PDA

View Full Version : Do you still play 7th edition?



theSkullduggery1
05-12-2010, 07:19
I'm just curious if anyone stuck to the last edition of the game, I read a lot of posts by people saying they hated 8th only a week into it and would still play 7th.

Wondering what those people are doing now.

bluemage
05-12-2010, 07:23
Well some people I know are moving onto hordes/warmachine and flames of war. But I suspect most people were really just venting their frustration with the new rules.

Tarax
05-12-2010, 11:04
A couple of days ago I played a game using 7th ed rules. It was against my regular opponent, who, like me, doesn't agree with 8th ed rules.
We also added some rules of our own and of other editions, some 8th. We did that before and found that our battles became more even.
We will continue with this and never go to 8th, because we find that we can create a version we both like.

Skalfgrimm
05-12-2010, 11:20
Iīm gone from Warhammer entirely. The basic rules of 7th were OK (nothing more), but the armybooks made a mess out of the game, while 8th basic rules are custom dseigned to annoy me. Iīm not saying it is a bad game, but it certainly does not cater to my taste any more.

I moved on to Kings of War, and I suggest to everyone to give it a try, it is free, easy to learn and a hell of a lot fun to play.

Idle Scholar
05-12-2010, 11:30
Yeah Kings of War is 95% WH :p anyway. Which I guess makes it a good stepping stone away.

Personally 8th edition has put me off WH. I've been playing other games to fill the gap but I'm trying to do some army lists for Conqueror (http://posseincitatus.typepad.com/conqueror/) and convince people to play that. To be fair it's also Warhammer ++ but it does it very well and it is well capable of representing the WH armies. Once someone writes the lists anyway.

Skalfgrimm
05-12-2010, 11:50
Yeah Kings of War is 95% WH anyway. Which I guess makes it a good stepping stone away.
Impressive that you can have a game that is 95% WHFB on 12 pages, no? :D

And Iīll check out Conqueror, just downloaded the pdf, thanks. Although Iīm kinda spoiled now, and I donīt actualy want another mass-combat game where I have to remove single models. Iīm getting lazy, you see? :P

I also play a bit of Armies of Arcana on the side, which is 90% Warhammer, but done well.

arthurfallz
05-12-2010, 14:16
I'm just curious if anyone stuck to the last edition of the game, I read a lot of posts by people saying they hated 8th only a week into it and would still play 7th.

Wondering what those people are doing now.
My group has gone back from 8th to 7th and is having fun, though only time will tell.

theorox
05-12-2010, 14:26
I'm loving 8th and find it superior to 7th on every point.

But then again, i'm a fanboy. ;)

Theo

shelfunit.
05-12-2010, 14:31
I am much preferring 8th and to be honest, apart from certain "true line of sight" issues, the power scroll, MR and a couple of spells cannot think of a single thing that 7th did better.

Lord Dan
05-12-2010, 14:49
I'll throw in my vote for 8th.

Roostmanuva
05-12-2010, 14:50
I too prefer 8th, on almost every level!

Bac5665
05-12-2010, 15:50
I wish I'd been playing 7E, as I hate most of the changes, but yeah, I've been playing 8E.

But I play almost exclusively pick-up games at the LGS and tournaments, so it's not like I actually have the option of playing 7E...

Tarian
05-12-2010, 15:55
Another vote for 8th, made the game a lot more fun for me.

ironduke87
05-12-2010, 15:58
As someone who has been away from Fantasy for many years, can someone lay out for me why there is so much hatred for 8 ed. (in a way that won't get the thread locked/turn into a flame war). I get the random charge distance for one, but what else is there?
Cheers

Lars Porsenna
05-12-2010, 16:11
I prefer 8th as well. The existence of WAB aside, if I were to use either ruleset as a historical game, I think 8th would give more satisfactory results than 7th.

Damon.

SamVimes
05-12-2010, 16:13
@ ironduke87:

Half victory points is another big one. Some don't like how steadfast operates. The magic phase gets a lot of ire directed at it, as do warmachines. I think that about covers it.

UberBeast
05-12-2010, 16:15
As someone who has been away from Fantasy for many years, can someone lay out for me why there is so much hatred for 8 ed. (in a way that won't get the thread locked/turn into a flame war). I get the random charge distance for one, but what else is there?
Cheers

They changed several of the game mechanics that have been in place for as long as most people have been playing the game. The movement phase has been rather simplified and the combat phase sees more casualties per turn thanks to models stepping up to fight. Situational benefits like charging or being hit in a flank aren't as crucial and combats are typically slugfests where the better quality and number of troops win. This has left cavalry fairly flat-footed.

The magic phase is rather silly now because the core spells were made quite powerful and it is easy to get off spells with irresistible force. Also, magic resistance was pretty well nerfed so it's fairly common to decimate whole units with single spells.

Terrain features no longer provide the same movement penalties as in previous editions, but now have all sorts of wacky random effects which you roll for when someone enters them. Imagine having to walk into a river to discover that it's made of boiling blood and it's killing you.

It just seems like a lot of 8th edition changes were made to fix army books from 7th edition and to distill warhammer into something a little more accessible to a wider crowd. That's bound to tick some people off.

SeaSwift
05-12-2010, 16:39
The movement phase has been rather simplified

I'm surprise so many people say this. I don't find it this way at all.

7th Edition had a very simple method of movement - march-blockers hung around blocking marching, other troops had to stay out of charge range or charge when they liked. Basically it all came down to guessing distances accurately, which, while a skill, is certainly not tactical.

8th Edition, because of the unpredictability of charging and the likelihood that march-blocking will be ineffective, is different. You can pre-measure, so the 'skill' of guessing distances is gone, but instead you have to genuinely think tactically. If a charge fails, you have to have contingencies. Combo-charges are more important, as it seems to be the only way to break fat Steadfast blocks in CC. You also have to invest quite a bit into combo-charging if you want to be rewarded for it fully, as you need 2 ranks to get both maximum attacks and the crucial +1 combat res for flank charging. Because of its inherent nature, such a system of luck will sometimes give you a kick in the nuts regardless of how tactical you play the game, but these should (theoretically) occur only occasionally. It also means that sometimes you get awesome moments - like Dwarves charging, for example. That's not to say it is perfect - I would prefer it if march-blocking was automatic rather than on a Ld test, for example.

sorberec
05-12-2010, 16:42
Personally I'm enjoying 8th edition, even though I feel the rules nerf my army (I play High Elves). Sure there are a couple of things that annoy me about the changes (TLoS being one of the most obvious) but then there were things about 7th that annoyed me as well.

The only thing that gets on my nerves with 8th is actually to do with the way a lot of comped tournies are blanket restricting multiples of unit types below the BRB restrictions when HE have a specific exemption on this in their update (not so much an issue with the Special choices but it is with the Rares) or banning the Book of Hoeth yet not restricting the numbers of template weapons.

belgarath97
05-12-2010, 17:25
In my group of gamers the only people I hear complaining are the ones who ran point-and-click armies. They really don't work anymore. All cav lists are hampered, which affected how a lot of people were playing the game. This led to much of the complaining.

arthurfallz
05-12-2010, 17:41
In my group of gamers the only people I hear complaining are the ones who ran point-and-click armies. They really don't work anymore. All cav lists are hampered, which affected how a lot of people were playing the game. This led to much of the complaining.
To be fair, if your army employs chiefly cavalry, this would be an honest complaint about the edition.

J.P. Biff
05-12-2010, 17:43
I've completely stopped playing Fantasy altogether and have jumped to hordes/warmachine. Mainly because the strategy and tactics have CHANGED and IMO have been dulled down. As a previous poster stated it seems to have been altered to draw in a larger crowd.

Its a more FUN oriented game now. Run across the board roll a tonne of dice and see what happens, while possibly nuking entire (or most of) units with a single spell which is ridiculously easy to get IF on. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, its just not why I played Fantasy. I have fun games (40k, online console games) but Fantasy was my "use your head" game. I still had fun but it was the strategy and maneuvering that I really enjoyed. People will say that complex strategic movement etc is still there, but really its not in the same capacity, plain and simple. No baiting, no redirecting etc etc. Sure you can try it but its WAY more unreliable to the point that its just not practical.

All in all, people just have to look at why they play or played Fantasy and IMO that'll dicate their response. Some like the in depth strategy, they probably are not fans atm, but those who enjoy a good beer and pretzel game with friend are probably loving 8th. Its just up to the gamer really. And I'm sure there'll be someone who claims to be the exception to the rule just for the sake of arguement but... whatever. :D

WusteGeist
05-12-2010, 18:22
Since the consensus here seems to be that cav suffers due to the random charge distance, I would like to issue the following idea. A series of games played as a test to see just how true or false this thought pattern is. The test should be as follows for any who care to partake.
1 The majority of the army needs to be cav or cav equivalent.
2 There needs to be enough games to come up with an actual logical statement and not just opinion. So record the number of games you play and how they turn out, no playing one game getting upset and giving up.
3 If you do this use roughly the same style army each game, no swapping out between test games, each test should use the same army list.

We want effects that we can study and determine if being all cav or majority cav really does effect over all performance.

H33D
05-12-2010, 18:30
I'm a fan of 8th edition myself. It really is too bad there are those that are unhappy with it, I feel it is an improvement from 7th. My favorite change was no longer auto-breaking to fear. It was so frustrating when my LD10 Dwarves would lose combat by 1 because they took almost no wounds, dealt almost no wounds, but were outnumbered therefore auto-dead!!!

