. The magic system is a massive improvement over the utterly dysfunctional 6-7th edition system.

The game is not necessarily moving towards bigger units. You will see horde units occasionally, but once the excitement wears off people will realize that most infantry are better off without it. I've been doing the math on all sorts of units the past few weeks and I'm impressed by how it all balances out and increases viable options, some elite units actually got better as well as some cheap trashy troops too. And remember: the other guy has the same points allowance as you. There is still a place for 25-30 man units.

So give 8th a chance. Though I suspect most of these claims about sticking with 7th are idle threats.

rocdocta
16-06-2010, 00:38
I prefer the term: 40WOTR hammer. its just a lazy cheap attempt at more sales. create a new product by meshing 2 other unrelated products together.

Will it be any good? well everyone knows that an unplanned project has a very low chance of success. Using parts that arent meant to work together is never a good idea. But hey i will wait to play it before i pass judgement. this is the usual edition growing pains.

random charge distances...
kill points...
true line of sight. the most abusable idea ever. dont want to be shot at? make your models all crouch. do want to shoot without giving cover saves? put them all on higher bases. its a joke...
GW have given away game balance to the idea of giving everything in 40k a 4+ save. or run if you are in a bad position.

D i want to play a strategic, tactical, less luck based game? or do i want to play 40k with the children?

Mudkip
16-06-2010, 01:49
Don't be silly, 40k has true LoS and you don't see people blatantly modelling for advantage too often there, why would you in fantasy?

chivalrous
16-06-2010, 02:19
guess you didn't get the joke~

in short: the whole point of my post was to satirize the concept of remaining loyal to an edition of game rules.

Actually did, hence the wink at the end :)

freddieyu
16-06-2010, 07:28
I prefer the term: 40WOTR hammer. its just a lazy cheap attempt at more sales. create a new product by meshing 2 other unrelated products together.

Will it be any good? well everyone knows that an unplanned project has a very low chance of success. Using parts that arent meant to work together is never a good idea. But hey i will wait to play it before i pass judgement. this is the usual edition growing pains.

random charge distances...
kill points...
true line of sight. the most abusable idea ever. dont want to be shot at? make your models all crouch. do want to shoot without giving cover saves? put them all on higher bases. its a joke...
GW have given away game balance to the idea of giving everything in 40k a 4+ save. or run if you are in a bad position.

D i want to play a strategic, tactical, less luck based game? or do i want to play 40k with the children?

pffftt, pffft, be serious....anyway if you quit it will be no great loss...

I play both WHFB and 40K, and 5th ed has been the best edition of 40K so far. Parity is excellent in terms of what armies can do, although SM still dominate in terms of sales (poster boys of GW of course).

8th ed will prove to be a successful edition, and I can't wait to get my hands on the gamer's edition, and have my empire and lizardmen infantry blocks march on to success and victory!!!

Tymell
16-06-2010, 07:42
I prefer the term: 40WOTR hammer. its just a lazy cheap attempt at more sales. create a new product by meshing 2 other unrelated products together.

1.) I've yet to see any convincing arguments that 8th edition simply draws on other GW games for it's changes.

2.) Even if it does, that isn't "lazy", it's something that happens all the time all around us. People create new things by drawing on existing ones. This is neither lazy nor unsuccessful.

3.) How are three tabletop games by the same company which use the same basic mechanics unrelated?


everyone knows that an unplanned project has a very low chance of success.

You mean this new edition which is almost exactly 4 years after the last one, right when predicted and expected?


Using parts that arent meant to work together is never a good idea.

How would you define "aren't meant to work together"? If you mean "haven't been together in a single edition before", this could apply to most any new edition of the game, as they all feature new rules and combinations.


or do i want to play 40k with the children?

And topping the argument off with the old "40K is for kids!" snobbery, a fine ending.

Roba-Fett
16-06-2010, 07:46
Well True LoS in 40k was amazing, it being an all skirmish game - you could get involved in those little nook and cranny moments. Hiding in a crater and peeping up to take a shot at a sniper dug in somewhere. 40k is about each model's individuality. Different weapon options, different positions so some have LoS/some don't. Fantasy though is about blocks of troops. I would love to see GW try to justify True LoS for this on paper.

Col. Frost
16-06-2010, 08:00
8th isn't that bad from what i have seen.

The new spells are a vast improvement on 7th edition, think 'Bears Anger' was good, then when you see the Beasts sixth spell you will be wetting yourself with excitement.

Im not keen on the random charge distances at the moment, but il give them a decent chance.

'Vicious' terrain make the game more interesting (Thought Lustrian trees were bad, think again).

