PDA

View Full Version : 8th VS 7th



theorox
15-01-2011, 14:56
So what do people think? I saw this mentioned in several threads, some were arguing that in the statistics, 8th always seem to win. Others argued that they haven't seen that and it was only heresay.

I personally prefer 8th edition. :)

Please, no ahte in this thread. I'd like to keep it civil.

Theo

RMacDeezy
15-01-2011, 15:01
maybe include a 4th option of "an amalgation of both would be the best version of warhammer yet"?

theorox
15-01-2011, 15:04
maybe include a 4th option of "an amalgation of both would be the best version of warhammer yet"?

That's a good idea, but since i'm only trying to find out the statistics it wouldn't matter. ;)

I would like some things to change back to 7th, however. The MR and Skirmisher rules mostly.

Theo

Tymell
15-01-2011, 15:13
I like 8th better myself. There are some changes I'm less keen on, but for the most part I like the things it emphasised and I feel most of the things that need changing now stem more from the army books than the core rules.

Razakel
15-01-2011, 15:58
I prefer 8th, improvements can be made, but I feel like this was an improvement on 7th.

The bearded one
15-01-2011, 16:02
I am really digging 8th. Certainly things should be tweaked and I cannot understand how those made it past the testing phase, but I think it is a vast improvement.

do all their testplayers "play for fun" with sub-optimal lists or do they just go: Wow, you purple sunned 3/4 of my ogres in turn 1.... That is so COOL!! All warhammer players are gonna love this!

Kudzu
15-01-2011, 16:12
I like them both, but I really miss having a movement phase that mattered.

The bearded one
15-01-2011, 16:23
I like them both, but I really miss having a movement phase that mattered.

I still have one, have you tried looking behind the cough?

Freakiq
15-01-2011, 17:15
8th by far.

They changed the game exactly like I hoped they would.

There are a few issues but they are minor and can be managed through the army books.

Razakel
15-01-2011, 17:33
Good thread btw, I'm very interested in checking in on it every few hours to see what people think.

kyussinchains
15-01-2011, 19:07
I intensely dislike the vast amount of mysterious terrain in the game.... adding more rules to remember just detracts from the fun of things.....

I liked 7th, and 8th is passable, but they're both a long way from perfect.....

theorox
15-01-2011, 19:25
I want more votes! :D Keep them coming guys. So far about 21% say that 7th was better. I will be really interested to see what the numbers are if we reach like 100 or possibly even more!

Theo

madden
15-01-2011, 20:35
8th for sure an improvement in all areas for me esspecily movement and cannon (I've no depth perception one eye out) so far I've not cone across the power build magic and I play dwarfs so now I can charge and still kill things big thumbs up from me.

DaemonReign
15-01-2011, 21:13
I voted for 8th.

Only reason: Increased balance!!

Other than that, most of the stuff I like with 8th Ed probably seems funnier simply 'cause it's new. Like the horde-rule, like random-charging, like the new spells..

Only "real" gripe I have is really on a philosophical level: magic phase doesn't scale.

mrtn
16-01-2011, 02:09
I prefer 8th as well. At the moment the numbers are close to the ones in this old thread (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272838), which argues that people feel about the same about it as back in August.

Crube
16-01-2011, 02:16
Prefer 7th, by far... for me, magic was more balanced, it was less 'buy more toys' than 8th (with the intro of horde etc), Skirmishers mattered, armies played more differently from each other, and there was no Blimmin random charge distances (grrrr!!!!)

Actually, since playing a few games of 8th (not as many as some of you granted, but a few), with a similar Win/loss record to 7th, I'm just not having fun anymore, and my grand plan for WFB has been shelved until possibly 9th edition. Sad.

freddieyu
16-01-2011, 02:22
Again? This is the umpteenth thread of 7th vs 8th. 8th has always won by a large margin, because its more fun!

Rest in peace 7th ed!

pointyteeth
16-01-2011, 04:38
I voted doesn't matter because like it or not (in my case, kind of not) 8th is here and 7th isn't. And before anyone says "play 7th", my group and I are tourney players, so 8th is what is being played.

Sparowl
16-01-2011, 06:16
That's a good idea, but since i'm only trying to find out the statistics it wouldn't matter. ;)

A self-selecting poll in a community with a spectrum bias? Well, you won't be finding any statistics here.

There's really no good scientific way to go about this, and quoting numbers out of this thread won't really prove anything.

Sorry. I'm not trying to be mean, just pointing out the flaws in this.

autarch dsaliuvid
16-01-2011, 06:39
I still miss 4th ed :cries::cries::cries:

Lordy
16-01-2011, 07:24
7th for me, just felt like a lot more solid, 8th just seems like they through something together and stuck with it.
Hate all the randomness in 8th.

That said i would like to play 7th with step up from 8th though. The main issues with 7th were certain army books, not the core rules.

8th is still good though :)

Tarax
16-01-2011, 08:27
They changed a lot of rules that didn't need changing. They tried to balance army book creep with new rules to benefit the 'weaker' armies, but didn't, as the other armies also benefitted.

I'm houseruling 7th.

Alathir
16-01-2011, 08:32
8th edition for me, by a fair margin actually. I only started playing at 6th but this is the most exciting of all the versions thus far I think. Plus, to me, this edition feels more like how battles in the warhammer world would go down.

plantagenet
16-01-2011, 09:19
Yes 8th for me as well. I never liked the mechanic in all the previous versions whereby 5 guys could charge a unit of 25 and as long as the 5 guys killed the front rank the enemy didn't get to strike back. Just seemed something more suited to skirmish game than an army one.

I have always had a love hate relationship with magic. Sometimes it dd nothing others it seemed to wipe me or my opponent out. This isn't really any different now dwellers is good but gateway and curse of years were always very powerful against large units as well.

As others have said in other posts 7th appealed to the matrix gamer who perfectly balanced every mm and every angle to batter the opponents with the rules of the game but most of the time it never felt like you were recreating a battle just being battered with the book. Dont get me wrong I liked 7th just 8th is a more positive game that rewards more aggressive players in my personal opinion. I also believe that it will prove in the long term to be as good if not better in tournaments than 7th.

I just hope the last 6 months results show GW that it is army books combined with models that drives enthusiasm and they can't afford an 8th month gap between army books. Looking forward to the Orcs and our first insights into an 8th army book

Little Joe
16-01-2011, 09:47
I will vote 7th, it was more finished. I like 8th but is feels like a great concept put together by a bunch of apes. To many loose ends and stupid rules/spells, but since 7th was the improvement of 6th so I hope 9th will take care of 8th.

luntan
16-01-2011, 10:05
I voted 7th. Much things has been better in 8th but I donīt like the new chargerules and the new warmachineshooting is a joke. Like it is now the army with most warmachines win. In my gaminggroup the armies with no warmachines have have only won 2-3 games and the rest has been won by the warmachines.
Last game half my army was gone in the second turn and my opponent had "only" 2 mortars. All shoots from these warmachines kills more points then it cost. GW realy needs to look over warmacines, they need to cost around 200 points more as it is now. They would still make their points back.

theorox
16-01-2011, 10:18
A self-selecting poll in a community with a spectrum bias? Well, you won't be finding any statistics here.

There's really no good scientific way to go about this, and quoting numbers out of this thread won't really prove anything.

Sorry. I'm not trying to be mean, just pointing out the flaws in this.

If i needed global statistics, i would have spammed a pollto the entire world. :shifty:

I'm basically trying to see how many people on here like 8th, as i see a lot more ney-saying (No offense Ney! :D) than yey-saying. This poll is proving to me what most of yoiu already knew, that a fer of the ney-sayers splurt out many more arguments than all of the yay-sayers together.

Also, the other threads have been mostly "do you like it this much, this much or this much?", while this is straight-down 8th is better, 7th is better or it doesn't matter.

Theo

Glasscannon
16-01-2011, 10:38
8th edition gets my vote while I understand alot of tourny players and hardcore players being a bit annoyed with some of the randomness, people like me who are just in it for a big scrap are having a ball.
Warmachines are indeed very nasty this edition but 275 point mortars is quite possibly the most idiotic suggestion ive seen in a long while.
An overly War machine heavy army will cause issues but the average army has 3 or less which is manageable as long as your list is decently rounded.
For 2 mortars to kill half your army in 2 turns the following needs to happen:

- use an elven army
- elect not to have a bsb in the center of your lines
- use no defensive magic
- have a small number of large combat blocks
- have no war machine hunters
- lost turn 1 (likely but is a factor)
- have your opponent score 4 direct hits in a row (not hugely likely)

there are other factors but all in all the problem can be mitigated significantly with a properly balanced list.

luntan
16-01-2011, 11:06
8th edition gets my vote while I understand alot of tourny players and hardcore players being a bit annoyed with some of the randomness, people like me who are just in it for a big scrap are having a ball.
Warmachines are indeed very nasty this edition but 275 point mortars is quite possibly the most idiotic suggestion ive seen in a long while.
An overly War machine heavy army will cause issues but the average army has 3 or less which is manageable as long as your list is decently rounded.
For 2 mortars to kill half your army in 2 turns the following needs to happen:

- use an elven army
- elect not to have a bsb in the center of your lines
- use no defensive magic
- have a small number of large combat blocks
- have no war machine hunters
- lost turn 1 (likely but is a factor)
- have your opponent score 4 direct hits in a row (not hugely likely)

there are other factors but all in all the problem can be mitigated significantly with a properly balanced list.