7th definitely had its glaring flaws. All 8th has is a few OP items/characters and a few unclear rules. I am fairly confident most of this will be fixed as more army books/faqs are released.

theorox
05-12-2010, 18:37
H33D be da masta of wurdz. Ah agreah compleeteleah. :D

Theo

the_slosh
05-12-2010, 18:44
I have found that the people in my gaming group that used to (and still do) run cav heavy WoC and magicspam VC are the biggest "whiners" because they took a long time before accepting that they wont break everything on turn 1

I'm gonna give thumbs to 8th as it feels that the playingfield is more equal, but as people have already mentioned there is things that worked better in 7th and other that work better in 8th

Maoriboy007
05-12-2010, 19:16
8th is just as bad as seventh really, didn't really fix anything just changed a whole lot of old problems for a set of new ones.
The power armies are still there, they have just been shuffled around a little.
The so called evening out of armies seems to be defined as who can powerscroll thier game winning spell most effectively.
BAsically they did something similar between 6th and 7th ed, where instead of just fixing problems they made new ones. Yeah we play 8th, but we try to do so with a fair amount of restraint, just to keep it entertaining rather than aggravating.

Skalfgrimm
05-12-2010, 19:27
As someone who has been away from Fantasy for many years, can someone lay out for me why there is so much hatred for 8 ed. (in a way that won't get the thread locked/turn into a flame war). I get the random charge distance for one, but what else is there?
Cheers
To me, itīs all about the "flair": In I donīt like the new magic spells, they are too over the top for my tastes, the old ones were tolerable.
The new terrain rules are just slly, like man-eating trees and magic rivers of blood- some like the imagery, I find it boring and silly.
Warhammer involves more models and faster removal of models than ever before, again some like the "action", I find it to be tedious busy-work.

The imagery GW wants to convey is simply too over the top and ridiculous for my tastes, while others delight in it.

The rules themselves are not far worse than before, it is the same clunky and un-elegant patchwork rule design we have come to expect from GW, unwilling to change the core mechanisms of the game, even when the designers clearly want to (steadfast is a tacked-on rule, instead of simply changing the rules for combat results entirely). I hoped for a even more streamlined version of WHFB but oh well.

Ultimately I just donīt have any fun playing WHFB anymore. In this sense WHFB has become like 40k :P

kyussinchains
05-12-2010, 20:17
Personally I'm enjoying 8th edition, even though I feel the rules nerf my army (I play High Elves). Sure there are a couple of things that annoy me about the changes (TLoS being one of the most obvious) but then there were things about 7th that annoyed me as well.

The only thing that gets on my nerves with 8th is actually to do with the way a lot of comped tournies are blanket restricting multiples of unit types below the BRB restrictions when HE have a specific exemption on this in their update (not so much an issue with the Special choices but it is with the Rares) or banning the Book of Hoeth yet not restricting the numbers of template weapons.

not sure what 'nerf' means to you, but the HE were one of the armies who recieved the biggest boost (which is probably why tournies are restricting items and the list which clearly wasn't developed with 8th edition in mind, the updates to the book are the bare minimum of changes to make the army playable, not balanced...)

Few would disagree that HE became more potent in most areas of the game....

if you want to talk about nerfed, speak to the poor tomb kings players!

yabbadabba
05-12-2010, 20:29
I own 7 editions of Warhammer and we play whatever one takes our fancy. I haven't met the perfect Fantasy rules set yet, so inaccuracies and inconsistencies are immaterial.

Avian
05-12-2010, 20:30
I still play about as often as before, I like the game about as much as before and my battles take about the same time as before. I don't see a very big change.



I've completely stopped playing Fantasy altogether and have jumped to hordes/warmachine.
Did you know that a recent survey has shown that 82% of people who claimed to have quit Warhammer entirely, but still regularly frequents a forum devoted to that game, are closet Warhammer players and still play a minimum of 2 battles per month?
:D



(the remaining 18% have far too much spare time)

tezdal
05-12-2010, 20:35
I play 8th sometimes, but mostly seventh. Then again only one of my group was willing to cough up 75 bucks for the 8th edition rulebook. Plus I like Bret's to not have to use 1050504893 million peasants

sorberec
05-12-2010, 20:45
not sure what 'nerf' means to you, but the HE were one of the armies who recieved the biggest boost (which is probably why tournies are restricting items and the list which clearly wasn't developed with 8th edition in mind, the updates to the book are the bare minimum of changes to make the army playable, not balanced...)

Few would disagree that HE became more potent in most areas of the game....


There are a number of ways HE got nerfed this edition.

1) No more partials for War Machines. A template weapon, even if it scatters 2 or 4 inches, is probably going to hit most all of a unit. Great for those high priced, low armour save models.

2) Crew counting as wound markers. Our bolt throwers can now only take 2 wounds before they're dead now.

3) Step-up. For an army whose combat phase revolved around wiping out the front rank (or 90% of it), you're always getting hit back now unless you're against another elite unit or something understrength. People always go on about ASF allowing re-rolls pretty much all the time being a boost for HE. It is but the trouble is every other army got a close combat boost in the form of step-up.

Frankly I fail to see any phase in which HE got a net boost rather than a nerf.

MasterSparks
05-12-2010, 20:53
My local gaming circle came out worse for wear with the release of the 8th edition. Out of the 6 of us, me and another didn't quite take a liking to the new rules while the others loved it. The group's interests were pretty much split in half right there and, with me being the beating heart of our gaming sessions, our semi-regular gatherings were hit pretty heavily.

I do play a round of 7th with my fellow dissatisfied buddy every now and then, but the number of Warhammer matches played in total per month have dropped from 4-5 down to 0-1, if even that. The whole ordeal did kind of smother my desire to play the game but it'll probably come back at one point or another, and then I might look into houseruling a blend of 7th and 8th to come up with something that we can all enjoy around here.

zhu bajie
05-12-2010, 21:01
I really don't get the 'I hate 8th, so I quit Warhammer' attitude. Just because a new ruleset is released doesn't mean the old ones stop working. Keep on playing 7th or 1st, so long as you can find people willing to play the game, and tbh most people enjoy the opportunity of playing something a bit different, but with enough similarity they can pick it up quickly.

Oh yeah, and if you don't like 8ths movement, then just say 'let's use normal movement' to your opponent. Don't like the magic? then pull out your 4th ed magic cards, or assign constitution points and get old-school on it.


I own 7 editions of Warhammer and we play whatever one takes our fancy. I haven't met the perfect Fantasy rules set yet, so inaccuracies and inconsistencies are immaterial.

Exactly.

Llew
05-12-2010, 21:26
I had gotten tired of 7th Ed about halfway through, so I had started to give up on it and switched to WotR and was reading up on Conqueror. I realized I was wanting something different. I was mildly interested in 8th but as I read more about it, it sounded like they were just moving the problems around and working on upping the model count.

I was actually starting to write a system when KoW was announced. Although I understand why people think it's just re-Warhammer, it's something quite different in play. So far my group has switched to it completely. Anyone I've demoed the game for has walked away knowing how to play it and have liked it well. Unless you're just fond of memorizing a lot of rules, it's a great way to get a wargaming fix.

So while I'm not playing 8th, it's not because I've held dearly to 7th.

Tupinamba
05-12-2010, 21:36
Iīll keep playing 8th ed., as wargaming is pretty much a community driven hobby and, particularly here in Brazil, one canīt easily afford to play systems without a solid base of players and company support. The reason I play GW (and not other, possibly better gaming systems ) is precisely that, so there isnīt really very much sense in keeping playing outdated editions, except if you can persuade your whole gaming group to do the same.

Said that, the discussion has been raging on, but for those that find it difficult to understand why so many veteran players dislike the new ed., Iīd like to copy the following post I made in another thread:

"So, my negative impressions are based on the following.

The new rules seem to have caused two major trends, both of which I deeply regret. The movement phase and a combined weapons approach, with the use of several different tactical units, each with its own function in the "machine" that oneīs army should be, have had their importance reduced. Furthermore, several of the problems in 7th ed. seem to have actually got a lot worse than before. That is, I see more and more extreme deathstars, more extreme gunlines, more extreme heavy magic games.
(..)
Firstly, most games I see have like 4-5 units each side. Units got much larger in size and much fewer in quantity. The less different tactical units oneīs army has, the less choices and combinations a general has to make. So, whatīs the difference of playing 2-3 large units and 2-3 support elements in a 2500-3000 pts game and playing 4-5 small units in borderpatrol? I used to like bigger games exactly because they provided the opportunity for combined weapons and more manouvering with more "pieces", so as to flank and combine charge, sacrifice, bait and flee, retreat in a flank, while smashing the other and so on. With just 4-5 units to command, all those so called "gimmicks" are pretty difficult to pull off.

Second, the changes of random charge distances, steadfast, free reform, marchblocking and others all have reduced the likelyhood and importance of flank and rear charges and, consequently, the importance of manouvering in general. There is not much need to manouvre if after the first round of combat, in which youīll not break the outmanouvered opponent, the fight regrets to a simple frontal battle of attrition. Iīve read the threads and see that flanks etc. still have some advantages, but it is undeniable that their importance have been reduced.
(...)
All in all, it seems that the game has been overly simplified (wich would be in line with above made comment about it been inspired by 40k), reducing the amplitude of decisions (fewer, less variable, units), reducing the relative importance of the movement phase and increasing the random factors (which I like, but were present enough in the former edition, IMHO).

Howīs that supposed to make for a tactically more challenging and funnier game?

The game feels more like "magic the gathering", where the "deck" building is almost 50% of the game and you put your units on the table and than use selected hexes and buffs to gain advantages in combat. That is a tactic too, but Iīd rather have all the "dancing" and jockeing for positions, plus synergetic use of the variable army elements that was the essence of 7th ed., with all its flaws."

BRETELF
05-12-2010, 21:43
Just played two nights ago, 7th is still good.

dimetri1
05-12-2010, 21:55
I dislike 8th.... a lot but I do not play 7th. My friends and I all play 8th but I have to admit I started playing Warmachine.

