PDA

View Full Version : A question for those preferring 7th ed...



chamelion 6
04-07-2011, 04:13
Just to say up front I hated 6th and 7th... Enough that I quit playing WFB completely. So while I disagree with you I can sympathize.

So here's the question... What stops you from simply playing 7th? The rules are as valid as they were when it was current, you have the advantage of several existing army books giving you the chance to pick the ones you feel are most balanced. Your armies should be playable to that edition. What does it matter, really, if it's not the current edition?

It just seems to me that there should still be enough support for it, if what I read on these threads is accurate, that it should be possible to find other players with a bit of effort. Perhaps putting up a posting at the LGS and creating a 7th edition night...

One thing though... I'm not wanting this to become a 7th versus 8th thread... That's been done to death and we all already have our preferences.

IcedCrow
04-07-2011, 04:43
The fact that GW doesn't support it for whatever reason means the books aren't valid anymore to many people, not just in Warhammer, but also with things like D&D.

If a company were to scoop up the rules of 7th edition, reskin it and sell it as their own (ala Paizo and Pathfinder to D&D) ... you'd have a real interesting situation.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
04-07-2011, 04:56
Funny that people needs other people to tell them, whats 'valid'. The glory of having several editions of rules to choose from, is that you can freely mix and match the rules to suit your tastes.

Of course its a problem when you play at open venues like game shops, but this is all the more reason not to frequent such places :)

TheMadMarquis
04-07-2011, 05:31
So here's the question... What stops you from simply playing 7th?

Because while I may be a loyal and honourable Breton, my opponents aren't :p

On a serious note, I'm hoping GW will fix Bretonnian knights with the new army book, and until then I might as well get some experience with huge blocks of Steadfast infantry (oh, the shame) if only to help me understand the tactics when I can finally start cutting them down with my heroic lances.

chamelion 6
04-07-2011, 07:42
Funny that people needs other people to tell them, whats 'valid'. The glory of having several editions of rules to choose from, is that you can freely mix and match the rules to suit your tastes.

Of course its a problem when you play at open venues like game shops, but this is all the more reason not to frequent such places :)

This is kind of what I was thinking. It seems like the problem is simply finding and bringing together people that still enjoy 7th. It doesn't have to be the current edition.

Like I said, maybe starting something like a "Thursday night 7th edition league" at your LGS or something. If you really enjoy the game it seems like it would be worth a little effort to keep it going. That's kinda what I was thinking this thread might be about. Finding ways for people that prefer older editions to find an outlet and keep it going.

yabbadabba
04-07-2011, 08:23
Its a mental block, encouraged by GW, called "shiny toy syndrome", which when combined with "GW Officaldom" disease creates a situation whereby people can only play with the new toys, or they throw their old toys out of the pram. Interesting when you consider the reverence for some old GW minis.

Seriously, there is nothing stopping people play any edition of WFB or any other wargame, provided they have the rules and some commitment.

Maoriboy007
04-07-2011, 08:51
Generally people have a regular group they play in, & unless they are all of a like mind then expecting them to conform to your preference seems unlikely. Abandoning the old group and finding a new one would be a difficult and traumatic prospect especially if they are friends.
Lack of support is another issue too.

yabbadabba
04-07-2011, 09:08
Lack of support is another issue too. What support is needed?

xxRavenxx
04-07-2011, 10:09
Its a mental block, encouraged by GW, called "shiny toy syndrome", which when combined with "GW Officaldom" disease creates a situation whereby people can only play with the new toys, or they throw their old toys out of the pram. Interesting when you consider the reverence for some old GW minis.

Or its the fact that when your playgroup says "lets use the newest book" and you're sat there going "NO! I refuse unless we play 3rd edition!", then they will likely ignore you and get on with playing the game how *they* want to play it.

For an example, in my store, two people played 7th. We now have 10 regular 8th players, and a dozen more people who drop in to buy models, presumably for 8th as they didnt play during 7th. I know that personally, I did not like previous editions all that much. "I stand 8.5 inches away, and brought some cavalry. I win" was a very boring and repetitive tactic. (I'm aware I'm simplifying, but knowing to stand X inches away was a huge part of 7th).