Out of the things you said this ones are true:
- use an elven army (Yes)
- elect not to have a bsb in the center of your lines (Hade one, no units fled)
- use no defensive magic (Had defence magic thet were dispelled)
- have a small number of large combat blocks (had sereral larger, but a direct hit makes all models hit)
- have no war machine hunters (had hunters, 2 eagles but he stood so I couldent charge in second turn)
- lost turn 1 (Yes I went second)
- have your opponent score 4 direct hits in a row (not hugely likely) (3 direct hits)

Half my army (models not points) were killed in these first 2 turns. Have happend severals times for different armies and players here. His 2 Mortars killed in the 2 rounds of play for around 300-400p each so 275p for a warmachine that usualy kills around 400-500p in a game is not a high price to pay.

Archaon999
16-01-2011, 11:14
I like 8th ed more. Chariots not being instant killed, magic, 40mm base creatures, charging and list continues.

ok some things suck like fire magic and others, terrain and skirmish rules but overall i think 8th edition is better

Haravikk
16-01-2011, 11:23
I still don't like 8th's magic phase, but at least it isn't 7th's magic phase.
Otherwise I love everything else, lots of simplification, lots more manoeuvring, lots more infantry actually fighting each other rather one round combats ending in a unit being run down.

DeeKay
16-01-2011, 11:33
As with anything, there are good and bad points for both.

In 7th, the movement phase really mattered and clever manouvering was the order of the day. However, because movement was so important, cavalry and faster infantry were too. Slower troops were constantly struggling to counter them.

In terms of magic, 8th Ed solved some problems like the armies that used lots of wizards to completely shut down an opponent magically. 8th Ed also introduced problems of its own, such as spells that can wipe out entire units at once. Only Daemons of Chaos onwards could manage that in 7th.

Shooting was altered from 7th to 8th in ways I can apprecaite, but ways I hate. Guessing the range of a weapon in 7th gave an advantage to players who were more experienced in their use. Indeed I have heard stories of people measuring body parts and leaning on the table to get a more accurate guess. However, with the introduction of pre-measuring from any point, players may as well measure 6-8 inches away from the target and say that is where the cannonball is going. IMO that sucks, but for now, I can't think of a better alternative.

Combat is one of my biggest bugbears. With the introduction of Steadfast and the Horde rules, Skaven Slaves (or indeed Clanrats) will almost always count as Ld 10. Granted, units can fight back rather than relying on the unit champion to kill stuff after his buddies die, but the Steadfast/Horde thing feels as though it was put in there purely to assist sales rather than to improve the game. My opinion of that won't change (even after several considered debates with mates) so please don't try and argue it with me.

In all, if allowed to be, 8th Ed can be a fun game despite its flaws. However I am not that forgiving of incompetent rules design. 7th Ed wasn't bad (never said it was perfect) but along came Mat Ward and he broke it with Daemons. It went downhill from there IMO.

With regards,
Dan.

PurpleSun
16-01-2011, 11:45
I like 8th a lot better than 7th, and a few tweaks would change it from good to excellent:

* Charge distance should be double movement plus d6 inches. Still fight in initiative order.
* Skirmishers movement should not have changed. Keep march and shoot for skirmish missile units.
* Magic resistance should add to characteristics values for spells like Purple Sun or Dwellers (Initiative 3 with MR(2) would equal Initiative 5 against Purple Sun)
* Get rid of power scroll
* Make warmachines a little less powerful.
* Cavalry gets ranks 4 wide, Brets still 3 wide.
**** Get more 8th ed army books published.

Those few changes would make 8th great as far as I see it.

mrtn
16-01-2011, 13:10
Warmachines are indeed very nasty this edition but 275 point mortars is quite possibly the most idiotic suggestion ive seen in a long while.

The Beastmen have a 275 point stone thrower. ;)

KidDiscordia
16-01-2011, 14:37
Even as a limited tournament player I liked 7th better even with it flaws, because most of the flaws came from poor Army Book design. To bad the same fools who wrote them are the same one who wrote 8th and its cobbled together mess.

static grass
16-01-2011, 14:52
I think that 8th is better because it is more fun. Combats tend to be more brutal yet with stedfast you tend to spend more time fighting being able to reform after a round of combat is very nice.

I think that 8th editions problems are more clearly defined than 7th edition. If you dont like power scrolls/mysterious terrain/whatever then ban them from your group.

Fighting in buildings remains a big issue though and I would like to see more rules for that.

The bearded one
16-01-2011, 15:00
as 7th was a tweaked 6th edition, 9th might be a tweaked 8th edition.

Just hold on for 5 or so more years ;) Waiting isn't that bad. Just ask the tomb king/wood elf/bretonnian/ogre players.

dimetri1
16-01-2011, 18:09
After 60 or so games I really dislike 8th.
I played with four gaming groups in an eighty mile radius. Three of these groups do not play WHFB anymore. Out of five LGS run tournaments four were canceled due to lack of interest and the fifth only had six players show up.At the last con in this area the WHFB attendance was half what it normally was. I have stopped playing 8th because I feel it is a terrible rules set. I have taken up WARMACHINE which I find to be a far superior game system.

Tymell
16-01-2011, 18:46
The "Everyone I know has stopped playing Warhammer because of the new ruleset/army book" posts do seem to come up with every new army book and game edition :p

dimetri1
16-01-2011, 19:18
The "Everyone I know has stopped playing Warhammer because of the new ruleset/army book" posts do seem to come up with every new army book and game edition :p

It was not everyone just three out of four groups That I played with. The other is still going strong. Two groups still play FOW, the third has merged with a group that plays WARMACHINE. Tacticon had a dismal turn out of 18 players which went to 17 after one dropped out after the first round. Gamers Haven can not even get anyone to show up for their events. Valhalla's did have a tournament but only six people showed up. Their Tuesday night group is non existent. The group at Stonbridge is still together and they're having a tournament next Friday I believe. Out of the groups that I played with at least 10 of us are not going to Genghis Con. So no, not everybody. Just a large percentage.

DaemonReign
16-01-2011, 19:36
I voted 7th. Much things has been better in 8th but I donīt like the new chargerules and the new warmachineshooting is a joke. Like it is now the army with most warmachines win. In my gaminggroup the armies with no warmachines have have only won 2-3 games and the rest has been won by the warmachines.
Last game half my army was gone in the second turn and my opponent had "only" 2 mortars. All shoots from these warmachines kills more points then it cost. GW realy needs to look over warmacines, they need to cost around 200 points more as it is now. They would still make their points back.

Just to give you a counter perspective:

In our group we frequently face an Empire list with 4 mortars, hellblasters, great cannons, outriders, and so on.. We haven't gotten the feeling it's an impossible set-up to beat at all.

As far as the Empire is concerned I personally feel that the Popemobile, all those dispel-dice, not to mention multiples of Stanks, are far greater threats than Warmachines.

I agree that the abolishing of guessing might be a bit extreme.. maybe not very thought-through.. but you guys must have had some wierdly tilted statistical circumstances in order for Warmachines to dominate in that way.

We've hardly even noticed them..

BEEGfrog
16-01-2011, 19:38
Changes in rulesets trigger people to leave the hobby because any change tends to trigger further change. Some will leave forever, some will return in months, others decades. Quite often it is a healthy renewal as others will be encouraged to start or people take a fresh look at the hobby and climb out of their ruts.

Razakel
16-01-2011, 19:45
In 8th I have a feeling that the following happened:

1) Add in Steadfast to increase the size and power of infantry units
2) Change combat rules to solidify the above (Step-up etc)
3) In order to make these large units killable, add in spells that target entire units, or cause massive damage to them, Purple Sun and Pit of Shades for example.
4) Remove guess ranging in order to solidify the above, and make template War Machines more effective

Many of the problems people have in 8th actually sound fine in theory when you consider how everything meshes together, I think more playtesting could have solved a lot of these problems.

Having said all that, I still voted for 8th, the added random elements have made the game more interesting, you can argue less competitive but random charging removed the tendency of people to march for two turns, then shuffle and begin to pray that they're just barely within the 8" charge distance.

8th edition will be a good building block, and I eagerly anticipate the upcoming Orcs & Goblins book, after that's released we will have a much clearer picture of what 8th is all about :)

The bearded one
16-01-2011, 19:47
After 8th edition was released fantasy activity tripled here.

In my local GW we have gaming nights on Thursdays and Fridays ( the store is open 'till 21:00 then, so then we all come in for games ) and Thursdays used to be dominated by 40K, Fridays mostly fantasy was played and often 40K as well. Understand that it's a relatively small store though. There is enough room to put down 3 tables of 4 'realm of battle' plates ( or 2 of 2x3, which we usually do ). 4 people tend to gaming on an average night.
8th edition rolled in and 4 people ( the regular group that was usually present every week ) all started fantasy armies or dusted off their old ones and we are now regularly playing fantasy games of 2500 pts on Thursdays ánd Fridays.

After kicking so much asses with my dwarfs I'm getting in the mood to finally start up 4K and finish my Tau which I had lying around for 2 years or so. Also a good thing Grey knights are on the doorstep, because that's so few models it's just funny. Mind you I've been playing nothing but fantasy for about 4 years now so it's time for something else anyway, not "because 8th edition is boring" or anything.

AlphaLegionMarine
16-01-2011, 19:58
Fantasy has increased here, and I am bailing from Warmachine to Fantasy. I like the Fantasy ruleset and the idea that I may have to handle a max of 15 units in a 3k point game, and the battle looks good on the table. I have had way to many arguments overrules with WAAC players in Warmachine for me to continue with that game (and ironically I won the games that I had heated arguments in).