Chargers getting +1CR instead of strikes first is a bit meh (especially for Bretonnian cavalry armies) but a few games are needed against various opponents before i make a proper judgement. As is stands cavalry need the charge for their +2S lance attacks but for everyone else its not as vital as before.

I honestly think large blocks of infantry are the way forward now.

Il play the 8th, in many repects it an improvement over 7th, but there are still some niggles about 8th im not happy with.

You can't please everyone.

BigbyWolf
16-06-2010, 08:33
Snip...

Rather than address everything you've written (as you do tend to repeat yourself- not that that's a bad thing, you clearly want to get your point across), I'll just comment on a couple of things:


We will not all be drawn in by this needless rewrite.

:rolleyes:

Needless rewrite? A new edition of a game is a needless rewrite? Now I know you can't be serious. You've already admitted the most important fact- You've only played 6th/7th edition. You only have experience of one set of rules. I think that makes my point better than I could myself.

I don't think you should let this worry you, I can understand that you may have a certain amount of trepidation towards learning/ adapting to a new edition. Just remember that everyone else will be in the same boat. Things change, it's part of life, you just have to learn to roll with it. A complete refusal to even test play the game is very childish, so I suggest you give it a shot.

And before you start lashing out please note that the intent of my post is to inform and educate, not insult. So no more comments of "*****". Please.

Ronin_eX
16-06-2010, 08:45
Ah, glad to see warseer trying to retcon its memory of the crapsack that was 7th. The core rules were mediocre and left a lot to be desired and the army books were getting close to making the game unplayable.

Will 8th fix this and usher in a new golden age? How the hell should I know? But all I know is that 7th ended up being pretty damn disappointing and was only looking to get worse. At least an edition changeover can give us a little hope for the future.

Give it a try and if you don't like it then you don't like it. But don't expect people to go crawling back to 7th, it wasn't all that great and I for one am glad to see it go. Just remember though, GW is not the only game company that exists, if they **** you off then vote with your wallet and support the greater hobby. There are plenty of other fish in the sea and if WFB is not to your liking then any number of other games might be. There is little reason to force yourself to live with what you consider to be a less crappy game when you could be playing a good one that also happens to get support from its creators.

ChaosVC
16-06-2010, 09:34
Well True LoS in 40k was amazing, it being an all skirmish game - you could get involved in those little nook and cranny moments. Hiding in a crater and peeping up to take a shot at a sniper dug in somewhere. 40k is about each model's individuality. Different weapon options, different positions so some have LoS/some don't. Fantasy though is about blocks of troops. I would love to see GW try to justify True LoS for this on paper.

Quoting form LOTR, "Don't encourage it Pipping!"

ChaosVC
16-06-2010, 09:46
[QUOTE=MalusCalibur;4737249]The implication was that, because I own those two armies, I must be a powergamer who is only displeased with the new edition because the 'power builds' belonging to them will no longer be as viable. Of course, that assumption was being made by a total ***** and was completely out of touch with the truth. Not to mention that they are far from my only armies.
[QUOTE]

Don't waste your time trying to talk to these people, for them, its okay for to critize 7th ed but its not okay for others to do the same to 8th ed, you are deem a whinner if you do that lol. Its a fan boyz mentality. People never understand that players starts their games or hobby base on the system that they are introduce to, there is no need to be follow blindly a system which you reject especially when you have backings from your own gaming groups. And if you do reject, they will call you something else to make themselves look better.

I will say, all discussion here is moot since we have yet to see the actual rules anyway, things may just be very different.

Lordmonkey
16-06-2010, 11:02
no, you made a commitment to 7th edition when you purchased the 7th edition rule book: for better or worse, in sickness or health, whether current or outdated. this thread wants to know if all you people are going to cheat on 7th with that harlot, 8th.

remember, 7th was your high school sweetheart. 7th bore your kids. what history do you have with 8th? sure she's young and fresh, but 7th is tried and true. 7th has always been there for you. will you be there for her?

:angel:

Actually, 5th was my high school sweetheart. I tried my best but left her for 6th when she flashed her slots at me. 7th was a fling that turned into a relationship and left 6th crying alone in a toilet - she wasn't much on 6th but she was better at forming sentences and everyone else seemed to get on well with her.

Then 8th came along and I had nostalgic memories of 5th, and it's making me want to drop 7th. The breakup will be hard but I think we will both get through it ok.