Torpedo Vegas
05-12-2010, 21:55
I'm loving 8th and find it superior to 7th on every point.

But then again, i'm a fanboy. ;)

Theo

My opinion is stated by this poster ^.

I am going to try out Kings of War, though I am a bit skeptical about some of the mechanics of it.

MasterSparks
05-12-2010, 22:07
I am going to try out Kings of War, though I am a bit skeptical about some of the mechanics of it.

I'm looking through the rules now as well, and I must say that it does look... interesting. Definately interesting enough to warrant some testing. I especially like how clean and straightforward it appears to be. Good thing I've already bolstered my Undead ranks with Mantic miniatures, because I think I'll need them all here. :p

Llew
05-12-2010, 22:15
My opinion is stated by this poster ^.

I am going to try out Kings of War, though I am a bit skeptical about some of the mechanics of it.

At least it won't cost you anything to try out. ;)

Da GoBBo
05-12-2010, 22:30
I hate my new woodelves
I hate my new Ogres
I love my new Orcs and goblins, it is now all I ever wanted
Most importantly, I hate the new movementphase
And some other minor drawbacks
I love the new magic system, shame it doesn't have lores to match

As a result, I am concentrating on 40K for the moment and might even jump back on the warmachine/hordes weagon for a while, even though I quite that because it was all herohammer.

DivineVisitor
05-12-2010, 22:35
Playing 8th and won't be looking back :)

solkan
05-12-2010, 22:59
Highlights of 7th Edition:

Oh, look, your Bloodthirster/Dragon/Huge Flying Monster got a flank charge. Oh, well, let's play it out to see how much of my army he eats.

Two opposing units sitting just outside of charge range because both players can see perfectly well that the distance between them is an inch too far.

Taking random charge distance bonus items just to break the above deadlocks.

Strategically running away as the height of defensive tactics in a war game.

Ghazbad_Facestompa
05-12-2010, 23:02
I started playing infantry-based O&G in 7E. In 8E, they can actually win, fighting undead is actually enjoyable, I can charge things that cause fear, and a tough terror causer isn't game over by the end of the fourth turn. Needless to say, 8E works better for my army.

Maoriboy007
05-12-2010, 23:11
Plus I like Bret's to not have to use 1050504893 million peasants As what? Trebuchet ammo?

Logan_uc
05-12-2010, 23:39
Highlights of 7th Edition:

Oh, look, your Bloodthirster/Dragon/Huge Flying Monster got a flank charge. Oh, well, let's play it out to see how much of my army he eats.

Two opposing units sitting just outside of charge range because both players can see perfectly well that the distance between them is an inch too far.

Taking random charge distance bonus items just to break the above deadlocks.

Strategically running away as the height of defensive tactics in a war game.

Highlights of 8th Edition:

roll dices, I win:D

mrtn
06-12-2010, 00:10
can someone lay out for me why there is so much hatred for 8 ed.
There's not a lot of hatred for 8th. There's some, and a thread like this certainly brings it out, but I wouldn't say it's a lot.
A while ago there was a thread on it; the poll said that a vast majority preferred 8th, but the posters in the thread mostly disliked it.

Whining on the internet is a law of nature. ;)

Personally I like 8th a lot more.

Maoriboy007
06-12-2010, 00:13
Highlights of 7th Edition:

Oh, look, your Bloodthirster/Dragon/Huge Flying Monster got a flank charge. Oh, well, let's play it out to see how much of my army he eats.

Two opposing units sitting just outside of charge range because both players can see perfectly well that the distance between them is an inch too far.

Taking random charge distance bonus items just to break the above deadlocks.

Strategically running away as the height of defensive tactics in a war game.

Highlights of 7th Edition:

Oh look , I rolled 11-12 on Gateway and won the game

Highlights of 8th Edition

Oh look, I cast (Gateway/Purplesun/Dwellers/Mindrazor etc) and won the game.

Ozorik
06-12-2010, 00:22
Strategically running away as the height of defensive tactics in a war game.

Just like the real world then.

scruffyryan
06-12-2010, 01:47
The thing about people still playing 7th edition is that they will just gradually run out of people to play with. Some of their playgroup will convert to 8th just so they can still go to tourneys. Anyone new to the game is going to be baptized in 8th edition. Gradually some of the 7th ed crew start families or jobs that make taking time to play a game that takes 3ish hours to finish, often in the middle of the day (when free of kids and all) more and more difficult to accomplish and they'll just drift away or make a decision that they dont have the time for the game they used to and stop, and eventually its you and 1 or 2 of your hardcore 7th ed buddies playing each others armies over and over again til you're sick of it.

RPG's have a ton more past edition playability than wargames do. You just run out of people who have access to the rules in wargames.

Spell_of_Destruction
06-12-2010, 03:22
I haven't really had much of a chance to play 8th ed yet so I can't really say how it compares to 7th but I find it difficult to understand how anyone can pine for the return of 7th ed.

Don't get me wrong, the 7th edition rules were perfectly fine but the army book creep that we saw with Daemons, VCs, Lizardmen, Skaven etc. really took a lot of the skill out of the game. It really doesn't work too well when the armies that basically circumvent the core psychology/morale rules of the game also have the most powerful unit choices.

J.P. Biff
06-12-2010, 04:44
Did you know that a recent survey has shown that 82% of people who claimed to have quit Warhammer entirely, but still regularly frequents a forum devoted to that game, are closet Warhammer players and still play a minimum of 2 battles per month?
:D
(the remaining 18% have far too much spare time)

I did not know that. But I do know that percentages can be used to prove anything and that 14% of people know that lol :p.

Unfortunately I probably fall into the 18% with to much time on their hands :D. I still frequent the site because of the Warmachine/Hordes forums and the Mantic Forums. But when I saw the title thread as I was scrolling down to get to said forums I was actually interested to see if there were others in my boat.

So although alot of people in these forums love to be the "exception to the rule" true or not, in this instance, I actually am. I should say though that I had slowly stopped playing Fantasy about a year before 8th broke out. Seeing 8th in action, reading reviews from posters and then having games finally put the nail in the coffin. Am I done with Fantasy for life? Most likely not. But it has been about 15 years and I think its time for a hyatus (sp?)... and a new edition. Until then? Methinks I'll be using some Dark Elves as elves, some Lizzies as dwarves and some empire as Undead (gasp!) for Kings of war.

Voss
06-12-2010, 05:10
I'm just curious if anyone stuck to the last edition of the game, I read a lot of posts by people saying they hated 8th only a week into it and would still play 7th.

Wondering what those people are doing now.

I stopped playing 7th ed long before 8th ed came out.

UberBeast
06-12-2010, 05:58
....

Lots of good points there, and many that I was having a hard time expressing for myself.

kurisawa
06-12-2010, 07:31
I like the scenarios in 8th, have got used to the movement (and quite like the random charges, contrary to my first opinion). LOVE step-up and supporting attacks in how it brings infantry back into the mainline unit position (though steadfast may be a tad too much).

Dislike and don't understand what they did to skirmishers, still don't like mysterious terrain, magic power generation and levels are good, but the lores and new miscasts are just too insane. Why would anyone be a wizard in this world?? It's like we are all playing orcs and goblins.

So, good and bad bits, but overall, it's new and different.

K.

yabbadabba
06-12-2010, 07:49
@Kurisawa - don't forget you don't have to use the mysterious terrain rules.

LordZombie
06-12-2010, 08:19
About the only thing I don't like about 8th is the idea most people have that all units have to be 40+ models or don't bother with the unit. Some say cavalry and monsters got nerfed, I say they got tamed. Five guys on horses should not hit a 20 man unit in the front and break them, then chase them down. I am a fan of 8th.

theorox
06-12-2010, 08:50
LordZombie: Agreed!

kurisawa: I agree that skirmishers are weird. They could have just stayed like 7th.

Things i like:

Infantry being a part of the game
Magic being interesting, i always overlooked it in 7th and almost never used it. Winds of Magic works great!
Not having to roll for partials on templates
No more fear autobreak, though it didn't happen to me from what i remember as i started late 7th
The more streamlined, player-friendly game
Wackyness, though it might be a bit OTT

Things i don't like:

Magic resistance being a bit "meh"
Skirmishers being too complicated, i liked 7th's metod better

Uh...i think that's all. Overall, loving 8th and am not looking back!

Theo

Tarax
06-12-2010, 10:49
I see a lot of comments about how great 8th is, mostly because it tamed a lot of powerful armies (DE, VC, DoC, Liz).

I'd like to add to my previous comment that I play High Elves and my opponent plays Orcs and Goblins. We both detested the powercreep.
In my gaming group there are a lot of players who started with those powerful armies and that was one of the reasons that I started to play 7th less.
Because we (my friend and I) now use moderately reasonably balanced armies we can enjoy 7th. And yes, we tried 8th but didn't like it.

I'm currently working on balancing both armies more, including points, weaponry and special rules. I already don't use ASF for my HE.
If some other amry would come around and likes to try the new rules (I wrote) I will look at that army and balance that one too.

arthurfallz
06-12-2010, 12:18
I think overall it will always come down to tastes. In our house game it rapidly came down to an assessment of "which of these editions fits our needs and playstlye more", immediately followed by "what ideas and rules do we want to pilfer from other editions of Warhammer (or other games".

In our group, we prefer more of 7th than we do of 8th, so we went back to 7th. We have enough books in the group to play for the forseeable future, but also have 8th and could (and would) play it outside of our house group.

This notwithstanding, in the dawn of the internet age it's going to become easier to get things like rules out for games, esepcially if those rules are free (and, imho, GW should focus on making money off of minis, not books). 7th edition could be played for a while yet, especially while the army books continue to be released at the glacial pace they are.

I believe if the army books came out at the same time as new editions, we wouldn't see any real division. People would update their books and jump forward. Some of these army books are as old as 6th edition, and the balance within them and the assumptions they were written under are not properly addressed by the update faqs.