I do understand that people do not like to lose on turn 1 or 2 in this game, and would prefer a longer drawn out battle. In Warmachine with Magnus, I could win incredibly quickly by dropping 2 Renegade rockets on my opponent, and I remember my opponent in a tournament being pretty disappointed I did that in turn 2(I was an assassin type player and he was a slaughter type player and he didnt get to kill a single thing of mine). The thing some of the Warmachine players don't understand is in order to be successful in that game you have to memorize every unit in the game to understand what you have coming at you. Yes, you can ask for the card, but in today's timed Warmachine environment I find it no longer fun and reading a card quickly gets challenging. Not to mention the whole is it boxed or removed from play and other rules issues that permeate the game even in Mark 2.

Warhammer has gone the fun route, not the tournament route. They say make up your own battles, combine your armies(with the ally rules), enjoy the game. It is more important that you and your opponent have fun than just pulling out a victory.

I understand that there are some things that need to be tweaked, and I think some of the suggestions here would help, but 8th is the better game system as WHFB is not Hero oriented or small unit oriented, I love that I have a 40 man regiment of Halberdiers and 20 man regiments of Dark Elf Crossbowmen!

dimetri1
16-01-2011, 20:02
Changes in rulesets trigger people to leave the hobby because any change tends to trigger further change. Some will leave forever, some will return in months, others decades. Quite often it is a healthy renewal as others will be encouraged to start or people take a fresh look at the hobby and climb out of their ruts.

I did not leave 5th, 6th or 7th. I did not leave FOW when the second version came out. I did not leave Napoleons Battles when new rules came out. I just do not like 8th edition. The people that are having fun with it, more power to them. I did not quit on a whim. I dove into 8th with both feet. Purchased the BRB, all of the new gadgets and a new Dwarf army. Played 2-5 games a week from the time the LGS's received their store copy. 8th just does not do it for me. Plus I have found WARMACHINE to be a far superior game.

The bearded one
16-01-2011, 20:44
I play for fun, so I don't mind some of it being random and the massive casualty rate ;)
I still reliably win almost every game though, and my armies are labelled as being a 'friendly build' by my opponents.

wizbix
16-01-2011, 21:01
That's a good idea, but since i'm only trying to find out the statistics it wouldn't matter. ;)

I would like some things to change back to 7th, however. The MR and Skirmisher rules mostly.

Theo

A 4th choice would have been good: "It doesnt matter what edition I am playing, I am a Green skin player and thats 'da best way ter be!'"

I'm sure you'd go for that one theo, wouldnt you?

Tymell
16-01-2011, 21:13
A 4th choice would have been good: "It doesnt matter what edition I am playing, I am a Green skin player and thats 'da best way ter be!'"

Da lad speaks da troof!

R Man
16-01-2011, 22:36
I think the biggest problem with 8th, is only that the books have not yet started to be updated.

If they could actually get on and release some then we might get a good idea where it is going.

Nevertheless, I am still firmly in favour of 8th over 7th.

freddieyu
17-01-2011, 00:11
Again, the polls show similar results to previous ones....

Hope these 7th vs 8th polls stop, and people just PLAY...

theorox
17-01-2011, 08:38
I think the biggest problem with 8th, is only that the books have not yet started to be updated.

If they could actually get on and release some then we might get a good idea where it is going.

Nevertheless, I am still firmly in favour of 8th over 7th.

This post plus one. :)

@Wizbix: Yeah, sure, but we'd have 80% of people voting for that, so any statistics (Faulty ones, blahblah) would have been lost! :D

Theo

LordFulgrim
17-01-2011, 11:28
I only have four complaints about 8th which is pretty good so I voted for 8th. I hardly played Fantasy in its 7th incarnation. One of my biggets gripes is also the lack of updates and some armies being left behind. My VC are collecting dust right now which kind of fits the army but eh...so are my 40K armies right now.

wizbix
17-01-2011, 15:16
This post plus one. :)

@Wizbix: Yeah, sure, but we'd have 80% of people voting for that, so any statistics (Faulty ones, blahblah) would have been lost! :D

Theo

Yeah but it would have been a victory for Gork or was it Mork? and far better to settle this argument with a choppa or two than with a poll, at least thats what Grokt da-Clubber would 'av said if I had asked im!

Slayerthane
17-01-2011, 15:19
Neither, 6th edition was better. 7th was unbalanced, and 8th leads to boring armies with big blocks of infantry because nothing else has any staying power. At least in 6th, you could have a variety of army types and flavors and they would all be competitive. I don't like the way GW is heading with 8th from what I've seen, but I've really started to get into Warmachine which is by far a much better gaming system IMHO. It's like comparing chess (WM) with checkers (WHFB).

scarletsquig
17-01-2011, 18:56
8th is better than 7th, but I preferred 6th.

DeathlessDraich
17-01-2011, 19:27
As with anything, there are good and bad points for both.

In 7th, the movement phase really mattered and clever manouvering was the order of the day. However, because movement was so important, cavalry and faster infantry were too. Slower troops were constantly struggling to counter them.

In terms of magic, 8th Ed solved some problems like the armies that used lots of wizards to completely shut down an opponent magically. 8th Ed also introduced problems of its own, such as spells that can wipe out entire units at once. Only Daemons of Chaos onwards could manage that in 7th.

Shooting was altered from 7th to 8th in ways I can apprecaite, but ways I hate. Guessing the range of a weapon in 7th gave an advantage to players who were more experienced in their use. Indeed I have heard stories of people measuring body parts and leaning on the table to get a more accurate guess. However, with the introduction of pre-measuring from any point, players may as well measure 6-8 inches away from the target and say that is where the cannonball is going. IMO that sucks, but for now, I can't think of a better alternative.

Combat is one of my biggest bugbears. With the introduction of Steadfast and the Horde rules, Skaven Slaves (or indeed Clanrats) will almost always count as Ld 10. Granted, units can fight back rather than relying on the unit champion to kill stuff after his buddies die, but the Steadfast/Horde thing feels as though it was put in there purely to assist sales rather than to improve the game. My opinion of that won't change (even after several considered debates with mates) so please don't try and argue it with me.

In all, if allowed to be, 8th Ed can be a fun game despite its flaws. However I am not that forgiving of incompetent rules design. 7th Ed wasn't bad (never said it was perfect) but along came Mat Ward and he broke it with Daemons. It went downhill from there IMO.

With regards,
Dan.

Haven't voted yet but this is a very good assessment and I agree with nearly all the points you raised


Again, the polls show similar results to previous ones....

Hope these 7th vs 8th polls stop, and people just PLAY...

Going from 4th to 5th to 6th to 7th - there has not been as much discontent altogether as going from 7th to 8th.





Neither, 6th edition was better. 7th was unbalanced, and 8th leads to boring armies with big blocks of infantry because nothing else has any staying power. At least in 6th, you could have a variety of army types and flavors and they would all be competitive. I don't like the way GW is heading with 8th from what I've seen, but I've really started to get into Warmachine which is by far a much better gaming system IMHO. It's like comparing chess (WM) with checkers (WHFB).


8th is better than 7th, but I preferred 6th.

This I find very odd since 6th is much closer to 7th while 8th is essentially more different

Keller
17-01-2011, 19:57
From my limited experience with 8th, I much prefer it to 7th. I think this edition has made the game more enjoyable to casual gamers, such as myself, where as you can be open and, for lack of a better word, more careless in your posititioning. No more spending extra time trying to get distances exact, or calculating ranges based on previous measurements minus expected moves, etc. The game just seems faster and friendlier.

In terms of combats and such, I will recuse myself from that for the time being until I have more games under my belt in this edition.

Haravikk
17-01-2011, 21:32
This I find very odd since 6th is much closer to 7th while 8th is essentially more different
Me too, but I think what most people mean is "7th edition with 7th edition armies". The differences between 6th and 7th core rules wise wasn't that huge I don't think, but a lot of the armies that were updated for 7th changed quite a bit.

8th is a different style certainly, but I'm hoping that as we start to see 8th edition armies arrive then special rules in their books will make more unusual units (that don't quite fit the infantry-block warfare even as supporting units) competitive again and things will get better.
I think that it's good that 8th has felt free to do something different, as while 6th seemed better, it took 8th to highlight what was wrong with the way we were all used to playing at the time. Has it got it right? Of course not, but it's an interesting step in an interesting direction :)

Glen_Savet
17-01-2011, 21:56
Going from 4th to 5th to 6th to 7th - there has not been as much discontent altogether as going from 7th to 8th.




That's also probably because there was far less folks on the internet at those points.

DaemonReign
17-01-2011, 21:56
players may as well measure 6-8 inches away from the target and say that is where the cannonball is going.

*lol*

Isn't that exactly what everyone is doing?

Good summary as far as the rest goes. I just thought this particular reflection was humorous.

Zoring
18-01-2011, 02:33
Interesting to see that almost all the posts are saying '7th ed is much better rar!' yet the polls show 8th far ahead :P

Psygon
18-01-2011, 03:23
I like 8th because its more involved than RISK (which is why I play WHFB in the first place) but it has some moments that break the tension of competitive play in such a way that the only response is to laugh. I focus enough as it is on schoolwork, I don't need my occasional warhammer game to feel as if it is sucking the fun out of me. Certainly revitalized list building for me, for sure, and made me actually like my bretonnians and beastmen.

someone2040
18-01-2011, 04:13
I keep to the oppinion that overall, I like 8th more than 7th, which was getting stale. But a combination between the two would be best.
I don't mean necessarily for things like reverting entire rules back to 7th. Just hybridising the rules together.

For example, Steadfast. Change it back to old Stubborn Unmodified leadership (ala 7th edition). Stops unbreakable Slave formations (They should still get SIN I think, but shouldn't get stuff like generals leadership).

Skirmishers people cry about all the time. But the fixed formations is actually a GOOD thing 8th edition introduced. You don't get conga lines and odd formations anymore, you don't get charges turning at right angles because the closest model in the unit isn't logically where the 'centre' of the unit is. Everyone should be able to shoot also (like 7th edition).
Combat skirmishers isn't a problem with the Skirmisher rules, if you introduced the combat changes to 7th edition, combat skirmishers would still be crap due to steadfast and stepping up.