8th is incidentally 5th's daughter. :evilgrin:

BigbyWolf
16-06-2010, 11:07
Equating Wargaming to relationships? :eyebrows:

You do realise 90% of Wargamers have never touched a woman? :shifty:

Ultimate Life Form
16-06-2010, 11:12
Don't waste your time trying to talk to these people, for them, its okay for to critize 7th ed but its not okay for others to do the same to 8th ed, you are deem a whinner if you do that

The difference here is that we've all experienced 7th for years and it is fair to say we can in hindsight deliver a well-founded judgement whereas 8th is not even out yet and arguing it 'sucks' without even having played a single game lacks any kind of basis for there is no underlying experience or proof, so this is not a valid argument. Even if one doesn't like the individual changes it is possible that the game as a whole will be enjoyable and fun. This is not 7th only with changes you didn't like, this is a wholly new game. If you play a few games and then say you don't like it I accept it, but until then it would be wise to be a bit more open-minded.

Ironhand
16-06-2010, 11:16
I stopped playing WHFB because of 7th Edition. Can't wait for 8th to get here.

Lordmonkey
16-06-2010, 11:41
The difference here is that we've all experienced 7th for years and it is fair to say we can in hindsight deliver a well-founded judgement whereas 8th is not even out yet and arguing it 'sucks' without even having played a single game lacks any kind of basis for there is no underlying experience or proof, so this is not a valid argument. Even if one doesn't like the individual changes it is possible that the game as a whole will be enjoyable and fun. This is not 7th only with changes you didn't like, this is a wholly new game. If you play a few games and then say you don't like it I accept it, but until then it would be wise to be a bit more open-minded.

QFT. It's probably easier to look at 8th as an entirely new game (which is technically is anyway) given the significance of the changes.

Putty
16-06-2010, 11:41
SO, does anyone else feel the same? Will any of you stick to 7th ed if you do not like these changes?

no. coz i think 6th and 7th ed was FOS to begin with.

ChaosVC
16-06-2010, 12:53
The difference here is that we've all experienced 7th for years and it is fair to say we can in hindsight deliver a well-founded judgement whereas 8th is not even out yet and arguing it 'sucks' without even having played a single game lacks any kind of basis for there is no underlying experience or proof, so this is not a valid argument. Even if one doesn't like the individual changes it is possible that the game as a whole will be enjoyable and fun. This is not 7th only with changes you didn't like, this is a wholly new game. If you play a few games and then say you don't like it I accept it, but until then it would be wise to be a bit more open-minded.

I don't see what is wrong with Malues comments since he is aware that his opinnions is based on "what ifs" and the discussion is revolves around "what if that happens". If those people are open minded, they wouldn't even be making condescending remarks about him.

Dai-Mongar
16-06-2010, 13:01
The difference here is that we've all experienced 7th for years and it is fair to say we can in hindsight deliver a well-founded judgement whereas 8th is not even out yet and arguing it 'sucks' without even having played a single game lacks any kind of basis for there is no underlying experience or proof, so this is not a valid argument. Even if one doesn't like the individual changes it is possible that the game as a whole will be enjoyable and fun. This is not 7th only with changes you didn't like, this is a wholly new game. If you play a few games and then say you don't like it I accept it, but until then it would be wise to be a bit more open-minded.

That's exactly what I've been trying to get across to my friend. I happened to mention random charge distance/random PD generation and he's kind of fixated on that as a reason to hate 8th. I've talked him into trying it for a couple of games, at least.

Miredorf
16-06-2010, 13:05
Equating Wargaming to relationships? :eyebrows:

You do realise 90% of Wargamers have never touched a woman? :shifty:

Warhammer is much better than s-ex anyway, this is why ill never understand when friends always use excuses for not playing such as dating a new girl, getting married or even having a newborn instead just saying: they dont feel like playing a game :D

Deathjester
16-06-2010, 13:32
I'm really looking forward to 8th ed.

And to contest something from a couple of pages back:

You can't stop 800pts of wizard without one yourself:

Assuming: (average) 7 dice to cast with + 1 from channelling
Thus 4ish dispell dice

You can cast with your level 4 something which requires a 10 to cast on 2 dice reletively easily (6+lvl4), leaving you with 6 more dice...

However to dispell this your opponent will need to toss all but one of his/her dice... leaving him very short.

8th instantly addresses a lot of the issues i have with 7th (ok so it throws up a few niggles here and there):

Doomwheel : All models that move randomly are pointed in a direction and rolled for... well that was easy.

Too much reliance on Glass Hammer units or massive deathstars.

Initiative order combats: before i had to decide with my spearmen if i wanted to charge: attacking 1st, or take the charge more attacks, but the possibility of similar numbers if they die.

Spearmen SHOULD be better receiving a charge than taking one.

However i really don't think they could have implemented the whole initiative order thing without the step up rule, it wouldn't have worked out.