8th is not perfect. 7th wasnt either. I think a lot of people find 8th more fun though, so 7th has fallen by the wayside. Also, new rules, different way to play the game. It makes warhammer fresh and exciting again.

Andy p
04-07-2011, 10:25
Like others have said, if you can find like minded people, there shouldnt be anything stopping you.

Of course I disliked 7th intensely, but that's only my personal opinion.

Kai Itzah
04-07-2011, 11:21
The fact that GW doesn't support it for whatever reason means the books aren't valid anymore to many people, not just in Warhammer, but also with things like D&D.

If a company were to scoop up the rules of 7th edition, reskin it and sell it as their own (ala Paizo and Pathfinder to D&D) ... you'd have a real interesting situation.

You can't compare Warhammer to D&D, you really can't. I've yet to meet a 4th Ed gaming group (most tried it, realised it sucked and stopped playing). The first time I played D&D 3.5 was flying high and I was playing 2.5. The massive difference is that with D&D the whole idea is that besides the core rulebooks, you need nothing to play. You have never needed support, that's just fabrication. And even if you liked using it, as a DM you are constantly forming complete statlines etc., so it's actually quite simple to take a 4th Ed character or monster and transplant them into 3.5 (maps etc. I'm sure Wizards would like to make 4th Ed only, but that would defy reality). Maybe not 2.5 (but then, I've never DMed 2.5, so I don't know) but definitely 3.5, because I've done it and it's worked smooth.

With a game like Warhammer, support comes into it more, but still isn't vital at all. You can play 7th Ed until the end of time with your friends and it will be no different than you playing 7th Ed while it was the current edition.

Duke_of_Krondor
04-07-2011, 11:43
Off-topic: Paizo had the advantage on dealing with an open-source system. The D20 system doesn't have the same IP issues as warhammer, therefore you are unlikely to see anyone producing 'Warfinder'. I'm not certain of the situation but deal with IPR day to day and would have thought GW have it all sewn up whereas Wizards left the D20 system (that's 3.5 d&d to those out the know) open for other developers to use (you can use the D20 SRD for free online without any illegal downloads - you're short the pantheon and some 'wizards setting' IPR but you can play a game off it.).

Tabletop games have their issues but I've met so many people that 'hate' White wolf and love Lizards of the Toast or hate Wizards and love shadowrun/crafty game/etc. It's hard to compare pen and paper RPG to warhammer. In an adventure game the story evolves and the system is designed to develop characters and themes. After the campaign is over then another one can be run. They are designed for replayablility between 5 people again and again and again, week after week. You hear about games that go on for years that play every week but the difference is that you get all your options in those books. Buy the book range and you have it all. Warhammer doesn't have the same replayability between such a small group (in my experience) and you are required to invest a lot time to get the options out of your books.

On-topic:

Given that 7th ed id, in theory, a complete product. They released all of the books they planned on (I'm aware that some weren't updated) and that you should always be able to pick up models for the units (or models that are close enough) then there's no reason that a dedicated group of people can't play 7th ed. Pop down to your local store and ask around, I'm sure that a few people will be up for some games. It may not be regular but just because it's not supported anymore, it doesn't mean you can't use the new models or even pick up the 7th ed books.

Crube
04-07-2011, 11:51
You've also got the tournament thing to bear in mind too... The majority of players play the most recent edition, so moth tourneys will adopt the same system.

Finding someone to play a different version is a heck of a job too...

I loved 7th - I was able to play my way, rather than the current environment where (it seems) all armies are the same, but with different unit names - a block of 50 infantry, a smaller block of the same, some archers, a block of 30 elite infantry, no skmishers, no light cav...

The bearded one
04-07-2011, 12:05
I loved 7th - I was able to play my way, rather than the current environment where (it seems) all armies are the same, but with different unit names - a block of 50 infantry, a smaller block of the same, some archers, a block of 30 elite infantry, no skmishers, no light cav...