But yeah, a hybrid of the two versions. 8th has many many good ideas and thoughts behind it, but went too far in certain cases.

freddieyu
18-01-2011, 04:24
Interesting to see that almost all the posts are saying '7th ed is much better rar!' yet the polls show 8th far ahead :P

Content and satisfied people rarely complain...

Ironmonger
18-01-2011, 04:41
There's no option for 'Voting in yet another 7th vs 8th ed poll is fun!'

I'd vote in that poll...

Zilverug
18-01-2011, 09:16
I would like some things to change back to 7th, however. The MR and Skirmisher rules mostly.

I agree on MR. The only thing I'd love to do to the skirmishers is give them 360 degrees LOS again.

In addition, I'd return proper line of sight rules and the double 1 miscast instead of the current double 6 combination of irresistable force and miscast.

theorox
18-01-2011, 10:23
There's no option for 'Voting in yet another 7th vs 8th ed poll is fun!'

I'd vote in that poll...

Thanks, i appreciate your sarcasm. ;)

Theo

Haravikk
18-01-2011, 11:42
I agree on MR.
I actually prefer MR in 8th as it better represents resisting the effect of magic, rather than preventing it from being cast. The main problem is that it does absolutely nothing on account of it only working on damaging spells, and most of those ignoring Ward Saves for some inexplicable reason.


The only thing I'd love to do to the skirmishers is give them 360 degrees LOS again.
I think that would add back one of the main problems with them. Charging and manoeuvring is very easy under 8th edition so there's little need for 360š line of sight. I really like the way skirmishers are now, as they're simpler, and not as overpowered as they were under 7th. Of course it means that a number of units are now over-costed, but that's for armies books to fix.

Kal Taron
18-01-2011, 13:52
I agree on MR. The only thing I'd love to do to the skirmishers is give them 360 degrees LOS again.

In addition, I'd return proper line of sight rules and the double 1 miscast instead of the current double 6 combination of irresistable force and miscast.

Another Hotfix would be to allow them a free reform at the beginning of the turn. The problem currently is that ranged skirmishers are still quite good but the CC oriented ones are a bit meh.

Rogue
18-01-2011, 17:26
Personally I wished for an option for 6th edition. The army books were not nearly as broken during that issue which was the problem for the 7th edition in my mind, and I liked the Basic Rules better than what we have for the 8th. I could have lived without the changes in the 7th edition basic rules as well. What I did choose was 7th more as a lesser of two evils rather than my preferance.

Skalfgrimm
18-01-2011, 18:17
The prospect of playing a game of Warhammer 8th is about as exciting as the prospect of doing my laundry, but the latter actually accomplishes something.

To be fair Iīll add that I would not want to play another game of 7th either. The armybooks killed that game for me.

I see no remarkable difference between 7th and 8th in terms of complexity of game play or tactical depth. Both are clunky rulesets with too many rules and too little actual gameplay, but 8th has a more frillyand kitschy dress.

freddieyu
18-01-2011, 20:54
The prospect of playing a game of Warhammer 8th is about as exciting as the prospect of doing my laundry, but the latter actually accomplishes something.

To be fair Iīll add that I would not want to play another game of 7th either. The armybooks killed that game for me.

I see no remarkable difference between 7th and 8th in terms of complexity of game play or tactical depth. Both are clunky rulesets with too many rules and too little actual gameplay, but 8th has a more frillyand kitschy dress.

Your issue is with WHFB in general then....if the game is not for you then it's not for you whatever the edition is...

Stinkfoot
18-01-2011, 21:36
There are a lot of things to like about 8th - I like the focus on infantry, the usefulness of combined arms forces relative to 7th edition. Magic though... Magic kills 8th for me. Magic is absurdly powerful in 8th edition. I've seen games won in just the magic phase. Some 7th edition holdover casters, such as the Slann, are plainly obscene. Perhaps some of my gripes with magic will pass once all the armies have 8th edition army books, but at the moment I think I prefer 7th edition due to the ridiculousness of 8th edition magic.

scruffyryan
18-01-2011, 21:45
There are a lot of things to like about 8th - I like the focus on infantry, the usefulness of combined arms forces relative to 7th edition. Magic though... Magic kills 8th for me. Magic is absurdly powerful in 8th edition. I've seen games won in just the magic phase. Some 7th edition holdover casters, such as the Slann, are plainly obscene. Perhaps some of my gripes with magic will pass once all the armies have 8th edition army books, but at the moment I think I prefer 7th edition due to the ridiculousness of 8th edition magic.

Why is it ok to win the game in the shooting phase, or the close combat phase but not ok to win the game in the magic phase?

The bearded one
18-01-2011, 21:48
In the magic phase you tend to win due to a single spell. The shooting/combat phases require the majority of your army.

Haravikk
18-01-2011, 21:57
Why is it ok to win the game in the shooting phase, or the close combat phase but not ok to win the game in the magic phase?
Because the Magic Phase is far more random. Shooting is a roll to hit, and a roll to wound, and maybe a roll to save. Magic is a roll for spells, a roll for winds of magic, a roll to cast, a roll to dispel, followed by some more rolls for hits/wounds/saves.
Most of the time it sort of averages out, but sometimes games will turn because a player spent 400+ points of wizards that decide to do nothing at all, or someone who only took a level 1 wizard gets lucky and blasts one or more units into pieces single handed.

At least when the dice rolls are bad with shooting or combat it's within a reasonable degree and manageable. Magic can easily ruin a game when it goes wrong.

Skalfgrimm
18-01-2011, 21:59
Your issue is with WHFB in general then....if the game is not for you then it's not for you whatever the edition is...
True. But it was once, back when 7th started. Thatīs the point. The design philosophy changed. Compare the armybooks written directly after 7th came out (orcs and goblins as a prime example) to what came after High Elves. "Kitchen sink" approach sums it up nicely.

In 8th we see that design philosophy applied to the BRB. Some like it, I donīt.

I would have loved to see Alessio Cavatoreīs "less is more"-design approach applied to WHFB.

scruffyryan
18-01-2011, 22:05
Alternately you can fail your look out sir vs something like a warp lightning cannon, or cannon ball shot, for less points and lose your general just as hard with less available options for stopping it. He can also eat a killing blow in close combat.

A skaven can pieplate a doom rocket onto your main unit and you can lose almost all of it. That's happened to me at least twice, given that even a cursory knowledge of dice averages + pre measuring makes that weapon insanely accurate. Mortars can do nearly the same thing with a hit on turn 1

I'm not denying dwellers shouldnt have a LOS option, im just denying that it's as unbelievably problematic as everyone seems to think. Throwing 6 dice does not automatically equal double sixes, and yeah, the powerscroll is problematic too, but mainly i just notice people tend to not run scroll caddies anymore. I also dispute your requires a majority of your army. If you mean that a single spell can be as devastating as a bad round of close combat can i would dispute that as while there are many spells that can half the size of a unit, there really aren't that many that can reliably completely remove any unit of say 25 models, which is pretty middling sized for this edition. whereas a bad die roll or 2 in close combat can pretty easily lead to your entire unit disappearing.

If you're referring to the loss of a general/bsb whatever, again, i point to a lucky cannon shot/killing blow is just as "game ending" as a failed stat test in the magic phase.

Fishslapper
18-01-2011, 22:33
I didn't play 7th, due to having stopped playing for a few years. But in comparison to how I remember 6th (and not entirely well):

- Magic is very very strong in this game. As someone who came back and didn't really want to take magic, it is really a must. I've played a few games and although I play for fun and not wins (although the more I lose the more I want to win!).
- Armies are very homogenous nowadays as people usually take similar things, while the old game was a bit more varied in terms of what you could play. But that could just be me playing more competitive people.

- I like the Horde rule. It does give the game a nicer feel as you see nice massive armies with legions of troops as compared to some scattered troops around the battlefield.
- I like combat now too, it feels more flowing in comparison to what I used to play.

But I've not played a huge amount, every change brings its advantages and disadvantages though and I think it's a different style of game that needs to be improved mainly through army books. If they are remade to be interesting and full of different playing styles then I think it'll be a massive improvement.

As for the discussion, there are always people complaining every time there is change because sometimes they find it just annoying to get used to it. Some move but others come back. It's the same as anything, Facebook profile changes or whatever always get people in a mood. I just try to enjoy whatever there is! :P

Gromdal
19-01-2011, 08:26
8th is a huge upgrade. I said many years ago (back when 7th first arrived) that they needed to fix a few huge problems:

Among them:
Fix the rules, make em more simple and faster (new movement rules helps alot here)
More focus on actual combat instead of jst breaktests and run down enemies (auto fear break change, ld stubborn when ranked, more attacks.
Make infantry and standard troops alot more important and better (done and done)

Ofc they have made some huge issues with the magic etc in this edition but maybe eventually the game will be worth playing again!!

Darkspear
19-01-2011, 08:45
I am very surprised by the voting results.

Personally I prefer the 7th ed (though to be honest I like 6th ed the most). I missed the fast paced game of the old warhammer and now the game is a lot slower.

I agree that 8th ed is better for casual games but I find it tough to play casually when players in my community are quite cut throat (admitedly we are scaling down).

Regarding balance, currently 8th edition give a better balance as most armies have access to troops that matter....the plain basic infantry grunt & templates through magic or warmachine. Since most armies have these to some extent, there are greater army book balances.

Ideally I would like a hybrid of 8th ed and 7th ed rules but I know that this is not going to happen.