Scythe
06-12-2010, 13:13
I stopped playing 7th ed long before 8th ed came out.

Same here. My interest for 7th edition was gone long before 8th edition arrived. 8th edition isn't perfect, but it has perked my interest in the game once more, which is more than 7th edition did.

Lars Porsenna
06-12-2010, 14:47
RPG's have a ton more past edition playability than wargames do. You just run out of people who have access to the rules in wargames.

I'm not so sure about this point. Yes, I think they have a bit more, but both RPGs and wargames have issues with recruitment if your rules are OOP.

I've thought a lot on this, having been a hard core D&D player through 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions. 4th edition rolls up and IMHO sucks. What to do? Stick with 3e and hope to recruit new players (this was before Pathfinder), or convert to 4e and play a less satisfying game? We cut down the middle and play Star Wars SAGA, but even now we're in a conundrum in that game is now OOP, and new recruits will not have access to the books save the secondary market (and for some, looking at exhorbitant prices), or by borrowing the book from a group member (far from ideal IMHO). Over time it becomes more and more difficult to recruit players for RPGs as well.

Damon.

Zazzer
06-12-2010, 20:47
Highlights of 7th Edition:

Oh look , I rolled 11-12 on Gateway and won the game

Highlights of 8th Edition

Oh look, I cast (Gateway/Purplesun/Dwellers/Mindrazor etc) and won the game.


Highlights of 8th Edition:

roll dices, I win

My God.

The game is NOT that way and you all know it. Honestly, stop trolling. 1 casting of gateway will RARELY kill more than half of a current unit, and if he casts it with 11/12 S, well then the dice went his way. But boo hoo you lost ONE UNIT. Dwellers on average will kill HALF of a single unit AT MOST (unless your casting it on freaking gnoblars :wtf: ) That is not game over if you are playing at the suggested game size of 2000+. Mind Razor is easily counter-able feed the unit some fodder.

Purple sun is OP against some armies UP and some armies. People who use it as a crutch will fail 50% of the time. In my gaming group this spell has been banned. It has been banned by the player who got the most benefit from it (A high elf player who also has banned Teclis).

As for the second quote. Just leave.

There seriously needs to be a forum rule against putting down the system as a whole. It helps no one all it does is show that you are a sucky warhammer player that loses often, and does not have the balls to admit it. He rather hate the game.

Play the freaking game or get out.

tezdal
06-12-2010, 21:28
Im still trying to figure out why my charging knights(with lances) get hit first by elves/skaven/whoever with a higher Init armed with a spoon/sword/whatever

yabbadabba
06-12-2010, 21:39
Im still trying to figure out why my charging knights(with lances) get hit first by elves/skaven/whoever with a higher Init armed with a spoon/sword/whatever Cos its a magical make believe world? WFB is an abstract system.

Ozorik
06-12-2010, 21:44
Yet one that is based upon the real one. Systems which ignore this (and which don't follow some internal logic like magic) will always seem out of place. Rules which don't make sense make poor games.

yabbadabba
06-12-2010, 21:53
Yet one that is based upon the real one. Systems which ignore this (and which don't follow some internal logic like magic) will always seem out of place. Rules which don't make sense make poor games. Yes but they do not have to reflect this reality. Again, as the system is abstract it can be argued that the balance is more important than whether you agree if the effect is correct or not. WAB deals with this by having weapon lengths. Currently WFB deals with it via initiative and as we only have a single comparison on this planet, humans, and no magic or hundred year old fighters etc it would be.... overly simplistic to use reality as an argument.

mrtn
06-12-2010, 21:58
I'm not so sure about this point. Yes, I think they have a bit more, but both RPGs and wargames have issues with recruitment if your rules are OOP.

I've thought a lot on this, having been a hard core D&D player through 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions. 4th edition rolls up and IMHO sucks. What to do? Stick with 3e and hope to recruit new players (this was before Pathfinder), or convert to 4e and play a less satisfying game? We cut down the middle and play Star Wars SAGA, but even now we're in a conundrum in that game is now OOP, and new recruits will not have access to the books save the secondary market (and for some, looking at exhorbitant prices), or by borrowing the book from a group member (far from ideal IMHO). Over time it becomes more and more difficult to recruit players for RPGs as well.

Damon.
I don't see why you just can't recruit someone, and teach him/her the rule system you're currently using? My group is playing a game from 25 years ago without problems.

decker_cky
06-12-2010, 22:00
I don't see why you just can't recruit someone, and teach him/her the rule system you're currently using? My group is playing a game from 25 years ago without problems.

Maybe people learn better in Swedish. :)

Ozorik
06-12-2010, 22:06
Yes but they do not have to reflect this reality. Again, as the system is abstract it can be argued that the balance is more important than whether you agree if the effect is correct or not.

Within reason but if the effect is too removed from reality (or intended result or what ever you want to call it) it simply doesnt work. Much of the warhammer rules make no sense, often not even from a balance point of view.

Abstraction often seems to be used as an excuse for poor rules but it just doesn't ring true to me.

Hashulaman
06-12-2010, 23:34
I did not play 6th edition at all during 7th and I will not play 7th at all now that 8th is out and noone in my group plays 7th either. I have met a person or two that refuse to play 8th and will stick to 7th. They are welcome to do that, I however will not play 7th again, and if I did it would be as DoC.

Lars Porsenna
07-12-2010, 03:13
I don't see why you just can't recruit someone, and teach him/her the rule system you're currently using? My group is playing a game from 25 years ago without problems.

Yes, you could do that. But the problems are:

1) you have to convince someone that this OOP ruleset is somehow more desirable or superior to something they can get in any store.

2) you are limited in the books you can circulate in the group; either the newbie has to keep borrowing someone else's book, or go through the trouble of buying one 2nd hand (depending on the rules this can be more challenging for some than others)

3) willingness of a new person to want to learn rules that put them outside of the mainstream.

While certainly all of this can be done in some circumstances, IMHO the disadvantages of playing an OOP game outweigh the advantages.

Damon.

fantasypisces
07-12-2010, 04:01
I dislike 8th.... a lot but I do not play 7th. My friends and I all play 8th but I have to admit I started playing Warmachine.


Hello my daemon friend! How's work? We miss you at the game-store.

Anyway, my original army was bretonnia, but when I started hearing all the 8th edition rumors I began building up a skaven force. When 8th hit I played about five games and then have not gone back since, I really despised it for a variety of reason (which I won't go into here). A couple of my friends have also felt this way, granted they were mostly 40k players, and so now I'm leaning back to 40k.

We still have a good group of people playing 8th, in fact they just finished a month long ladder tournament, but as time goes by, more and more of them are dropping out and going onto other things.

Shame, really. But that's what it's like at my and dimetri1's store.

SamVimes
07-12-2010, 04:03
Within reason but if the effect is too removed from reality (or intended result or what ever you want to call it) it simply doesnt work. Much of the warhammer rules make no sense, often not even from a balance point of view.

Abstraction often seems to be used as an excuse for poor rules but it just doesn't ring true to me.

Perhaps in a wargames. Not neccesarily any game though. Go find some Reiner Knizia games. Play Go. There is an entire school of game creation that is based on the idea that games are fundamentally an abstract art, and they are fantastic games. Eurotrash vs. Ameritrash, to use some of the common parlance.

Scythe
07-12-2010, 06:57
Yes, you could do that. But the problems are:

1) you have to convince someone that this OOP ruleset is somehow more desirable or superior to something they can get in any store.

For us, this has never been a problem. The storyteller decides the system / ruleset to use, and that's it. If someone prefers an other edition, he can be gamemaster / storyteller in a next campaign / one shot.


2) you are limited in the books you can circulate in the group; either the newbie has to keep borrowing someone else's book, or go through the trouble of buying one 2nd hand (depending on the rules this can be more challenging for some than others)

3) willingness of a new person to want to learn rules that put them outside of the mainstream.

While certainly all of this can be done in some circumstances, IMHO the disadvantages of playing an OOP game outweigh the advantages.

Damon.

These points are true, to a certain extend. I do think switching editions is easier done with RPGs as it is with a tabletop game though. Player characters usually do not need much in the way of books to participate, and pdfs are often still available. Also, players do not need deep understanding of every rule out there, only the storyteller does. I have introduced new players only teaching them the bare basics of a system, and filling in the gaps when they come up during a session. But then, we play rather story focussed; I have played sessions without rolling a single dice.

Souppilgrim
07-12-2010, 07:15
Just like the real world then.

No...not at all. Real units did not turn around and run when the enemy was 10 meters away. They would be dead. Only in rare instances, when using highly specialized troops would a unit show their back to another unit in open warfare.

freddieyu
07-12-2010, 07:21
7th is now extinct here, (thank god and good riddance)....WHFB interest has really spiked up with 8th ed, and during pickup game weekends you can see WHFB share the spotlight together with 40k in the 3 major gaming venues here....unlike before when it was just 40k....a lot of HE and Skaven noobs though, mainly because of the IoB boxed set (I'm a victim here too, as I've started Skaven, which is my 3rd WHFB army)...

We've had 2 8th ed tournaments already (at 2K points) and the only thing we have done is to not allow special characters...it has proven to be OK as most of the games were won by skill, and game changing super magic stuff luckily has been rare (the opposite has occurred in the sense that in the final game between the last tourney leaders, the VC player had 5 miscasts in a row, and THAT decided the game rather than a successfully cast superspell!!!).....

Ozorik
07-12-2010, 07:42
No...not at all. Real units did not turn around and run when the enemy was 10 meters away. They would be dead. Only in rare instances, when using highly specialized troops would a unit show their back to another unit in open warfare.

Real units of light troops certainly would and this is exactly the sort of unit that was likely to tactically flee in warhammer.