Tell that to my lizardmen with a unit of 24 saurus & 25 templeguard, stegadon, a unit of 12 skinks with kroxigor, 37 skirmishing skinks and 3 salamander hunting packs..and I'll be using 3 terradons when they are released in finecast

I have whooped ass consistently.

oldenglish
04-07-2011, 12:34
I don't think it's a question of comparing 7th with 8th. 8th is here and if you want to carry on playing WFB you have to learn to live with it somehow. I think that 8th has some excellent new rules, but overall I disliked the ruleset so much when it came out that I dropped out for 6 months. That would never have happened under 7th. However, there's no point in looking back. I dropped in on my local club again recently and was surprised to find that no-one has played WFB this year! The poor sods were reduced to playing Mordheim and Bloodbowl. I hope to persuede a couple of them to accept some club rules I have in mind, otherwise it's back to Civilization and Total War on the PC, at least until 9th comes out, which I have a feeling might be sooner rather than later. As my own small personal protest I shall not be buying any new figures for the forseeable future.

wilsongrahams
04-07-2011, 14:01
To me, the rules edition issue is a strange one. I don't understand where the fuss is. Think of it as a different game altogether and you'll do okay. You may find it harder to find an opponent, but some people just don't want keep learning new sets of rules every four years - especially older players.

I'm yet to seriously play 40k in 5th edition, and for ten years after 3rd was released was still playing 2nd edition. I had to bodge together a few rules for new units if I wanted to use them, but the game didn't stop being playable because other players used a different version - it just meant I had to stick to the same opponents I already had.

For fantasy, being my main current game system, I barely got started by 7th despite starting at 5th edition, and spending the between years studying the rules books and army books and slowly painting up my armies (I will only game with painted models so that 8 years was a patience-testing time for me!). I started properly in 7th for three full sized games before 8th came out. After some reading of the new rules - through both the hard and soft books to ensure I had a good grasp of it, I had my first game of 8th - many mistakes were made concerning the changes, but the battle finished fine. My next game was even better, and of all things it was fear tests and rerolling asf's that i forgot til half way through. Now, I had 7th remembered perfectly enough, and it's just a matter of getting used to the changes, but is it a different game like 40k changed on me? No. There's a few small changes and mostly it plays the same.

So what do I conclude from this - you have to be adaptable, but most of all I think the complaints are based more on an unwillingness to learn new rules more than a preference to the old rules, whether this be laziness, difficulty, or being unwilling to learn new tactics because they perfected the old ones. I accept and love changes because they are challenges.

SunTzu
04-07-2011, 14:19
Generally people have a regular group they play in, & unless they are all of a like mind then expecting them to conform to your preference seems unlikely.

Exactly this. Our gaming group consists of, ooh, 10-12 people depending on how you count it. I'd rather play 7th... can I convince 11 other people to do so? Tricky, especially as three of them work for GW so are exposed to 8th on a daily basis and probably wouldn't want to have to try to context-switch between rules sets every time we had a gaming day.

It's not like Warhammer is a solo game... painting the models is a solo activity, playing the games isn't. Unless everybody in the group hates the new rules, playing with the old rules is a difficult thing to agree to... it's much easier to implicitly agree to use the latest published rules by default.

For similar reasons, I love ancients wargaming, and Napoleonics; but it's a hundred times easier to find opponents for GW games, so that's what I end up playing most of the time. It's just a question of practicality.

chamelion 6
04-07-2011, 14:46
I don't think it's a question of comparing 7th with 8th. 8th is here and if you want to carry on playing WFB you have to learn to live with it somehow. I think that 8th has some excellent new rules, but overall I disliked the ruleset so much when it came out that I dropped out for 6 months. That would never have happened under 7th. However, there's no point in looking back. I dropped in on my local club again recently and was surprised to find that no-one has played WFB this year! The poor sods were reduced to playing Mordheim and Bloodbowl. I hope to persuede a couple of them to accept some club rules I have in mind, otherwise it's back to Civilization and Total War on the PC, at least until 9th comes out, which I have a feeling might be sooner rather than later. As my own small personal protest I shall not be buying any new figures for the forseeable future.
No.. It's not a comparason of the two. And it doesn't matter why you prefer a ruleset over another. The point is this, 7th edition, as a set of rules, did not become obsolete with the release of 8th. That's just a state of mind. Think of it as a separate game than 8th, which it is.