Tarax
19-01-2011, 10:19
Again we see a lot of people talking about the armies instead of the rules. This does not give a good impression of which edition is better. What you should do is:
-select 1 race
-make 2 armies for that race (can be the same if you want)
-play a game with 7th edition rules
-play a game with 8th edition rules (with the same armies)
-compare the result (both in points and enjoyment)

What this does is show how powerful (or powerless) a certain army has become over the edition. Also it shows how powerful that army is in itself.

freddieyu
19-01-2011, 12:55
I am very surprised by the voting results.

Personally I prefer the 7th ed (though to be honest I like 6th ed the most). I missed the fast paced game of the old warhammer and now the game is a lot slower.

I agree that 8th ed is better for casual games but I find it tough to play casually when players in my community are quite cut throat (admitedly we are scaling down).

Regarding balance, currently 8th edition give a better balance as most armies have access to troops that matter....the plain basic infantry grunt & templates through magic or warmachine. Since most armies have these to some extent, there are greater army book balances.

Ideally I would like a hybrid of 8th ed and 7th ed rules but I know that this is not going to happen.

Well, if you were following earlier polls, you shouldn't be surprised...the results of all are practically the same...

Sparowl
19-01-2011, 13:31
Well, if you were following earlier polls, you shouldn't be surprised...the results of all are practically the same...

Same self selecting survey group, same spectrum bias......shouldn't be surprising.

Malorian
19-01-2011, 14:59
I voted doesn't matter because like it or not (in my case, kind of not) 8th is here and 7th isn't. And before anyone says "play 7th", my group and I are tourney players, so 8th is what is being played.

This.


You don't want to be one of those people stuck in the past with their afros and platform shoes while they play 2nd and mock the current system.

potterz
19-01-2011, 15:06
I like 7th more, its less like a computer game and more like a tabletop wargame.8th naff

freddieyu
19-01-2011, 15:13
This.


You don't want to be one of those people stuck in the past with their afros and platform shoes while they play 2nd and mock the current system.

Just watch out since fashion tends to recycle..hahahaha!!!

IcedCrow
19-01-2011, 15:17
I prefer 8th over 6/7. 6th was a massive improvement over 5th (hero hammer) but 6th / 7th became less about mass combat and more about MSU and legions of cavalry.

8th seems to have some issues too but it plays more to how I enjoy playing a wargame.

Maoriboy007
19-01-2011, 18:59
This poll will be missing a fair chunk of people who have dropped warhammer fantasy altogether.

theorox
19-01-2011, 19:15
This poll will be missing a fair chunk of people who have dropped warhammer fantasy altogether.

Yeah...I wonder how many have stopped viewing forums etc?

Theo

The bearded one
19-01-2011, 19:33
About 90% will probably still be hanging around to bitch about how bad 8th is.

Bac5665
19-01-2011, 19:35
I know of several people who no longer post here and other places because they are less interested in warhammer than ever before as a direct result of 8E (and to a lessor extent, the near complete lack of support since 8E came out.)

The bearded one
19-01-2011, 19:36
You just located the missing 10%!

Glen_Savet
19-01-2011, 19:46
Yeah...I wonder how many have stopped viewing forums etc?

Theo

Not enough if you ask me. It irritates me to no end to see someone show up and complain about how they've quit the game, and the new game they're playing is infinitely better then the game that you lot are still playing.

If you've quit playing a game, quit pestering folks who still want to play it!

R Man
19-01-2011, 20:32
This kind of rage quitting happens all the time. Does anyone remember what happened when DandD 4th ed came out?

However one must also wonder how many people have joined or re-joined because of 8th, and yet have not arrived on this forum.

Stinkfoot
19-01-2011, 22:39
This kind of rage quitting happens all the time. Does anyone remember what happened when DandD 4th ed came out?

People started playing Pathfinder instead because it's a better game than DnD 4.0 and isn't essentially WoW pen-and-paper edition?

Responding to the "why magic is worse than shooting" critique, I would say it's only different in terms of scale. Shooting units need to be taken in mass to win the game on their own, IE you need to take a gunline. I don't like gunlines and have little interest in playing with or against one. A single 500 point wizard tends to do more damage than a gunline though, in my experience, which means if you run a magic list you a) are using something that's dramatically more efficient than a comparably priced gunline, and lack of balance is never good, and b) you're running something that plays basically like a gunline, which as I already stated is a boring army list that I don't like to play against. It's actually MORE boring to play a magic list, I'd say, since instead of "my soldiers with swords charging your soldiers with rifles" it's "my actual army of soldiers with swords charging your guy with a glowing stick".

You're not required to use a magic list of course, but wizards are so cheap, and some of the older army books are so severly crippled without them (I'm looking at you, Vampire Counts) I tend to see them a lot. A lot more than I ever saw gunlines anyway...

As far as winning the game in combat goes, that doesn't really bother me. Combat is usually won via good maneuvering. Good maneuvering = tactics, and tactics = fun wargames.

IcedCrow
20-01-2011, 00:26
Pathfinder is good if you are a player that likes characters that can do it all by themselves.
DND4.0 is good if you are a player that likes team based games where you require team work to do well.

Neither is better than the other. It's just that 4.0 is vastly different from what a lot of people who had "mastered 3.5" were used to, and much like the switch from WH 7 to 8 it required mastering something else, and a lot of people are not keen on having to do that.

RPG rant over ;)

enyoss
20-01-2011, 00:39
I know of several people who no longer post here and other places because they are less interested in warhammer than ever before as a direct result of 8E (and to a lessor extent, the near complete lack of support since 8E came out.)

That seems a bit harsh. GW have already put up three versions of FAQs, which is getting towards the same number they did throughout the entire lifetime of 6th and 7th.

R Man
20-01-2011, 01:06
People started playing Pathfinder instead because it's a better game than DnD 4.0 and isn't essentially WoW pen-and-paper edition?

I was referring to the massive bout of rage, shouting and crying woe is me that happened. And that always happens when new editions of anything comes out.
Warhammer is not unique in that regard. It also happens when Video Games get a sequel.

The ultimate point is that despite all the panic, nay saying and such, D and D is still going well and most people have accepted 4th. And when 4th becomes 5th this will repeat. It always does. This probably says more about people than it does about the game in question. So measuring rage quits is not a good indicator of quality. Time would be a better one. Lets see what opinion we hold in 5 army books time.

The bearded one
20-01-2011, 10:30
We might have ragequits, but let's look at the number of people who dusted off their armies and returned after a couple of editions and started playing 8th.

theorox
20-01-2011, 12:52
I'm with Glen_Savet and TBO. I'm afraid of using any language that can be intepreted as "harsh" language on these forums though, so i didn't say so myself. :D

I see several people who are still on here despite quitting the game, always arguing against 8th and saying "Ah, i've moved to Warmachine/Kings of War because 8th is so bad. Blah, blah, random abuse, blah, GW-hate, blaah..." :rolleyes: If you really can't stand the game and don't play it...why are you hanging around the gameplay sections at all? Hobby sections i can understand, but...yeah.

Theo

MasterSparks
20-01-2011, 15:06
I see several people who are still on here despite quitting the game..

It is a bit weird, I'll agree with you there, but habits tend to die and change much slower than your heart and mind. Since a couple of years back I've made it a daily routine to go through various related forums and check out what was going on, and I still do it now after having "left" the game. I don't think I can really explain why I do it, although topics can still be interesting even if I'm not "into it" any more. I try to not sound too down, though - repeated Doom & Gloom can sour pretty much everything for everyone. :angel:

Bac5665
20-01-2011, 15:14
That seems a bit harsh. GW have already put up three versions of FAQs, which is getting towards the same number they did throughout the entire lifetime of 6th and 7th.

Thats a fair point, but, at least in my gaming circle, the army book releases more than anything else has always been the main draw for players. An army they play or have wanted to play gets a shiny new book with new models, and players stream in to play when they hadn't played in months.

There hasn't been anything like that in about a year, and even then, beastmen being the worst release GW had put out in a long time, that burst had limited effect.

Sure, GW has put out FAQs, and that's great. But it doesn't keep the game flowing, its just one of those things that they should have been doing as a minimum anyway.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
20-01-2011, 16:05
That seems a bit harsh. GW have already put up three versions of FAQs, which is getting towards the same number they did throughout the entire lifetime of 6th and 7th.

The bar has been raised. Look at successful newcomers lik Spartan and Wyrd. They also have several rulesets with lots of holes, some ambiguities and several things that don't seem to be working as designed in them. However, they are quite quick to try to plug those holes and engage their fanbase in providing further feedback.

madden
20-01-2011, 16:22
Same with mantics rules just look in there rules questions thread on here(warseer) to see how many probs they have plus the reason gw has been around so long is because they don't release it all at once long term profit over short term gain.

Maoriboy007
20-01-2011, 18:33
That seems a bit harsh. GW have already put up three versions of FAQs, which is getting towards the same number they did throughout the entire lifetime of 6th and 7th.I agree, despite the problems I have with 8th, they do seem to have pulled the finger out a bit with regards to the speed and regularity of the FAQs. Still some mind boggling rulings in there though.


We might have ragequits, but let's look at the number of people who dusted off their armies and returned after a couple of editions and started playing 8th.Almost by definition players returning to the game were at some point "rage quitters" themselves. Personally I don't think its fair to negatively label people who want to leave the game, just because they no longer enjoy it for whatever reason while others do.


Thats a fair point, but, at least in my gaming circle, the army book releases more than anything else has always been the main draw for players. An army they play or have wanted to play gets a shiny new book with new models, and players stream in to play when they hadn't played in months.
There hasn't been anything like that in about a year, and even then, beastmen being the worst release GW had put out in a long time, that burst had limited effect.
Sure, GW has put out FAQs, and that's great. But it doesn't keep the game flowing, its just one of those things that they should have been doing as a minimum anyway.A new book would be good, and a fair indication of what direction they actually want the game to go.