I do find it quite amusing that people seem to prefer 8th because it i more balanced, so was 7th on release and look what happened there.

SeaSwift
07-12-2010, 10:56
Real units of light troops certainly would and this is exactly the sort of unit that was likely to tactically flee in warhammer.

I do find it quite amusing that people seem to prefer 8th because it i more balanced, so was 7th on release and look what happened there.

The thing is, 8th is more balanced NOW than 7th is. I'm just hoping (vain hope :rolleyes:) that the new Army Books don't screw up the balance like they did with 7th.

I also prefer some of the rules, beside balance. Dwarf Warriors now have a chance to charge. 2 ranks can fight (more casualties, I hated how last edition you were lucky to kill 3 people in a combat). Steadfast makes infantry blocks more fun. Wacky terrain, etc.

mrtn
07-12-2010, 12:14
Yes, you could do that. But the problems are:

1) you have to convince someone that this OOP ruleset is somehow more desirable or superior to something they can get in any store.

2) you are limited in the books you can circulate in the group; either the newbie has to keep borrowing someone else's book, or go through the trouble of buying one 2nd hand (depending on the rules this can be more challenging for some than others)

3) willingness of a new person to want to learn rules that put them outside of the mainstream.

While certainly all of this can be done in some circumstances, IMHO the disadvantages of playing an OOP game outweigh the advantages.

Damon.

1) Just as with Scythe, in our gaming group it is "follow the rules or be games master yourself". You all have to play the same game.

2) Half the people in our group hasn't even opened the book. You don't need a book each.

3) If you don't know the rules it doesn't matter if those rules are new or old, you still have to learn them.

MalusCalibur
07-12-2010, 13:33
Yes, and very happy to be doing so. The release of 8th edition was the last nail in GW's coffin to me, and I refuse to support them any longer outside of the occasional paint (which I get from an independent retailer). I'm far happier playing a ruleset I actually like, with the models and armies I already have - anything new I do want comes from eBay, since most new releases for Fantasy are inferior to old models that they replace.

I've been over my disdian for 8th before so I won't repeat myself. I am, however, going to thoroughly enjoy reading about the army book releases that will break the game's supposed balance and sent all its supporters into the usual whinge-cycle.
Just like 7th ed. Well balanced before the army books came along.

Lars Porsenna
07-12-2010, 13:55
1) Just as with Scythe, in our gaming group it is "follow the rules or be games master yourself". You all have to play the same game.

Of course, but we're talking about recruitment here, no switching GMs within an established group. The third option is to not play with us at all.



2) Half the people in our group hasn't even opened the book. You don't need a book each.


Then all I can say is that your gaming culture is very different. I would not even consider playing a game without the core rules, no matter how much the GM might know them. Wide dissemination of the rules keeps the group "honest" (not saying anyone would intentionally cheat).



3) If you don't know the rules it doesn't matter if those rules are new or old, you still have to learn them.

But now you're investing time and effort into a new ruleset that the mainstream has moved on from? So what happens if you move, or just want to play with other people? Yes, you could learn two different rulesets, and then confuse the two (I confuse 40K with Fantasy all the time). For some people this is a rational, serious question.

Damon.

Bac5665
07-12-2010, 13:58
The thing is, 8th is more balanced NOW than 7th is. I'm just hoping (vain hope :rolleyes:) that the new Army Books don't screw up the balance like they did with 7th.

What in Sigmar's name are you talking about? At least in 7E I could ban special characters and dragons and get a semblance of balance. TK and WE were allowed to play. As long as you exersized a small amount of self-restraint in not taking the most powerful characters possible, in 7E, every army book was playable.

But 8E, nothing you can do will make your Dwarves less insane. Same with lizardmen, Empire and WoC or DoC (ok, that part was true before...) But where before it was a matter of not taking some of the crazy elite stuff, now the problem is that those armies have prohibitively good core, that basically must be taken (or warmachines + magic defense, which is also insane.)

There is no way, at all, that balance is any better in 8E. It is true that because of the increased role of luck, that it's possible for lower tier lists to beat higher tier lists more often than before. But only when luck makes something go perfectly for the weaker list. But if your idea is balance is that a lucky army can beat a better army, then please, do not balance any game that I want to play. Cause that isn't balance; it's roulette.

SeaSwift
07-12-2010, 14:13
What in Sigmar's name are you talking about? At least in 7E I could ban special characters and dragons and get a semblance of balance. TK and WE were allowed to play. As long as you exersized a small amount of self-restraint in not taking the most powerful characters possible, in 7E, every army book was playable.

Wait, what? Are you saying that TK and WE have less of a chance beating the 'top' army at the moment than Ogres did of beating Daemons of Chaos in 7th?

Did you play 7th at the end?


But 8E, nothing you can do will make your Dwarves less insane. Same with lizardmen, Empire and WoC or DoC (ok, that part was true before...) But where before it was a matter of not taking some of the crazy elite stuff, now the problem is that those armies have prohibitively good core, that basically must be taken (or warmachines + magic defense, which is also insane.)

I fail to see how any of this is worse than 7th. People used to take Lvl 1 Scroll Caddies in 7th, whereas now people take Lvl 2 + Power Scrolls. The balance has shifted. The 'tiers' of armies seem to be closer together to me. But that's subjective.


There is no way, at all, that balance is any better in 8E. It is true that because of the increased role of luck, that it's possible for lower tier lists to beat higher tier lists more often than before. But only when luck makes something go perfectly for the weaker list. But if your idea is balance is that a lucky army can beat a better army, then please, do not balance any game that I want to play. Cause that isn't balance; it's roulette.

Increased role of luck? Is this still about movement? I explained why 8th charging is better than 7th further up the thread. Otherwise I fail to see how the role of luck has dramatically changed.

KHolbourn
07-12-2010, 14:21
I'm a big fan of 8th Ed. Glad to see the back of the unbalanced tosh that was 7th Ed.

8th Ed brings back infantry and stops most of the crap like "i charged 1 guy, he killed 5" I won you run away. "I outnumber you by 1 and cause fear... no snake-eyes Goodbye". "I have lots of magic users and 35PD... goodbye", "I have DoC/DE/VC... goodbye".

The supporting attacks, casualties from the back, steadfast with ranks have made the game a proper battle and require a different type of tactic to win. And I think a better one than charge, kill front rank win... While the new magic has some spells that I think were made "too good" overall its far better, and far more balanced than the rubble that was 7th Ed.

Pacorko
07-12-2010, 14:24
Never, ever again... not even if it becomes the ONLY and TRUE way to play Warhammer Fantasy Battles in a near and dystopian future controlled by the Game World Police.

I'd probably initiate an underground group where 8th would be the stepping stone, consequences be damned! All the while playing other games with nicer rules, too.

They'd never catch me alive or playing that travesty of a rules set.

Bac5665
07-12-2010, 14:35
Wait, what? Are you saying that TK and WE have less of a chance beating the 'top' army at the moment than Ogres did of beating Daemons of Chaos in 7th?

Did you play 7th at the end?



I fail to see how any of this is worse than 7th. People used to take Lvl 1 Scroll Caddies in 7th, whereas now people take Lvl 2 + Power Scrolls. The balance has shifted. The 'tiers' of armies seem to be closer together to me. But that's subjective.



Increased role of luck? Is this still about movement? I explained why 8th charging is better than 7th further up the thread. Otherwise I fail to see how the role of luck has dramatically changed.

I have played 6E, 7E and 8E at the tournament level. So yes, I consider myself an expert on balance in the game over those editions.

First, I seem to have been unclear. I am NOT saying that 8E has worse balance than 7E. I am saying that 8E is no better than 7E. See the difference? Because that is important.

And I agree that the tiers are closer together now, in the sense that I can't tell who can win right from the start. But, I can't tell who will win because there's is more luck than ever before. Now every unit takes like 5 Ld tests a turn, and failing any of them is disastrous. Now magic is more random than ever and the timing of that randomness can frequently decide a game, like it did for me on the bottom of turn 6 at a tournament this weekend. And yes, random charges add a ton of luck to the game. You can argue it's a good thing (I disagree, but it is a taste thing) but you can't argue it's not more random.

The game is more random now. This is fact. And balance by randomness is illusory because the point of a strategy game is to win by strategy; wining by luck is a disappointing outcome. Maybe less disappointing than losing, but disappointing. And indeed, my opponent in that tournament (one of my best friends, who I've been playing against for a decade,) was upset that it took luck to beat me. It was a hollow victory. So balance by luck is distasteful to me.

As for the rest, I agree that balance in 7E was bad. Scroll caddies have nothing to do with it, of course. The winners of most GTs I've been to don't take more than 1 scroll, often none. Scrolls were a crutch for people who didn't know how to tactically dispel. But you are correct that TK, OnG and OK had little or no chance against and DoC or VC list or many if not most DE lists. However, DoC is just as powerful, and Dwarves, Lizardmen and most of all WoC have been added to the list of uber-tier lists that can only be beaten with luck as described above. If that's your best evidence of balance, then I'm not impressed. And WE and Brets have been made non-factors as well.

With 3 armies not playable against anyone, and 4 or so uber lists instead of 2-3, I'm convinced that balance is no better now. Is it worse? Probably not now. But at least TK and OnG and OK could play against 10 of the 15 armies, at least, and have a game of it. Now, TK and Brets and WE can't even really play each other, let alone the rest of the armies and Ogres and OnG aren't exactly powerhouse lists. Oh, and Beastmen are terrible too.

8E hasn't fixed balance. It just hasn't. Not saying it's worse (I don't yet know if it is or not. It's close enough that its probably not worth arguing about though,) just saying that balance isn't and cannot be a reason to play 8E over 7E.

freddieyu
07-12-2010, 14:59
I have played 6E, 7E and 8E at the tournament level. So yes, I consider myself an expert on balance in the game over those editions.