So here you claim, and I'm not doubting you, that because of 8th edition people have packed up their armies and moved on. How many of them would prefer to still be playing the game they prefered? Is Mordheim any more supported that 7th? It seems to me, if you talked to a few folks and put up some flyers maybe, get the owner to pass on the word, you'd have a game night in no time. It might start small, but once more people hear about it they'd dust off their armies and start coming in. If what you're saying is true, you're not even competing with 8th, you're working in a vacuum. Over a few months you could have a thriving gaming atmosphere again.



Exactly this. Our gaming group consists of, ooh, 10-12 people depending on how you count it. I'd rather play 7th... can I convince 11 other people to do so? Tricky, especially as three of them work for GW so are exposed to 8th on a daily basis and probably wouldn't want to have to try to context-switch between rules sets every time we had a gaming day.

It's not like Warhammer is a solo game... painting the models is a solo activity, playing the games isn't. Unless everybody in the group hates the new rules, playing with the old rules is a difficult thing to agree to... it's much easier to implicitly agree to use the latest published rules by default.

For similar reasons, I love ancients wargaming, and Napoleonics; but it's a hundred times easier to find opponents for GW games, so that's what I end up playing most of the time. It's just a question of practicality.

Do both... Out of 10 or 11 people couldn't you find 5 or 6 at least? There's nothing you from getting together with the ones that still want to play 7th on a different night.

With my group, I've been wanting to play WotR for ages... My group, as a whole wasn't interested, couldn't agree on a ruleset. I came up with a set of rules and found 3 people that were interested. Now we're building our forces and plan to meet separately. It's not and either / or situation.

With all the comments that WFB is drying up in some areas because of the new edition, I just can't see it being that hard to find people that still want to use their armies and play the game. It's just a matter of logistics.

Rogue
04-07-2011, 18:14
Truth be told there is nothing that is stopping any one from playing what ever edition as long as they have all of the books and erratta available to them. I do very much like the 6th edition more than any of the editions that I ever played (I started in the 4th and quit in the 8th) and it has so much supplemental books and alterate army lists that I doubt that I will ever get boored with it. Fixing the glaring problems of the 6th edition are quick fixes in my mind and perhaps adding a few new ideas from either WAB or the new edition are not out of the realm for me, but I can do that with an antiquated edition easier in my mind as opposed to the new edition that is now "cannon."

The hard part is finding opponants but with the net that is easer than 20 years ago. I pondered about setting up a forum for anyone who was interested in antiquated editions very similar to here on Warseer. Since I really dont have a PC right now, I cannot really put it together and effectively monitor it as I would want to. Perhaps I can set up a yahoo group or facebook group as well.

eron12
04-07-2011, 19:20
Exactly this. Our gaming group consists of, ooh, 10-12 people depending on how you count it. I'd rather play 7th... can I convince 11 other people to do so? Tricky, especially as three of them work for GW so are exposed to 8th on a daily basis and probably wouldn't want to have to try to context-switch between rules sets every time we had a gaming day.

It's not like Warhammer is a solo game... painting the models is a solo activity, playing the games isn't. Unless everybody in the group hates the new rules, playing with the old rules is a difficult thing to agree to... it's much easier to implicitly agree to use the latest published rules by default.



Do you all get together and play a game with 10-12 players at once? If not, then you only need one person to play 7th with you. Are you saying that out of 10-12 people, not one of them will compromise and play a system you prefere, rather than always playing the one they want to?

It's true that Warhammer isn't a solo game, but neither is it a group game. In most cases it's a two player game, so all you need is the person across the field from you to agree to use an older ruleset.

SunTzu
04-07-2011, 20:01
As a gaming group, we have made the agreement that we're going to play the latest rules. It's simplest that way. I don't like the new rules, and in fact I've arranged a 7th Ed game against one opponent soon, but as a gaming group we aim to keep it simple.