The bearded one
20-01-2011, 20:56
Almost by definition players returning to the game were at some point "rage quitters" themselves.

Far from it. Many people just 'grow out of it', they are enjoying it less untill they decide to stop or to try 40K or something else to try something new. I doubt a large portion of people returning to the game at one point went "[rage] I hate this edition/something!! I am gonna quit![rage]". It seems far more likely that many players who ( temporarily ) quit slowly abandon the game due to finding it repetitive after several years or something like that and want to try something new.

I myself am gravitating to playing a bit of 40K instead of fantasy. It is not because of the new ruleset, because I love it, but I just want to try something wholly different so I am working on my Tau.

theunwantedbeing
20-01-2011, 21:05
The issues with 7th were largely down to power creep, not every army got a 7th ed book so we never really had a truly level playing field.

That and Vamp & Daemon players tended to bring tournament lists, only Dark elves were really able to properly compete against that. If you were Tomb Kings or Ogre Kingdoms you were in a world of hurt turning up to fight any of those 3 really, and it wasn't a whole lot nicer when playing anyone else who decided they'de try and bring a list that stood some chance against the above "big 3".

In 8th ed, we still have this assinine hyper competitive mentality, but with a noticably more abusable system. Abusable in different ways to 7th, less all out magic for example and the more expensive rare slots are often restricted to only 1, not 2 in the average game. Similarly armies that were overly character heavy *cough* vampires *cough* are forced to take less.
So, it's an improvement in that more people can now bring a super list, but a definite downside as a result of everyone wanting to take them.

One thing I don't like about 8th ed is the terrain rules, too much mysterious terrain and often things have too great an area of effect. Almost everything projects a 6" area of effect afterall, plus the terrain generation rules are largely aweful (although they were in 7th as well to be fair).

Steadfast can be an issue, as can lots of template weapons due to a lack of partials. Some spells are much too uber as well.

8th is okay though, not nessecarily better than 7th, not nessecarily worse.

Maoriboy007
20-01-2011, 21:52
Far from it. Many people just 'grow out of it', they are enjoying it less untill they decide to stop or to try 40K or something else to try something new. I doubt a large portion of people returning to the game at one point went "[rage] I hate this edition/something!! I am gonna quit![rage]". It seems far more likely that many players who ( temporarily ) quit slowly abandon the game due to finding it repetitive after several years or something like that and want to try something new.Fair enough, but in the same way it could be said people are leaving 8th in a similar manner having decided that they have outgrown it or that the enjoyment has gone, and there have been quite a few people stating they were returning after leaving the game because of 6th, 7th etc edition. Not that there is a problem with that, its more that those people aren't so different from the ones leaving now, so condemning the so called rage quitters is a bit much.


The issues with 7th were largely down to power creep, not every army got a 7th ed book so we never really had a truly level playing field.
That and Vamp & Daemon players tended to bring tournament lists, only Dark elves were really able to properly compete against that. If you were Tomb Kings or Ogre Kingdoms you were in a world of hurt turning up to fight any of those 3 really, and it wasn't a whole lot nicer when playing anyone else who decided they'de try and bring a list that stood some chance against the above "big 3"..Personally I always thought it was more of the "Big one and the other 4" rather than the "Big 3"
Without rather complicated tournament restrictions (sometimes even in spite of them) demons easily occupied thier own tier at the top, with DE LM VC and Skaven all in close contention with each other on the next tier.


In 8th ed, we still have this assinine hyper competitive mentality, but with a noticably more abusable system. Abusable in different ways to 7th, less all out magic for example and the more expensive rare slots are often restricted to only 1, not 2 in the average game. Similarly armies that were overly character heavy *cough* vampires *cough* are forced to take less.
So, it's an improvement in that more people can now bring a super list, but a definite downside as a result of everyone wanting to take them..
It seems much a case of same $@#$ different day. There were broken army lists in 7th and there are still broken army lists in 8th.
I will defend the character heavy VC list though, cause they suck without them ;)


8th is okay though, not nessecarily better than 7th, not nessecarily worse.So true. While people can gush about 8th all they like, there are just so many unessesary flaws randomly thrown in that prevent it being the step forward the rest of us hoped for. Actually the step from 6th to 7th was much the same.

Haravikk
21-01-2011, 10:36
One thing I don't like about 8th ed is the terrain rules, too much mysterious terrain and often things have too great an area of effect. Almost everything projects a 6" area of effect afterall, plus the terrain generation rules are largely aweful (although they were in 7th as well to be fair).
I don't know of anywhere that really forces you to use the new terrain rules? They can be fun if you want a more unpredictable layout to a game, but in general I stick to what I've always done and just agree with my opponent on layout once the scenario's been determined.
Generally this results in no mysterious terrain within deployment zones, but the odd piece where it can be interesting to run into. As a general rule though I dislike mysterious terrain as it's just another thing to remember to do, though some of the types are quite amusing and can be fun to put in place on purpose, such as scree slopes, bogs, etc.

Slashattack
21-01-2011, 10:41
8th is much better on the whole than 7th edition in terms of game balance and that infantry blocks can do a bit more in combat now. However the pre-measuring of everything really annoys me because it removes any skill of determining distances, cannons are far too accurate and the random charges are annoying as hell. Are all my cold one knights really going to trip over on the charge?

Haravikk
21-01-2011, 10:52
However the pre-measuring of everything really annoys me because it removes any skill of determining distances, cannons are far too accurate and the random charges are annoying as hell. Are all my cold one knights really going to trip over on the charge?
This one annoys me; the ability to pre-measure is great, as the only thing that guessing really did was make it harder for new players to get into. Your units should have a good idea of how far they can charge or shoot. I've always been good at guessing ranges, but I've never seen the point in having to do it, so I see removing it as a good thing.

The skill now isn't in judging how far two things are apart from one another, but in how likely they are to successfully charge, or how likely the cannon-ball is to fall short, etc. So cannons have got more accurate, it takes a lot less time now for combat to begin so shooting doesn't get to do as much in your typical game, so having missile units get a bit more out of the few turns of clear shooting is a good thing.

UberBeast
21-01-2011, 12:13
8th edition had its flare-up where I game, but now it's well and truly dying. A lot of the people who initially liked it have gotten very bored and my local store owner seems to be taking in more trade-in fantasy armies than everything else combined.

What's really funny is that many of the people who are quitting it still say they like it better than 7th, but when I ask them why they are getting rid of their armies or not playing anymore, they say that they've played it out and it isn't fun anymore.

I guess it's possible to intellectually prefer something, without actually enjoying it.

IcedCrow
21-01-2011, 12:54
Guessing and pre-measuring. While I have always played using the guess mechanic, I much prefer pre-measuring. If I'm firing my cannon, it is up to the skill of my canoneers to hit the target... not me.

If I give the order to fire a mortar at a charging unit of chaos knights, my engineer makes the shot, not me.

That's why we have a ballistic skill statistic.

Some people are better at others at guessing distances. In fact in my old club we had a contractor who built houses who could guess to the exact inch from across the room. He never missed. Not ever. Not once.

To me that should not be a part of the game, having the ability to guess inches better than other people I mean.

Now random charges I am also not cool with but if those are the rules those are the rules. I think charges were fine the way they've always been, BUT pre-measuring would have been fine.

freddieyu
21-01-2011, 13:36
We might have ragequits, but let's look at the number of people who dusted off their armies and returned after a couple of editions and started playing 8th.

I'm one of the returnees, but it was not due to rage quit, but due to work schedule.....I did try to play 7th ed but at that time the unholy 3 was already in force (I was shocked at the imbalance, and to be honest 7th wasn;t so different from 6th and it was getting stale) so I decided to focus on 40k and wait for a while while WHFB sorts it out, which for me 8th ed did.

Ironhand
21-01-2011, 14:52
I very much prefer 8th edition, and our group aren't tourney players.

Kal Taron
21-01-2011, 14:56
Guessing and pre-measuring. While I have always played using the guess mechanic, I much prefer pre-measuring. If I'm firing my cannon, it is up to the skill of my canoneers to hit the target... not me.

If I give the order to fire a mortar at a charging unit of chaos knights, my engineer makes the shot, not me.

That's why we have a ballistic skill statistic.


Too bad that BS doesn't have a say in this AFAIK. If they'd somehow used it like in 40K people would probably like it a lot more.
And your soldiers can judge distances within a single feet on however many yards but when charging they may either fall over their own feet or outpace a racing horse... Yeah sounds like a great system...:eyebrows:

IcedCrow
21-01-2011, 15:17
I'm not fond of the random charge distances either.

UberBeast
22-01-2011, 03:24
Some people are better at others at guessing distances. In fact in my old club we had a contractor who built houses who could guess to the exact inch from across the room. He never missed. Not ever. Not once.

To me that should not be a part of the game, having the ability to guess inches better than other people I mean.


Some people do math in their heads better, which gives them an advantage. Some people have a longer attention span than others, or can build a better army list. Guessing inches was simply the ability of spatial awareness to judge sizes and distances (or, if you were canny, the ability to do some simple subtraction, knowing the distance units were likely to move every turn)

This is much what the fictional characters our figures represent would have to do in a real battle, judging distances and correcting their aim.

There is always going to be some skill or talent that gives a player an advantage, and that's what makes the game interesting and challenging. While guessing range is gone, it was a perfectly acceptable part of previous editions, and helped add to the list of elements that prevented the game from being a simple dice-fest.