First, I seem to have been unclear. I am NOT saying that 8E has worse balance than 7E. I am saying that 8E is no better than 7E. See the difference? Because that is important.

And I agree that the tiers are closer together now, in the sense that I can't tell who can win right from the start. But, I can't tell who will win because there's is more luck than ever before. Now every unit takes like 5 Ld tests a turn, and failing any of them is disastrous. Now magic is more random than ever and the timing of that randomness can frequently decide a game, like it did for me on the bottom of turn 6 at a tournament this weekend. And yes, random charges add a ton of luck to the game. You can argue it's a good thing (I disagree, but it is a taste thing) but you can't argue it's not more random.

The game is more random now. This is fact. And balance by randomness is illusory because the point of a strategy game is to win by strategy; wining by luck is a disappointing outcome. Maybe less disappointing than losing, but disappointing. And indeed, my opponent in that tournament (one of my best friends, who I've been playing against for a decade,) was upset that it took luck to beat me. It was a hollow victory. So balance by luck is distasteful to me.

As for the rest, I agree that balance in 7E was bad. Scroll caddies have nothing to do with it, of course. The winners of most GTs I've been to don't take more than 1 scroll, often none. Scrolls were a crutch for people who didn't know how to tactically dispel. But you are correct that TK, OnG and OK had little or no chance against and DoC or VC list or many if not most DE lists. However, DoC is just as powerful, and Dwarves, Lizardmen and most of all WoC have been added to the list of uber-tier lists that can only be beaten with luck as described above. If that's your best evidence of balance, then I'm not impressed. And WE and Brets have been made non-factors as well.

With 3 armies not playable against anyone, and 4 or so uber lists instead of 2-3, I'm convinced that balance is no better now. Is it worse? Probably not now. But at least TK and OnG and OK could play against 10 of the 15 armies, at least, and have a game of it. Now, TK and Brets and WE can't even really play each other, let alone the rest of the armies and Ogres and OnG aren't exactly powerhouse lists. Oh, and Beastmen are terrible too.

8E hasn't fixed balance. It just hasn't. Not saying it's worse (I don't yet know if it is or not. It's close enough that its probably not worth arguing about though,) just saying that balance isn't and cannot be a reason to play 8E over 7E.

Maybe the better description would be it has tightened the gap considerably...

With the new OnG, TK, and either OK and WE coming up, this should be redressed. Brets aren't half bad..it's their playstyle that has changed, as all knights just can't hack it anymore....but to say that that army book is unwinnable is not true...

theSkullduggery1
07-12-2010, 15:22
I added a poll to this thread after I found out that it was much more successful than I expected. Thanks everyone!

SeaSwift
07-12-2010, 15:34
I have played 6E, 7E and 8E at the tournament level. So yes, I consider myself an expert on balance in the game over those editions.

I have played in one tournament in my entire life, in 7th, so I consider myself absolutely bottom of the 'expert' ladder :D


First, I seem to have been unclear. I am NOT saying that 8E has worse balance than 7E. I am saying that 8E is no better than 7E. See the difference? Because that is important.

And I agree that the tiers are closer together now, in the sense that I can't tell who can win right from the start. But, I can't tell who will win because there's is more luck than ever before. Now every unit takes like 5 Ld tests a turn, and failing any of them is disastrous. Now magic is more random than ever and the timing of that randomness can frequently decide a game, like it did for me on the bottom of turn 6 at a tournament this weekend. And yes, random charges add a ton of luck to the game. You can argue it's a good thing (I disagree, but it is a taste thing) but you can't argue it's not more random.

The game is more random now. This is fact. And balance by randomness is illusory because the point of a strategy game is to win by strategy; wining by luck is a disappointing outcome. Maybe less disappointing than losing, but disappointing. And indeed, my opponent in that tournament (one of my best friends, who I've been playing against for a decade,) was upset that it took luck to beat me. It was a hollow victory. So balance by luck is distasteful to me.

I think you mean it is more balanced, but it is balanced by means of increased random factors. Although I've never had a unit take anything like 5 Ld tests in a turn :wtf:


As for the rest, I agree that balance in 7E was bad. Scroll caddies have nothing to do with it, of course. The winners of most GTs I've been to don't take more than 1 scroll, often none. Scrolls were a crutch for people who didn't know how to tactically dispel. But you are correct that TK, OnG and OK had little or no chance against and DoC or VC list or many if not most DE lists. However, DoC is just as powerful, and Dwarves, Lizardmen and most of all WoC have been added to the list of uber-tier lists that can only be beaten with luck as described above. If that's your best evidence of balance, then I'm not impressed. And WE and Brets have been made non-factors as well.

I disagree that DoC are just as powerful, and I beat Dwarf lists on a regular basis (with High Elves - no Teclis/Archmages/Power scrolls). Don't know about Lizardmen and WoC, though.


With 3 armies not playable against anyone, and 4 or so uber lists instead of 2-3, I'm convinced that balance is no better now. Is it worse? Probably not now. But at least TK and OnG and OK could play against 10 of the 15 armies, at least, and have a game of it. Now, TK and Brets and WE can't even really play each other, let alone the rest of the armies and Ogres and OnG aren't exactly powerhouse lists. Oh, and Beastmen are terrible too.

8E hasn't fixed balance. It just hasn't. Not saying it's worse (I don't yet know if it is or not. It's close enough that its probably not worth arguing about though,) just saying that balance isn't and cannot be a reason to play 8E over 7E.

I bow to your superior knowledge, bac, but most people seem to think that 8th's balance is better.

minionboy
07-12-2010, 16:15
One must read threads like this to truely understand why Warseer has the reputation it does.

I find it strange that many people have cried and moaned about 8th edition, yet fantasy in my area and many others, are now more popular than ever. A poll on warseer doesn't prove anything, other than, "what do people who whine and moan about 8th edition think about 8th edition?"

I've played since 4th, and this so far has been my favorite edition. My last game of 7th probably illustrated every issue that I had with the core rules, some examples being, mandatory scroll caddies, easily being able to stay 1" out of charge range, redundantly guessing range, cavalry > all and unkillable ward+regen.

Now with random charge ranges, you know the "average" charge distance, but you can try for more, or you can be disappointed for less, you actually have to have contingency plans, which I think is great.

The new magic phase is alright, not spectacular, but definitely an improvement on the past. The random dice means you can actually cast spells some times with a level 1/2, and it also means that you aren't always going to get steamrolled without the mandatory scroll caddy.

For a long time veteran, guessing range was completely pointless and all it did was prevent people who had poor depth perception from using artillery.

Lastly, ward+regen... Ugh... Our local Nurgle Daemon player was undefeated in 7th edition, in 8th edition he's actually lost a game, nuff said.

Malorian
07-12-2010, 16:39
I play the current edition.

Period.

UberBeast
07-12-2010, 16:59
easily being able to stay 1" out of charge range, redundantly guessing range


I enjoyed the tactic of staying out of range. It meant that while units faced off with each other the battle for the flanks became more important. It meant that a player had to see his entire army come together in order to prevent it from being overwhelmed piecemeal. You had to think several turns in advance. "If I move my spearmen into charge range he will charge them with his ork boyz, even if they fail to hold my second unit of spearmen can hit his ork boyz on the flank and I'll have free reign in his center."

In 8th edition units just spin around as they see fit, and stumble toward each other in spurts of activity. On one hand it's too easy to rectify what in 7th edition would have been a mistake. If you break a unit you simply reform your winning unit and face any new threat. There is no real-time exposure to enemy units in their own turn.

On the other hand you no longer have any standoffs or complexity in the movement phase which narrows the gap between someone with a plan and someone who just shuffles forward. In previous editions you knew the risk you were taking when you advanced into an enemies charge range. Only a desperate player or someone with a plan would take this move. Now the risk is merely a +1 combat modifier and the back-up plan is unnecessary.

Also, removing guess range, making charge distances random, and allowing players to measure everything at any times has removed the need for spatial awareness. It used to be that veteran players picked up the ability to accurately judge distances just by sight. Even then there were always moments in the game where something was too close to tell and it became a matter or nerves to decide if one should declare a charge and risk the disaster of a failed charge. It was a risk based on player judgment and experience/skill, not by rolling a die or placing a template without giving it a second thought.

I am simply arguing that these are things I enjoyed about 7th edition and which in 8th edition I do not enjoy. I can understand that people who did not enjoy this aspect of the game are fairly happy with the changes.

Tupinamba
07-12-2010, 17:03
I find it interesting that THE main argument people make about a supposed supperiority of 8th ed. WHFB over 7th ed. is game balance, while this is not a question of the core rules, but something that had been caused by typical GW army book creep.

Concerning just the core rules, itīs undeniable that the new set has reduced the importance of the movement phase, restricted armybuilds to few huge units, reducing the options people actually take to battles (a quick look of the BRs around show that very strongly) and increased the random factors.

THAT is what all people that preferred 7th ed (why are they called "whiners"? just because they preferred a rules set over another?) are complaining about. 8th ed. made for a game where players have less control over their actions and where the most interesting and tactical part of a wargame, movement, matters less than before. It may be more realistic that way, but this doesnīt make for a better game.

The other argument, that 8th is better than 7th because now more people play WHFB than before I fail to understand. With that logic, 40k would be a better game than WHFB... People who played whfb liked it better than 40k precisely because it was a more tactical game, with more unforgiving manouvering and the need to plan ahead.

Bac5665
07-12-2010, 17:55
And, fantasy is having the lowest turnout it's ever had in my area right now. Even when 7E was at its worst, it was never as bad a turnout as it has been this last few months.

Sure, right when 8E came out it was very popular. But the boost included a bunch of 40k players who seem to all have gone back to 40k now. And in the mean time, I know that some of the more reliable players are coming less because of a dislike of 8E.