(I already either currently play or have played Warhammer 2nd through 8th Editions, plus WAB, plus two editions of WECW, plus Mordheim, plus any number of editions of 40K, all of which are subtly different but similar. I already have enough trouble remembering whether the range of Panic tests is 4", 6" or 12" and whether you have to take one when your General dies, or whatever... changing on a game-by-game basis would be worse than just playing the latest rules even though I'm not keen on them!)

On top of that there is a purpose in having a gaming group. If I took along a 7th Ed army, and someone else took an 8th Ed army, and someone else had War Machine, and another Flames of War, and another WECW, and another Black Powder... cool, we all get to play exactly what we want! ...or possibly don't get to play anything at all. There is a lot to be said for standardisation.

Anyway, honestly, it's kind of immaterial. The OP was asking a question. I answered it on behalf of my gaming group. People can say "yes but if you REALLY wanted to play 7th Ed you could" - yeah, OK, fine, fair enough, but I'm just answering a question, yeah?

chamelion 6
04-07-2011, 20:49
As a gaming group, we have made the agreement that we're going to play the latest rules. It's simplest that way. I don't like the new rules, and in fact I've arranged a 7th Ed game against one opponent soon, but as a gaming group we aim to keep it simple.

(I already either currently play or have played Warhammer 2nd through 8th Editions, plus WAB, plus two editions of WECW, plus Mordheim, plus any number of editions of 40K, all of which are subtly different but similar. I already have enough trouble remembering whether the range of Panic tests is 4", 6" or 12" and whether you have to take one when your General dies, or whatever... changing on a game-by-game basis would be worse than just playing the latest rules even though I'm not keen on them!)

On top of that there is a purpose in having a gaming group. If I took along a 7th Ed army, and someone else took an 8th Ed army, and someone else had War Machine, and another Flames of War, and another WECW, and another Black Powder... cool, we all get to play exactly what we want! ...or possibly don't get to play anything at all. There is a lot to be said for standardisation.

Anyway, honestly, it's kind of immaterial. The OP was asking a question. I answered it on behalf of my gaming group. People can say "yes but if you REALLY wanted to play 7th Ed you could" - yeah, OK, fine, fair enough, but I'm just answering a question, yeah?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue you out of your position, I'm trying to understand the issues and dynamics of getting people together to play older editions of these games.

I certaintly understand what you're saying about many of the rules being so similar that it gets hard to keep them straight. It also sounds like you may already be at capacity for new games... So that's a problem. But I don't get the impression that everybody is in that position. I belong to a couple of groups which also have splinter groups... Having access to different players and groups helps keep things fresh.

This is an issue that hit all of us at one point or another. Eventually our favorite edition or game gets set aside for something new which doesn't appeal to us, so we either suck it up or quit. I've been there myself. Sorting ways to network around the issue and fine like minded gamers is something that could benefit all of us.

If even one person gets some ideas and pulls together a gaming group around an older edition in an area that 8th edition isn't popular, then starting this thread was worth it.

jme
04-07-2011, 22:40
Why not play Kings of War which pretty much is 7th Ed.

Justicar_Freezer
04-07-2011, 22:52
well with the release of 8th my group sort of just lost interest in warhammer all together. It was sort of like the final nail in the coffin. My interest in GW games had been flagging for awhile as had my best friend's. Then 8th came out and we saw the direction the rules had gone and how the things we'd enjoyed in 6-7th hadn't been tweaked to be better but had been stomped on and thrown out to make a new game.

So now I and my group find a lack of interest or excitment when it comes to GW games. I remember when I used to enjoy picking up an army book or a codex and writing up an army list. Now I just feel bleh about it.

So it is my group has moved onto Warmahordes as well as working on our own rulesets to games. Maybe when 9th edition comes out GW will fix the mistakes they made and we'll break out the armies again but until then there are other options out there and I'm sure once in awhile we'll still play a big game of 7th.

The bearded one
05-07-2011, 00:25
Why not play Kings of War which pretty much is 7th Ed.