Haravikk
22-01-2011, 12:22
Some people do math in their heads better, which gives them an advantage. Some people have a longer attention span than others, or can build a better army list.
These are much more core to the game though than guessing ranges ever was. Building an army list is something that you have to do, and that requires some ability to do math to work everything out. Guessing ranges was never really a requirement of the mechanic, as the use of the artillery dice already added a degree of uncertainty to the shot, and is more than sufficient for playing the game.


your soldiers can judge distances within a single feet on however many yards but when charging they may either fall over their own feet or outpace a racing horse... Yeah sounds like a great system...
A charging unit is a rabble of soldiers all starting to run at different times in response to a loudly shouted order in a noisy battlefield that they might not even hear at the right time. Random charges represent any number of things from models falling, poor moral, intimidation at the sight of the enemy, a misheard order and so-on. It might be better if Leadership were somehow a factor, or some units could be immune to the randomness of the charge distance for whatever reason, and it's very possible we may see such things in future army books, but I hardly think that random charges are as abstract as people make out.

DeathlessDraich
22-01-2011, 12:36
If I give the order to fire a mortar at a charging unit of chaos knights, my engineer makes the shot, not me.

That's why we have a ballistic skill statistic.

.

1) I prefer pre-measuring to guessing distances too, although I prefer 7th as a whole.

2) That's an interesting observation about BS.
It could be extended to:
To reflect BS, the artillery dice used to scatter could be modified by BS
E.g. BS4 = -1 to scatter distance; BS 2 = +1 to scatter distance BS = no change etc

which is in keeping with BS5 Engineers who get a re-roll on a misfire

Haravikk
22-01-2011, 12:50
It could be extended to:
To reflect BS, the artillery dice used to scatter could be modified by BS
E.g. BS4 = -1 to scatter distance; BS 2 = +1 to scatter distance BS = no change etc

which is in keeping with BS5 Engineers who get a re-roll on a misfire
Well Ballistic Skill is already now used to reduce scatter when firing indirectly with a stone thrower, though that's only on the case of rolling a hit, to represent them getting the shot close despite not being able to see the target.
I think if it were applied to cannons and other war machines it could be too powerful.

UberBeast
22-01-2011, 17:40
These are much more core to the game though than guessing ranges ever was. Building an army list is something that you have to do, and that requires some ability to do math to work everything out. Guessing ranges was never really a requirement of the mechanic, as the use of the artillery dice already added a degree of uncertainty to the shot, and is more than sufficient for playing the game.


You make a good point. Guessing ranges really isn't crucial to the game, but I felt it added a unique flavor that I have only ever seen in GW games. My point was that there are lots of places where having skill or ability can and should give you an advantage, and spatial awareness was a perfectly legitimate ability that rightly influenced the game.

freddieyu
23-01-2011, 00:22
List building, Placement, deployment, and using your units properly are still player specific abilities....and doing this properly swings the odds in your favor.....and you would agree these are the most important....Guessing was OK (since I am good at it) but really it slowed things down.

There is no such thing as a "sure ball" in a game that relies on dice to resolve things...

polybus
23-01-2011, 01:43
I think this poll is lacking in 1 major way:

People that despise 8th have stopped playing and stopped caring about Warhammer. Therefore, why would they be checking out the Warhammer discussion forums unless they were bored and just wanted to look for new ways to dish some hate?

Stronginthearm
23-01-2011, 04:04
I think polybus put his finger on it, I shelved warhammer for the last 4 months, I didn't like the way 8th had turned out and wanted to try something else, I didn't talk on the forums (contrary to the people who think that we show up just to complain), most of the people who stuck with it like it, the ones who don't have mostly come under the category of "still playing but would like changes and some of 7th back"

freddieyu
23-01-2011, 05:53
I think this poll is lacking in 1 major way:

People that despise 8th have stopped playing and stopped caring about Warhammer. Therefore, why would they be checking out the Warhammer discussion forums unless they were bored and just wanted to look for new ways to dish some hate?

Then they are a non issue for this poll obviously...too bad for them...

Stinkfoot
23-01-2011, 07:44
Then they are a non issue for this poll obviously...too bad for them...

How is that? Isn't this poll to determine (unscientifically, obviously) whether 7th or 8th edition is more popular among the player base? Pointing out a selection bias in the pollees seems very relevant to that issue. If this poll is only interested in hearing from people who think 8th edition is better, then why bother making it a poll?

Stronginthearm
23-01-2011, 07:51
Because every time people ask a question secretly they already know what they want the answer to be example, "Why do you think the US is the best country" Already wants the answer to be that US is best country(were not I'm a big fan of Kenya personally) but asks question built to give correct answer

freddieyu
23-01-2011, 12:39
How is that? Isn't this poll to determine (unscientifically, obviously) whether 7th or 8th edition is more popular among the player base? Pointing out a selection bias in the pollees seems very relevant to that issue. If this poll is only interested in hearing from people who think 8th edition is better, then why bother making it a poll?

that's because if they quit, then they aren't part of the player base as of now, correct???

Otherwise, if it's fallacious as others have pointed out, what else can be done if those who quit do not look anymore at forums such as these?

Haravikk
23-01-2011, 13:37
With regards to players that quit when 8th came around; if they quit purely because of 8th edition then they're stupid, Warhammer is still Warhammer, and they still presumably have a significant investment in time and money on their armies, so throwing that away when the game is still enjoyable is backwards.
It's more likely that those that quit were already a bit distant from the hobby and just didn't want to invest any more in it for whatever reason, like other priorities. 8th probably just didn't pull out something to rekindle their waning interest, that's not really 8th's fault though, as lots of players have found it refreshing enough to come back.

If a ruleset alone can make or break the game then you're probably playing for the wrong reasons in the first place, as there's way more to it. And at the heart of it, 8th is no more flawed than 7th, and indeed has levelled the playing field in a lot of ways which has been great, as the most powerful armies don't represent as big a gap as there was under 7th. And it's still much the same core game with tactical deployment, manoeuvres, to-hit, to-wound, heroic challenges etc. All the stuff that's always made Warhammer fun.

Ozorik
23-01-2011, 15:20
If a ruleset alone can make or break the game then you're probably playing for the wrong reasons in the first place,

You are under the assumption that 8th is still a fun game, for me and a lot of other people it isn't. I started playing fantasy in 4th ed and one of the main reasons why I played WHFB for so long was that it was a reasonably cerebral game, you needed to think about what you are doing on the field.

With 8th most of those choices are gone or have been reduced to almost nothing.

I find the current onus on large, fairly static combats and unit destroying magic to be tedious. For the record I have always played infantry horde armies so, theoretically, 8th should be great for me.

The main problem with 7th (and one of the main reasons given why 8th is supposedly better) was balance. This has very little to do with the core rules and everything to do with poor rule writing and playtesting of the later army books.


otherwise, if it's fallacious as others have pointed out, what else can be done if those who quit do not look anymore at forums such as these?

So whats the point in posting the poll in the first place then?

scruffyryan
23-01-2011, 17:43
So whats the point in posting the poll in the first place then?

Well for one it lets us know how many people are the type to lurk on boards for a game they no longer play and complain about them.

theorox
23-01-2011, 17:54
Well for one it lets us know how many people are the type to lurk on boards for a game they no longer play and complain about them.

xD!

I'm sorry for posting a VS thread by the way. :( But as Freddieyu points out, the players who left because of 8th is no longer part of the player base. And i kind of wanted to see how much of the player base is unhappy with 8th. I see lots of whining on here, but these numbers don't back it up. This proves that the ol' saying is right, the malcontent minority is always the loudest. (Well...we don't have a large enough sample to decide on that yet i guess. But soon. Maybe.)

Theo

Ozorik
23-01-2011, 18:13
Well for one it lets us know how many people are the type to lurk on boards for a game they no longer play and complain about them.

Alternatively this thread was visable on the main board and I thought it was the original 8th Vs 7th thread so I thought I would see how far it had sunk. I don't go near the fantasy boards normally.


I see lots of whining on here, but these numbers don't back it up.

What numbers would these be? I hope you aren't talking about the poll results. I have heard that 8th ed sales are 'disappointing' though.

Stronginthearm
23-01-2011, 18:22
With regards to players that quit when 8th came around; if they quit purely because of 8th edition then they're stupid, Warhammer is still Warhammer, and they still presumably have a significant investment in time and money on their armies, so throwing that away when the game is still enjoyable is backwards.
It's more likely that those that quit were already a bit distant from the hobby and just didn't want to invest any more in it for whatever reason, like other priorities. 8th probably just didn't pull out something to rekindle their waning interest, that's not really 8th's fault though, as lots of players have found it refreshing enough to come back.

If a ruleset alone can make or break the game then you're probably playing for the wrong reasons in the first place, as there's way more to it. And at the heart of it, 8th is no more flawed than 7th, and indeed has levelled the playing field in a lot of ways which has been great, as the most powerful armies don't represent as big a gap as there was under 7th. And it's still much the same core game with tactical deployment, manoeuvres, to-hit, to-wound, heroic challenges etc. All the stuff that's always made Warhammer fun.

Name calling? Really? I thought we were above that (oh wait this is warseer) They still should be included in the poll, stupid or not, its a 7th vs 8th, the point is for every good thing about 8th you named there's something missing that the people from 7th want, and for all those terrible 7th rules you hated most of the time theres a 7thn player who thought those rules were completely nessesary and vital.

And of course the ruleset can break the game, the game is the rules as much as anything, if you changed soccer(football for you europeans) and allows everybody to run around carrying the ball, it would kinda break the sport. But apparently if you played the game because you liked the rules you shouldn't have been playing in the first place? You can't (well oviously you can because you just did) say that the ruleset isn't important and then go claim that the core of the game, is core tactical "Rules". Personally I like the fluff behind it adn the storyline quite a bit, but the rules are the key to playing the game, change the rules you change the game.

theorox
23-01-2011, 18:52
What numbers would these be? I hope you aren't talking about the poll results. I have heard that 8th ed sales are 'disappointing' though.