This is just my area, and it is just as meaningless as a warseer poll, but it is also real and worries me, because I love my hobby and I would rather keep playing this (IMO) less interesting edition than none at all.

goodz
07-12-2010, 19:04
I think we will end up playing a hybrid of 7th and 8th.. Last game we played 7th rules instead and itw as alright. Mainly we have problems with magic in 8th being a tad lame, although not always... The 7th level spells just seem unneccesary. It also sucks most racial magics are weak compared to the current lores...

Movment phase:
More freedom in the 8th edition movment is nice most of the time, even though it hurts my poor woodelves a buttload. Random charges i don't mind, and the odd fail isn't as big a deal as the odd purple sun:P Things that are lame in this phase: No march blocking, calvary shouldn't require 2 ranks to break a flank imo. Or at least heavy calvary! Breaking ranks should also remove steadfast (i dont believe it does, could be incorrectly interprating)

Shooting phase:
None of us seem to like TLS, the rules are so muddled in my head at this point, but i think we played TLS through forests with a -2 to hit modifier, but no TLS through units, aka you cant fire your bowmen through a rank and file unit even though you state that you can see the enemey... This actually works quite well. I do like firing in 2 ranks tho:P

Magic phase:
is lame, use 7th rules, the one thing i do like is on a natural roll of a 1-2 the wizard can not cast anymore!

Combat phase:
The retals even when you lose troops although crippling for my woodelves, is nice in general. Striking in order of initiative rather then chargers go first is also nice. Makes it useful, i don't mind this phase too much.

Finally the new terrain rules are just a waste of time, and annoying so we don't have blood forests etc. and i dont think we are going to at any point.

Maoriboy007
07-12-2010, 19:31
My God.
The game is NOT that way and you all know it. Honestly, stop trolling. 1 casting of gateway will RARELY kill more than half of a current unit, and if he casts it with 11/12 S, well then the dice went his way. But boo hoo you lost ONE UNIT. Dwellers on average will kill HALF of a single unit AT MOST (unless your casting it on freaking gnoblars :wtf: ) That is not game over if you are playing at the suggested game size of 2000+. Mind Razor is easily counter-able feed the unit some fodder.
Purple sun is OP against some armies UP and some armies. People who use it as a crutch will fail 50% of the time. In my gaming group this spell has been banned. It has been banned by the player who got the most benefit from it (A high elf player who also has banned Teclis).

At the end of 7th I saw gateway straight out decide several games, sometimes removing the most important opposing unit(s) from the board within the first 2 turns. It doesn't nessesarily need the 11/12 to do this either.
Auto unit killers were such a stupid idea that simply expanding the problem was a moronic display of epic proportions.
Purple Sun decided around 4 of the first 10 games we played in 8th, so much so that we decided to stop using the powerscroll.
These are actual problems with your oh so perfect 8th edition If you have banned such spells then you have also identified the porblem already and taken the steps to fix it.
As it is we prefer to play with the system as it is laid out however flawed it may be, the furthest we have gone is a gentlemans agreement not to use the power scroll.
As it is , so far I have yet to see that 8th is all that better than 7th, yes some marked improvements so its not all bad, but also some serious flaws that were really quite unessesary and have you wondering what might have been.
The old power structure has simply been replaced rather than removed.


As for the second quote. Just leave.
There seriously needs to be a forum rule against putting down the system as a whole. It helps no one all it does is show that you are a sucky warhammer player that loses often, and does not have the balls to admit it. He rather hate the game.
Play the freaking game or get out.

Err, we are entitled to our opinion as you are to yours. Considering we were simply making a somewhat toungue in cheek reply to someone bagging 7th just as vigorously, you seem a bit touchy about the subject. Theres an element of truth to the fact theat the game is decided even more by the person who can arrange to roll the most/best dice at any given time.
These days a veteran dwarf player could lose to a powerscroll weilding 10 year old with death magic (although I have little sympathy for a dwarf player with 12 DD and laser guided mar machines of unholy doom :D ) that s not really an indication of skill, just a loophole being exploited.

*Edit* Bac5665 said it all really, its not an issue of one edition being that much better than the other, more that some people seem convinced when really its more of the same old same old in a different package. I mean one of the biggest compaints of 8th was how magic dominated the game, has this really changed? Shooting seems to be even worse now, and as has been said, dispel scrolls have been replaced by owerscrolls

WusteGeist
07-12-2010, 19:54
WOW

Just WOW. So much hate anger and vitriol, you lot act like 8th came to your home stole your woman and punched your dog. First off, 8th has problems, no one has or should try to claim its perfect. The irony with that statement and this thread though is all game systems have problems. You want a game that has zero problems and works fine in all respects? Go play checkers, I would suggest chess but, some one out there would find a way to claim some tactic or rule was too vague or too abusive. So it seems to me that the main problem is people want to harp on the negative, not the positive.

Yes charge range is abstract, yes magic is abstract, yes there are new power spells and power items. In the end so what? You can find a way around most of these problems, part of playing games is finding ways to over come. So what if high elves get to strike first and reroll hits, that does not make them unstoppable. Work around the problems instead of focusing on the problem. Like a child at a brick wall screaming why wont it come down instead of just stepping around.

Its fine to state your disdain and disagree with the system, but when you do rember that leaves you open to critic as well. So do not feel surprised when some one takes offense to your comment and replies back not just at the system but you the reader. I know some will attack what I say here and that's fine, but in doing so address the actual problem and not just what I say. The actual problem is, if your so upset by the changes then stop playing go play something else.

Life is short why waste it doing things you dislike? Yes I do not like some of the problems 8th has, but I am still a damn sight happier playing 8th than I ever was playing 7th. In 8th there is no problem no tactic no spell I can not figure a way out of for myself. The human mind is the finest machine on this planet, use it to solve the problem with tactical logical thinking before just assuming all is lost.

dodicula
07-12-2010, 20:18
8th was a breath of fresh air, and I'm a certified GW hater. They fixed the biggest problem of 7th (at least for me) which is that big blocks of infantry were damn near useless. I love the new terrain rules (I always picture on of my Brets getting clothes-lined by a tree branch when I roll a 1). And I, unlike a lot of people love the new magic system as it makes the perfect counter to horde armies (use it to snipe bsb or wipe out half a 50 man unit). Guessing distances wasn't that big a deal to me (I was ok at it), though my Trebuchets are waaaay to strong now.

Pacorko
07-12-2010, 20:20
I always picture on of my Brets getting clothes-lined by a tree branch when I roll a 1.

Me, too and by now those nutters I field should have learned better and duck, dammit! :p

Malorian
07-12-2010, 20:34
Me, too and by now those nutters I field should have learned better and duck, dammit! :p

I'm in the 'horse tripped on a fallen log and knight did a faceplant' camp.

LAV-Kitsune-
07-12-2010, 21:21
8th edition all the way. There is absolutely nothing I miss from 7th so far~

Ironhand
07-12-2010, 21:21
I quit playing WHFB because of 7th, and restarted with 8th. I'm extremely pleased with the new Edition.

SeaSwift
07-12-2010, 21:32
And, fantasy is having the lowest turnout it's ever had in my area right now. Even when 7E was at its worst, it was never as bad a turnout as it has been this last few months.

My nearby GW has about 1-2 regular Warhammer Fantasy players now, a big drop. Surprising, considering how much I (and a lot of other people) prefer 8th Edition. Apparently, the cost of the Rulebook alone put off players. :cries:

Tupinamba
07-12-2010, 21:45
"Life is short why waste it doing things you dislike? Yes I do not like some of the problems 8th has, but I am still a damn sight happier playing 8th than I ever was playing 7th."

Er, well, isnīt this topic precisely about if people still play 7th? What would you expect besides people comparing the two editions and the oneīs that actually prefer keeping playing 7th stating it here?

The arguments started as many of the 8th lovers were so surprised at why so many "whiners" werenīt praising the new rules and some even did not start playing them. I donīt hate the new system, bought the excellent hard cover book and will keep playing warhammer with 8th rules, as that is what my gaming community is doing. But that doesnīt mean I have to prefer the new rules.

And till now, noone from the 8th edition "camp" has adressed my issues with the new system, that is, the deliberate reduction of importance of movement, charge and use of multiple different units for different battlefield roles. Iīm not saying that these elements have become utterly useless, but I donīt understand why the new rules purposedly did this, as these parts of the core rules had nothing to do with the balance problems of 7th and the distortions that that edition had (herohammer, infantry weakness etc. etc.)

"In 8th there is no problem no tactic no spell I can not figure a way out of for myself. The human mind is the finest machine on this planet, use it to solve the problem with tactical logical thinking before just assuming all is lost"

As stated, thatīs not the issue at hand. Itīs not that the new system puts new demanding tactical problems to solve. Itīs that the new playing style is not as rewarding as the old one for those gamers that emphasized manouvre, control and combined weapons for their fun in a wargaming experience.

pointyteeth
07-12-2010, 22:13
Personally I'm in the camp of "I'd play 7th if it was still the supported system". I like some of the ideas they had for 8th but as a whole, I don't like the system. They changed too much. If they'd only implemented some of the ideas it would be the best system ever, but imo they went to far.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat demanding I "stop whining and quit the game", I will play 8th. My group and I are big into the tournament scene and playing 8th is the only way to play in tournaments now. Doesn't mean I have to like it but my group has been playing together since 4th edition, and we will likely be playing in 10th edition. Once you get this far down the path of Warhammer, you really won't ever stop; with all the time painting, warring, and plain old talking about Warhammer, it becomes a way of life. (please note though, we are not GW fanboi's, we criticize them too much for that :D)

@ SeaSwift - its the same here. Normally we'd play about 6 games a month but when 8th came out we played about 6-7 games each, and now we haven't played any for the last couple months. Our LGS isn't even bothering to do 8th games as nobody has shown interest, they were intending to stay 7th but have pretty much switched to 40K and MtG

Maoriboy007
07-12-2010, 23:02
WOW
Just WOW. So much hate anger and vitriol, you lot act like 8th came to your home stole your woman and punched your dog. First off, he started it, I didn't really like the attitude of his reply, especially considering a few innocuous lines spouted a tirade, so basically returning what we got.