BigbyWolf
16-06-2010, 14:15
The difference here is that we've all experienced 7th for years and it is fair to say we can in hindsight deliver a well-founded judgement whereas 8th is not even out yet and arguing it 'sucks' without even having played a single game lacks any kind of basis for there is no underlying experience or proof, so this is not a valid argument. Even if one doesn't like the individual changes it is possible that the game as a whole will be enjoyable and fun. This is not 7th only with changes you didn't like, this is a wholly new game. If you play a few games and then say you don't like it I accept it, but until then it would be wise to be a bit more open-minded.

This is what I've been trying to say...perhaps if I'd said it like this it may have upset less people. Well put ULF.

MalusCalibur
16-06-2010, 14:33
Needless rewrite? A new edition of a game is a needless rewrite? Now I know you can't be serious. You've already admitted the most important fact- You've only played 6th/7th edition. You only have experience of one set of rules. I think that makes my point better than I could myself.

When I say 'needless rewrite', I'm referring to the parts of the core rules that I felt did not need changing. As I do often repeat, I'm not averse to change itself, or a new edition of the game. I just see 8th's changes as either needless (change for change's sake), detrimental (making elements of the game worse than before) or overly motivated by factors other than improving the game.


I can understand that you may have a certain amount of trepidation towards learning/ adapting to a new edition. Just remember that everyone else will be in the same boat. Things change, it's part of life, you just have to learn to roll with it. A complete refusal to even test play the game is very childish, so I suggest you give it a shot.

It's not about fear of change, or learning a new ruleset, as I have said more than once. If I believed the rules were an improvement then I'd be more than happy to learn them. As it is, the changes that bother me most are going to just stand out all the more should I get into playing the edition, and most likely turn me back onto 7th very quickly. I don't get much time for games these days, so I would rather play a ruleset I like than learn a new one that I don't - whether I've played it or not, the idea of random charges, non-skirmishers etc. are not going to sit well with me.


And before you start lashing out please note that the intent of my post is to inform and educate, not insult. So no more comments of "*****". Please.

That was not directed at you, my apologies if it appeared that way. You have certainly been more polite than some others.



Don't waste your time trying to talk to these people, for them, its okay for to critize 7th ed but its not okay for others to do the same to 8th ed, you are deem a whinner if you do that lol. Its a fan boyz mentality. People never understand that players starts their games or hobby base on the system that they are introduce to, there is no need to be follow blindly a system which you reject especially when you have backings from your own gaming groups. And if you do reject, they will call you something else to make themselves look better.

I could not agree more. I'm not saying all who like 8th ed have responded to me this way, but it certainly seems a popular mentality: 'Shun the non-believer!'.


If those people are open minded, they wouldn't even be making condescending remarks about him.

This is precisely the point I have been getting at. Many of the less-than-polite supporters of 8th have told me I am closed minded about it, and yet they themselves are no better since they refuse to accept the possibility that some people don't like the changes 8th has made, and seem convinced that anyone who doesn't like them is only complaining because they're losing out on some 'power-list'.

I think any 'discussion' about 8th ed where someone voices an opinion like mine turns very quickly into a witch-hunt: 'If someone is against 8th, they must be against balance/core troops/Warhammer, must play Vampire Counts/Daemons/Dark Elves, and must be ostracised/insulted/looked down upon IMMEDIATELY'
Whether you like the changes or not, I very much doubt that 8th will be 'the best edition ever', nor will it make the game all that much more balanced, given that it is being written 'over' existing 7th ed books, with merely some apparent errata to make them 'conform' to 8ths rules. Therefore, opposing it does not immediately equate to being against balance, or being a powergamer.

Rogue
16-06-2010, 14:44
Funniest thing about this thread is use of the word "loyal". Does this make me a traitor to... um... the dice gods... if I go and play 8th edition?

Oh dear.

On the contrary, you become a cult follower to the Dice Gods in the 8th edition apparently. Get ready to shave your head, and sell your worldly possessions for donations to the "church of 6.":D I would watch out if anyone is serving Kool-Aid were I you.:shifty:

Rogue
16-06-2010, 15:02
So give 8th a chance. Though I suspect most of these claims about sticking with 7th are idle threats.

I will give 8th edition a chance, but I will not hesitate to play 7th edition if I cannot stand 8th edition, or not at all. This is not an idle threat, but a promise. I can wait for the 9th or 10th to come to fruition if they are what I believe to be superior editions.

BigbyWolf
16-06-2010, 16:05
That was not directed at you, my apologies if it appeared that way. You have certainly been more polite than some others.


No worries, I thought it wasn't directed at me, just didn't want the thread to degenerate any more then it already had. ;)