You just spoiled my appetite for trying out Mantic's gamesystem :p

chamelion 6
05-07-2011, 01:47
I have to say, I'm a little suprised at how much resistance there is to this idea. And a lot of the resistance, if not most, is directed at GW. Which I don't get. If people loved this edition as much as I read, then what difference does it make with the direction GW takes? I imagined people would be excited at the prospect of going to their LGS and getting in games just like they used to. But I'm seeing a whole lot of indifference.

You have the rules, the minis, and somebody to play against. What else do you need? You have a choice, you simply need to rally some support for it and that doesn't seem all that hard.

I really thought this was an interesting idea... Groups of gamers forming around the editions of the game that appealed to them... Seems like a win / win for all of us if that were to happen.

I dunno... Makes me wonder....

scarletsquig
05-07-2011, 02:12
You just spoiled my appetite for trying out Mantic's gamesystem :p

Kings of War is nothing like 7th edition.

There are a lot of superficial similarities with warhammer, but the game plays very differently with a much higher emphasis on movement, manoeuvre and "rock paper scissors" interaction between units. Also the army lists are balanced (!) both against each other and internally with no majorly overcosted or undercosted units in any of the army lists. I like it much more than 7th edition. :)

Anyway, back on topic, 7th edition was my favourite edition of warhammer, in terms of rules. Unfortunately the army books ruined it.

8th edition made some excellent changes but also a lot of very bad ones.

So in answer to the OP, it's not a case of going back to 7th edition from 8th edition for me, it's a case of ditching 8th edition for Kings of War whenever I find an opponent who is willing to give it a go. So far the response has been pretty good, most people aren't ditching 8th edition or anything, it's still the main game they play, but they don't mind playing the odd game of KoW for a bit of variety.

On the other hand I also don't mind playing 8th edition when messing around and just want to have some lazy fun rolling buckets of dice and taking fistfuls of models off the table with massive templates. It's great as a casual game to play for a laugh, but there isn't really much in the way of tactics involved. I don't think anyone I know really takes the game as seriously as they do when playing games like warmachine or even MTG.

The cool thing is, it's a lot easier to get someone to play KoW than it is to get them to play some random skirmish game like, I dunno, infinity or whatever because they can use their warhammer models to play it, and the rules are dead easy to learn.

yabbadabba
05-07-2011, 08:14
Kings of War is nothing like 7th edition.

There are a lot of superficial similarities with warhammer, but the game plays very differently with a much higher emphasis on movement, manoeuvre and "rock paper scissors" interaction between units. Also the army lists are balanced (!) both against each other and internally with no majorly overcosted or undercosted units in any of the army lists. I like it much more than 7th edition. :) Easy to balance a game with a mere handful of army lists :D. Lets see what happens when 70,000+ gamers and a hardcore tournament set get hold of Mantics 13+ army lists in a few years time ;)

I love the myth that because of a few changes in the rules there is less strategy and tactics in 8e. I think that there a fewer no brainers in terms of army selection and on field tactics now. The only unit I have dropped is my Empire skirmishing archers, and that is because I have gone from a passive defensive Empire army (almost the only hope for survival in 8e) to a range of playing styles. And its the same for my regular opponents.

Now I know people will come on and say "But its true, there are less tactics", but we will have to agree to disagree on that one, cos I ain't budging :D. I would recommend for the 7e die hard tournament crowd to give KoW a shout as it seems a simple enough ruleset to make it, at this point, ideal for tournaments. Someone else has mentioned average dixe, and while this removes some of the uncertainty and smooths out the stats curve a bit it does remove certain aspects of the game.

SunTzu
05-07-2011, 10:49
7th edition was my favourite edition of warhammer, in terms of rules. Unfortunately the army books ruined it.

This.


Easy to balance a game with a mere handful of army lists . Lets see what happens when 70,000+ gamers and a hardcore tournament set get hold of Mantics 13+ army lists in a few years time

Also this. Same applies to Warmahordes IMO.