First off, 8th has problems, no one has or should try to claim its perfect. Something that seems to go blatanly unnoticed most of the time, not always, but often enough.


The irony with that statement and this thread though is all game systems have problems. You want a game that has zero problems and works fine in all respects? Go play checkers, I would suggest chess but, some one out there would find a way to claim some tactic or rule was too vague or too abusive. So it seems to me that the main problem is people want to harp on the negative, not the positive.Agreed the system will never be perfect, but the flaws introduced into the game were completely unessesary or just plain baffling, in 7th magic was considered overpowered, solution? Introduce mind bogglingly devestating spells.
Lets be clear, I don't HATE all of 8th, in fact I have frequently championed its better aspects - Step Up , Steadfast , Random PD generation, No Autobreak - these are all fantastic changes. Why they wern't just tacked onto the 7th edition rules I don't know. I don't even have a problem with the new charging rules.
But a lot of the problems with 7th were in fact the Army Books- now the problems are in the core rules, that tend to be a lot harder to change.


Yes charge range is abstract, yes magic is abstract, yes there are new power spells and power items. In the end so what? You can find a way around most of these problems, part of playing games is finding ways to over come. So what if high elves get to strike first and reroll hits, that does not make them unstoppable. Work around the problems instead of focusing on the problem. Like a child at a brick wall screaming why wont it come down instead of just stepping around.How well can a low initiative army get around a psun powerscroll?



Its fine to state your disdain and disagree with the system, but when you do rember that leaves you open to critic as well. So do not feel surprised when some one takes offense to your comment and replies back not just at the system but you the reader. I know some will attack what I say here and that's fine, but in doing so address the actual problem and not just what I say.Exactly, I responded to the critism in the manner in which it was given. Constructive and civil arguments are welcome, comments like "Bu@@er off and play something else you whiner!" are not.


The actual problem is, if your so upset by the changes then stop playing go play something else. It might get to that point, at the moment I would still like to try and get some use out of the large amount of time and money I have already invested in my armies.


Life is short why waste it doing things you dislike? Yes I do not like some of the problems 8th has, but I am still a damn sight happier playing 8th than I ever was playing 7th.And thats all well and good for you, and I don't begrudge you your enjoyment either, but not everyone is so happy and quite often people get unfairly and quite offensivly labelled for it too, regardless of whether thier disatisfaction is perfectly legitimate or not.


In 8th there is no problem no tactic no spell I can not figure a way out of for myself. The human mind is the finest machine on this planet, use it to solve the problem with tactical logical thinking before just assuming all is lost.Ok so you are stephen hawkings in a chair in locked room empty of everything except a hungry and angry lion, now think your way out of that one ;) Yes there may be some completely unlikely solution (as completely and unlikely as the scenario) but why have such a rediculous scenario in the first placeis kind of my current feeling towards 8th. I'd much rather poor stephen be a lion tamer with a whip and a chair.

Malorian
07-12-2010, 23:05
Ok so you are stephen hawkings in a chair in locked room empty of everything except a hungry and angry lion, now think your way out of that one.

Isn't that how the lion chariot was invented? :confused:

kardar233
08-12-2010, 00:25
Changed over to Warmachine after a few games of 8th. Haven't looked back.

Idle Scholar
08-12-2010, 00:42
Let's be fair here. I have no hatred for 8th. I just don't get enough fun from it to justify putting all my models out and spending an evening playing.

Maoriboy007
08-12-2010, 01:28
Isn't that how the lion chariot was invented? :confused:

I am fully prepared to bow down at the feet of anyone who will model the Stephen Hawking Lion Chariot :D

scruffyryan
08-12-2010, 03:12
Was "magic" overpowered or were certain armies armybook lores overpowered?

Because looking at the 7th ed basebook, i can't really see a reason to take any of those basebook lores with the current metagame in army building right now.

In fact it seems to me that magic was OP because of peoples MSU building strategies and now that those are gone other than 2 or 3 spells being on the powerful side its actually justified in taking an archmage level character and paying the 300+ points they cost

ChrisIronBrow
08-12-2010, 06:02
I dislike 8th.... a lot but I do not play 7th. My friends and I all play 8th but I have to admit I started playing Warmachine.

This is me exactly... I grit my teeth and play 8th with my friends cause they like it, But I'm playing warmachine for fun, and I've never played warmachine untill 8th drove me off.

freddieyu
08-12-2010, 06:12
My nearby GW has about 1-2 regular Warhammer Fantasy players now, a big drop. Surprising, considering how much I (and a lot of other people) prefer 8th Edition. Apparently, the cost of the Rulebook alone put off players. :cries:

In our FLGS we had 1-2 active WHFB players in 7th ed (it used be at least 10 in 6th ed), to now 8 active players, with around 2-3 more making new armies....The last tourney of 7th (not in our FLGS) had difficulty gathering 6 players, but a recent 8th ed tourney where I officiated had 18 players...if that isn't an indication of the success of 8th ed here then I do not know what is....

fantasypisces
10-12-2010, 20:51
One must read threads like this to truely understand why Warseer has the reputation it does.

I find it strange that many people have cried and moaned about 8th edition, yet fantasy in my area and many others, are now more popular than ever. A poll on warseer doesn't prove anything, other than, "what do people who whine and moan about 8th edition think about 8th edition?"

I've played since 4th, and this so far has been my favorite edition. My last game of 7th probably illustrated every issue that I had with the core rules, some examples being, mandatory scroll caddies, easily being able to stay 1" out of charge range, redundantly guessing range, cavalry > all and unkillable ward+regen.

Now with random charge ranges, you know the "average" charge distance, but you can try for more, or you can be disappointed for less, you actually have to have contingency plans, which I think is great.

The new magic phase is alright, not spectacular, but definitely an improvement on the past. The random dice means you can actually cast spells some times with a level 1/2, and it also means that you aren't always going to get steamrolled without the mandatory scroll caddy.

For a long time veteran, guessing range was completely pointless and all it did was prevent people who had poor depth perception from using artillery.

Lastly, ward+regen... Ugh... Our local Nurgle Daemon player was undefeated in 7th edition, in 8th edition he's actually lost a game, nuff said.

I would just like to say, groups growing is not the norm, if anything, the number of players are still about where they were. For instance, at your LGS and others around people have grown, but in my area they have drastically shrunk in size since 8th was released.

In 7th we ran a ladder tournament that lasted a good month, there was like 14 people that participated. They just now started another one, and only 8 people participated (granted a couple of people moved away, and one was busy with work, but three of us have quit outright, while one person just isn't a big enough fan of the edition to devote every weekend for a month to it). Other people that stayed for the new ladder tournament still played every weekend, but some of them have even admitted they like the new edition less.

We also have one of the best fantasy players in the world (yes I am saying world, for example on his birthday he got good wishes from GW developers on his facebook page) that comes to our store occasionally, and he is trying to get into 40k now (which he previously despised) because he doesn't like the new edition.

So I wouldn't say that people not liking the new edition goes against the standard, I think many people left, but other people joined, so numbers have stayed the same. Naturally, though, GW will look at that and think they had a success, which maybe they do, I'm not sure, just giving the trend in my area.

freddieyu
12-12-2010, 00:45
I would just like to say, groups growing is not the norm, if anything, the number of players are still about where they were. For instance, at your LGS and others around people have grown, but in my area they have drastically shrunk in size since 8th was released.

In 7th we ran a ladder tournament that lasted a good month, there was like 14 people that participated. They just now started another one, and only 8 people participated (granted a couple of people moved away, and one was busy with work, but three of us have quit outright, while one person just isn't a big enough fan of the edition to devote every weekend for a month to it). Other people that stayed for the new ladder tournament still played every weekend, but some of them have even admitted they like the new edition less.

We also have one of the best fantasy players in the world (yes I am saying world, for example on his birthday he got good wishes from GW developers on his facebook page) that comes to our store occasionally, and he is trying to get into 40k now (which he previously despised) because he doesn't like the new edition.

So I wouldn't say that people not liking the new edition goes against the standard, I think many people left, but other people joined, so numbers have stayed the same. Naturally, though, GW will look at that and think they had a success, which maybe they do, I'm not sure, just giving the trend in my area.

Well he WAS the best player in pre 8th ed WHFB....8th ed is a new game altogether....which is the root cause of all this "ruckus"

pkain762
13-12-2010, 07:46
people say that in 8th, charging and flank and rear charges doesn't mean a whole lot.....

I don't think you can say that at all.... a flank charge from a cavalry unit or a monster will eat a steadfast unit....

Cavalry shouldn't be able to beat an infantry unit in the front

to tell the truth though, i'm tired of these 8th is better or 7th is better threads

live and let live

Lord Solar Plexus
13-12-2010, 09:43
I gave it all up although to be honest, that had more to do with me being a most horrible player and less with the edition as such.

freddieyu
13-12-2010, 09:51
people say that in 8th, charging and flank and rear charges doesn't mean a whole lot.....

I don't think you can say that at all.... a flank charge from a cavalry unit or a monster will eat a steadfast unit....

Cavalry shouldn't be able to beat an infantry unit in the front

to tell the truth though, i'm tired of these 8th is better or 7th is better threads

live and let live

I think this will go on until such time we get a bunch of 8th ed army books out....

brynolf
13-12-2010, 15:54
8th. I enjoy the slaughter.