Yup. My point is, that the whiners will have voted too. And, well, we see that they seem to be louder than the others. Of course i mean the poll? O.o

Theo

Ozorik
23-01-2011, 19:01
You mean the poll that has already been shown to be deeply flawed? Just how many of these 'whiners' actually read posts in fantasy general?

Only GW will know how well 8th is doing by tracking sales, and even that will not be 100% accurate. No forum poll with every give you anything like a reliable answer.

DeathlessDraich
23-01-2011, 20:31
Didn't vote - because it won't change my mind nor will it change the minds of my club members. Maybe because of others like me, th voting favours 8th so much.

My club has finally collapsed because about 80% have left after the introduction of 8th ed.

Some of the eager ones want to play with different rules/armies etc. Quite a few of them want to carry on but more out of a courtesy to me than genuine interest. The rest who are still playing have moved on to other tabletop war games

I'm going to soldier on for a month or so and probably will quit after that.

Anyone else here who has notice this new downturn in interest or apathy.

freddieyu
23-01-2011, 22:26
Didn't vote - because it won't change my mind nor will it change the minds of my club members. Maybe because of others like me, th voting favours 8th so much.

My club has finally collapsed because about 80% have left after the introduction of 8th ed.

Some of the eager ones want to play with different rules/armies etc. Quite a few of them want to carry on but more out of a courtesy to me than genuine interest. The rest who are still playing have moved on to other tabletop war games

I'm going to soldier on for a month or so and probably will quit after that.

Anyone else here who has notice this new downturn in interest or apathy.

It depends on the local conditions...from other threads it is true several 7th ed gamers have quit due to 8th, but in other areas (like mine) WHFB players have increased a lot due to 8th. Here we have 3 clubs within the city, and in mine it was just 2 players from 7th, to now 8 players due to 8th (including the 2 7th ed players, they are ecstatic that the player base has increased, and are also satisfied at the very least with the 8th ed changes). In the other clubs player base has also increased (although more slowly than mine) but I do not know of anyone who has quit. Too many elven players though...although I do love crushing elves with my lizards, or empire, and soon my skaven..

Haravikk
23-01-2011, 23:17
And of course the ruleset can break the game, the game is the rules as much as anything
You're missing my point; with the exception of the overly melodramatic rage quitters, many of whom didn't like 7th either and just got fed up when 8th didn't do everything they wanted, no-one seems to feel that 8th is completely broken. The stuff that it has broken is largely stuff that army books need to address due to changes in the unit types (i.e - it's mostly accidentally broken for now, but won't be in future), or is stuff that on closer inspection was actually more broken before, mainly cavalry and skirmishers being the big ones since armies heavy in both are now disadvantaged.

My point however is that all the major elements of what makes Warhammer great are still in 8th, and for all the changes it isn't as big a change as some people make out; the spirit of the game is still there, and a lot of the most vocal nay-sayers against 8th are ones that still aren't willing to see the merits of the new rules as they're just too firmly entrenched in the previous ones. It's still largely the same game, so quitting because of the changes that did occur is silly, as there are still people willing to play 7th. I mean, I hugely prefer 8th, and I'm sure there are reasonable people that prefer 7th for genuinely good reasons, but it seems that a lot of people who have quit Warhammer "because of" 8th edition, really are just using it as an excuse to quit, as if they are still willing to enjoy Warhammer then there is not really a good reason to quit, simply a need to adapt slightly.

Most of the issues with 8th are non-issues in friendly games anyway. I mean I despise most of the new lores under 8th, and the new magic system, but in friendly games it isn't really that big a deal as in friendly games everyone knows that forcing off a power spell would be a horrible thing to do, and average performance of magic is usually quite fun. In tournaments though it becomes something exploitable for a win, but then most tournaments have ways of regulating this.
With these things in mind 8th still captures the same Warhammer spirit and fun, and is no less cerebral; 7th edition had friendly games and tournament adjustments too. And if for whatever reason you don't like 8th anyway, there are plenty of people inclined to resist the changes and willing to play 7th instead. Quitting Warhammer is an extreme reaction to a non-extreme situation.

Tarax
24-01-2011, 08:29
With regards to players that quit when 8th came around; if they quit purely because of 8th edition then they're stupid, Warhammer is still Warhammer, and they still presumably have a significant investment in time and money on their armies, so throwing that away when the game is still enjoyable is backwards.
It's more likely that those that quit were already a bit distant from the hobby and just didn't want to invest any more in it for whatever reason, like other priorities. 8th probably just didn't pull out something to rekindle their waning interest, that's not really 8th's fault though, as lots of players have found it refreshing enough to come back.

It could also be that those who play(ed) 7th and haven't start playing 8th are not coming to this forum because most threads are about 8th and they can not find anything that would interest them. Perhaps all the 7th vs 8th-threads.

Another thing is that it is often assumed (sometimes rightly) that players quit the hobby, while some will continue playing, but only 7th (or 6th or 5th or...).
Because there is a smaller player-base, they are harder to find. I know, I'm one of them.

One last thing that should be noted is that Army Books will get updated to fit 8th, which leaves 7th-players with older Army Books. This is correct, but illustrates that these players are also not interested in these updates/rumours. What they could do is balance all the 7th Books, because it will cause no harm to any 8th players.

mrtn
24-01-2011, 08:31
You mean the poll that has already been shown to be deeply flawed? Just how many of these 'whiners' actually read posts in fantasy general?The poll shows the amount of red apples compared to green, and you complain that it doesn't contain info on bananas.
It's only "been shown" to be flawed to a banana lover, not to people who care more about apples.

theorox
24-01-2011, 09:14
The poll shows the amount of red apples compared to green, and you complain that it doesn't contain info on bananas.
It's only "been shown" to be flawed to a banana lover, not to people who care more about apples.

Exactly! I'm not trying to see how many of the people who played 7th likes 8th better, i'm trying to see how many of the people who are on here (Most of wich play 8th) like 8th better. It may seem pointless, but then again, only people who are on here ca whine on here, right? :chrome: So, the poll does work how it's intended to work. The "Whiners" are very loud, the quiet majority is, again, quiet. The poll is hardly flawed.

Theo

Kal Taron
24-01-2011, 12:46
Exactly! I'm not trying to see how many of the people who played 7th likes 8th better, i'm trying to see how many of the people who are on here (Most of wich play 8th) like 8th better. It may seem pointless, but then again, only people who are on here ca whine on here, right? :chrome: So, the poll does work how it's intended to work. The "Whiners" are very loud, the quiet majority is, again, quiet. The poll is hardly flawed.

Theo

We can all see what the intention of the poll was. And exactly that makes it next to worthless when comparing 7th and 8th. Simply because you can not know what the "silent majority" thinks. Because the majority are those that didn't vote and not the ones that voted for 8th but didn't post.

mrtn
24-01-2011, 13:43
Because the majority are those that didn't vote and not the ones that voted for 8th but didn't post.
No, the majority are the millions of Chinese peasants that never even heard about Warhammer. :p The amount of "former, disgruntled Warhammer players" is minuscule in comparison. :angel:

Asking for the opinion of non-Warseerites is pointless on a Warseer post, the only thing we can do is to ask what the Warseer users think, which this poll does.

Ozorik
24-01-2011, 14:52
Then why isn't it posted in general discussion then, rather than a sub forum which is likely to be read by few ex warhammer players.

Even if it was it still won't be a good indicator of the overall popularity of 8th given the inherant limitations of forum polls.

theorox
24-01-2011, 14:55
This is general discussion. At least Warhammer general discussion.

Theo

Ozorik
24-01-2011, 15:07
Asking for the opinion of non-Warseerites is pointless on a Warseer post, the only thing we can do is to ask what the Warseer users think, which this poll does.

Very true, but not only that it is also limited to posters who read this forum and who took the time to vote. You can't then take these results and apply it the wider wargames community.

If people have stopped playing 8th (and therefore warhammer) then will they still read a warhammer forum? Unlikely, I only noticed this thread by chance.

Basically you can't draw any meaningful conclusions for this poll and there is no getting around that.

If you want to gather something a little more robust then I suggest you have a look at tournament entrants, but only on a large scale.

Stronginthearm
24-01-2011, 15:25
No, the majority are the millions of Chinese peasants that never even heard about Warhammer. :p The amount of "former, disgruntled Warhammer players" is minuscule in comparison. :angel:

Asking for the opinion of non-Warseerites is pointless on a Warseer post, the only thing we can do is to ask what the Warseer users think, which this poll does.

And there are 94 billion dead people, who don't know about 8th, the poll essentially asks, "How many warseer users who still play warhammer and still visit the forums, like 8th" since the end result is a foregone conclusion I think we've just ended up with another shouting match about 8th.

YAAAAAA I'M ANGRY ABOUT 8TH, I WANT 5th BACK, HULK SMASH! (this is sarcasm)

Akroma
24-01-2011, 18:44
well I can only talk about myself and my (larger) gaming group - we still stick to 7th ed. for a bunch of reasons.
what i have seen in the local GW so far was the current players are younger again and less older players show up there (happend with the system change) plus the youngstars argue in 8th ed. games exactly like players in 7th - maybe at different 'topics' because loosing is such a bad thing. :angel:; so much for the much omre fun part ^^

mrtn
24-01-2011, 20:05
Then why isn't it posted in general discussion then, rather than a sub forum which is likely to be read by few ex warhammer players.

I'm sure the mods would move it to this forum, since it's a thread about warhammer. :)