IcedCrow
05-07-2011, 13:14
Anytime anything tournament-related (competitive) comes into play, the balance or illusion thereof will be destroyed. I think that's how you can really gauge how broken your ruleset is, throw it into a hardcore competitive environment and see what loop holes are exploited and what monstrosities are created in the name of winning ;)

stirogiperogi
05-07-2011, 14:07
.



Anyway, back on topic, 7th edition was my favourite edition of warhammer, in terms of rules. Unfortunately the army books ruined it.

8th edition made some excellent changes but also a lot of very bad ones.


On the other hand I also don't mind playing 8th edition when messing around and just want to have some lazy fun rolling buckets of dice and taking fistfuls of models off the table with massive templates. It's great as a casual game to play for a laugh, but there isn't really much in the way of tactics involved. I don't think anyone I know really takes the game as seriously as they do when playing games like warmachine or even MTG.

From my perspective; the only people hanging on to the 7th edition are those who think the game should be played like MTG. (Tournament, or competitive, players are unable to handle the more random elements in the new 8th edition. The tactical play is still in the game, but the designers of 8th edition made sure that nothing was a sure thing, and I guess that is what wrankles the 7th edition guys the most.) The big problem is underlined in the post above; Serious playing and MTG or warmachine are used in the same sentence. (I do not play these games, as competitive, and or, card players smell on the inside as well as the outside.;))

So the the 7th edition players are stuck in a world of cheesy tournament play, proclaiming that 7th edition is the best edition and yet they whine incessantly about the "bad" army books that this **** edition of fantasy battle has spawned. In some perversion of this great hobby and past-time, all these 7th edition proponents sing the same tired song: "The 7th edition rules are great, but rather it is the broken army books; and yes I will select all of the same units that I know are over-powered and under-costed." This line thinking has a certain chutzpah about it.

I can not wait any longer for the new "Storm of Magic". This new expansion will further separate the 7th and 8th edition players even further, which is fine with me. The tournament guys will jump to warmahordes and MTG, and let the serious wargamers alone.

IcedCrow
05-07-2011, 14:21
While I agree with a lot of the sentiments above, that the tournament players are the ones ultimately upset that 8th editions Gamey elements prevent them from playing a chess match, that doesn't make them any less serious about wargaming than those of us who are ok with gamey elements.

In fact I daresay that they are more serious as they are taking themselves a little TOO seriously in my opinion.

Andy p
05-07-2011, 14:44
I loved 7th - I was able to play my way, rather than the current environment where (it seems) all armies are the same, but with different unit names - a block of 50 infantry, a smaller block of the same, some archers, a block of 30 elite infantry, no skmishers, no light cav...

Exactly what is stopping you playing your way? The rules? Have some gumption and just play the way you want to, just because it isnt as effective anymore doesnt mean you should just give up.

I used to use big blocks way before 8th because I reasoned that O&G are meant to be used as a big mass of people. It didnt really work atall but it was fun and the only difference now is that it is legitimately decent to do so.

Of course I still want to make my cavalry horde army even if it fails. :evilgrin:

Also dont ignore just how samey all the 7th armies were too, I remember going to watch a tournament at Warhammer World and seeing a sea of Daemons, Vampire Counts and Dark Elves with similar lists. I thought some of them could all have come from the same person, except for the paintjobs.

8th has plenty of flaws I know that, but then so did 7th.

Oh *EDIT*, example of a nasty 8th flaw, that beastly purple sun which just decimated my army. :D

yabbadabba
05-07-2011, 14:50
While I agree with a lot of the sentiments above, that the tournament players are the ones ultimately upset that 8th editions Gamey elements prevent them from playing a chess match, that doesn't make them any less serious about wargaming than those of us who are ok with gamey elements. Agreed. There is no reason for tournament gamers to be excluded or derided. But this is a game which for 8 editions now has only one nod towards the competitive tournament mindset, that of WFB Daemons. This is a game system which can be played at tournaments, but needs to come with a customer warning about the grey areas :D

IcedCrow
05-07-2011, 14:50
I haven't seen same armies in 8th. I know that they can exist, but 7th edition came in two flavors:

All cavalry.

OR

Gunline.

That's about as samey as it gets.

Sexiest_hero
05-07-2011, 15:03
\bah to 7th, It wasn't competitive, it was play VC win, then play DE skaven win. or Play daemon and win really easy. "Competitive" warhammer revolved around playing these few armies. Turnaments ended up being 805 tzeench daemons, 19% DE or skaven or vc. For those of us who couldn't generate 15+ powerdice. If you want to play 7th, more power to you. I'm just saying there were tones of Necron tau and eldar players the wanted to stick to 4th edition 40k.

Late
05-07-2011, 15:26
There's nothing indeed that's stopping people from playing earlier editions.
Me and my friends, none of whom don't care about tournaments etc, still play 7th edition. Hell, we still play Rogue Trader & 2nd edition 40k :D

loveless
05-07-2011, 17:31
Got excited when 7th was coming out. Tried a few games with a friend of mine. Both of us found it dreadfully boring. I kept trying to get excited with new book releases, but nothing could "fix" 7th Edition for me. Regardless of the army, it was the same slow-moving infantry blocks decimated by quick cavalry units and various spells. There were many things I felt I had to take in 7th - Scroll Caddies, Heavy Cavalry, etc.

I don't get that feeling in 8th. For whatever reason, I don't feel bad about just taking what I want and not worrying about prerequisites. Mind you, what I want tends to be magic and fancy-looking stuff, which wasn't bad in 7th...I just didn't care for the old Magic Phase.

I can understand those who'd want to play an older edition and I'm fine with it - just don't make me play an edition I don't like and I won't force the same on you. We'll just have to find different opponents :p

popisdead
05-07-2011, 19:11
Just to say up front I hated 6th and 7th... Enough that I quit playing WFB completely.

I don't think it was only you. 95% of local Fantasy players started to drop after the big three came out in 7th ed.

8th ed was needed so bad the game was essentially dead. There were more War of the Rings played in a week at the local store than Fantasy.

eron12
08-07-2011, 04:41
As a gaming group, we have made the agreement that we're going to play the latest rules. It's simplest that way. I don't like the new rules, and in fact I've arranged a 7th Ed game against one opponent soon, but as a gaming group we aim to keep it simple.

Reasonable, if a little limiting.



On top of that there is a purpose in having a gaming group.

Yes, the purpose is to have a pool of people to play games with.


If I took along a 7th Ed army, and someone else took an 8th Ed army, and someone else had War Machine, and another Flames of War, and another WECW, and another Black Powder... cool, we all get to play exactly what we want! ...or possibly don't get to play anything at all. There is a lot to be said for standardisation.

But if four of your brought 8th ed armies, and two more brought flames of war, and another four brouth War Machine... you'd be set. And if somepeople came prepared for mutliple games you'd be even better off. I agree that there is something to be said for standardization, but you lose a lot as well.


Anyway, honestly, it's kind of immaterial. The OP was asking a question. I answered it on behalf of my gaming group. People can say "yes but if you REALLY wanted to play 7th Ed you could" - yeah, OK, fine, fair enough, but I'm just answering a question, yeah?[/QUOTE]

Geep
08-07-2011, 08:10
I've tried giving 8th a go with my regular opponent. I found it ok, he didn't like it (he'd need to field armies in a way he doesn't want to field them)- so now we'll probably play 7th.

I recently found 3 other players too... who also only want to play 7th.

I found 7th to be a far more competitive game- things were more predictable and manouvering units dominated the game (mostly). I agree with the earlier quote that the rules were great, but that the army books ruined it. Fortunately I never had to face daemons or any purposefully broken builds of other races.

8th reminds me of how the game used to be for me around 10 years ago- when I had a completely different gaming group. The game was often badly unbalanced even at deployment (not helped by the varying levels of money available to group memebers) and it wasn't uncommon for a single spell or character to win or lose a game- but so long as you didn't care about winning it was fun and had a very 'fantasy' air to it.

I like that I can still play 7th so easily, and I'm sure when I get the urge it won't be hard to find people who play 8th.