PDA

View Full Version : Your favourite WHFB edition



Karak Norn Clansman
16-10-2012, 19:05
Which is your favourite edition of WFHB? Please vote in the poll and feel free to write down the reasons for your choice.

For me the current 8th ed. WHFB takes the throne, due to its emphasis on large-sized units and more vicious combat phases. I've had a lot of fun on the 8th edition tournaments which I've attended, and GW's model quality is generally very high. (Let's keep pricing complaints out of this, because otherwise I'd have some nasty things to write here.) The return of coloured art in the nowadays hardback armybooks is welcome, as is the improvement of background in the armybooks despite the lack of content in White Dwarf. Balance is also arriving between the current edition's armybooks for the first time ever, yet greater opportunities for themed armies have arised with the return of the percentage army system. Though the gameplay has geared itself more to level 4 wizards and monsters, I like its wacky random nature in terrain. The magic phase also seem better to me. And then we have Storm of Magic attached to 8th edition, not to forget. :D

All in all, 8th edition is my favourite so far, although I have only collected Warhammer since 6th edition.

In part this thread might be seen as a feedback source for GW if it swells large.

Morkash
16-10-2012, 19:14
I quite like the 8th edition as well. Fluid gameplay, solid AB's, happy Morkash. It's not perfect, but with Gentleman's agreement it is loads of fun and well playable!

I also voted for 3rd edition despite never having played it, simply because the books from that era (Rogue Trader as well) are ace. Just take a look at the two Realm of Chaos books.

Karak Norn Clansman
16-10-2012, 19:26
Yes, and the main 3rd edition rulebook is quite nice. Just look at the coloured illustrations. One understands the heavy nostalgia of veterans after looking at it and the Chaos books from that time. Linketilink: http://realmofchaos80s.blogspot.se/2012/05/warhammer-third-edition-rule-book-pdfs.html

Malorian
16-10-2012, 19:36
I started in 6th and my favorite was 7th.

I loved the cat and mouse of it.

BigbyWolf
16-10-2012, 19:45
4th is where I started, and I still play it every now and then for a bit of fun.

X% points in: Characters, Troops, War Machines, Monsters, Allies...

What's not to like?

Also, Frenzy doubled attacks, magic weapons were OTT and virtually unrestriced (no points limit, each character could take a certain number...), Wizards could kick the crap out of warriors...

My general used to be a Black Orc, with the Deathsword (S10), Armour Of Brilliance (Good save, and -2 to hit) and the Silver Seal (-1 to hit, plus a few other bits...there were no "ward saves" in those days). IIRC, the sword is now Crone Hellebron's, the armour belonged to Louen Leoncourt, and the seal is from Karl Franz.

Happy, if entirely too crazy, times.

Also, armies were cheaper, and not just because everyone put their points into characters.

Also: Flying high, magic cards, one Undead army, one Chaos Army, multi-wound infantry, fantastic White Dwarf battle reports (and the rest of the magazine was good too...)...I think I'd better stop now, I've got a tear in my eye...

DaemonReign
16-10-2012, 19:59
Out of 4th, 7th and 8th I voted 8th.

TheDungen
16-10-2012, 20:21
voted 5th for minatures and 6th for rules and armybooks.

5th had some of the best minature range (though i guess much of it was from earlier editions) the paint jobs sucked of course (red period) but the mins had way more humor than they currently do.

i also loved that 6th gave some realism by basing each army in a real world faction and tailoring its army structure after that.

Also the shift time between these editions gave us mordheim. which is possibly the best book Gw has ever made. (just look at it, the art in it looks way better than anything after it)

Daniel36
16-10-2012, 20:28
Probably played one 6th battle, might have played one 5th as well... Played a couple of 7th ed battles and I HATED it. So I can't really say anything about older editions except 7th... which I HATED.

So 8th for me.

Gary wyper
16-10-2012, 20:43
7th had the bedt rules but some of the worst written army books in gw history
8th thusfar seems to have the best army books with the exception of the brokeness that is ogres

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

IcedCrow
16-10-2012, 21:07
6th edition right after the change from 5th. For a couple of years the game was less about heroes and the armies looked "right". then it started evolving into that MSU crap where armies stopped looking like armies and more like cav-lines, and the dance of the eighth of an inch became popular.

7th edition was a nightmare for me due to the prevalence of imbalanced army books, the MSU malarchy, and the eighth of an inch dance to the point where I gave up the hobby for about four years until a year or so into 8th.

Karak Norn Clansman
16-10-2012, 21:26
6th edition right after the change from 5th. For a couple of years the game was less about heroes and the armies looked "right". then it started evolving into that MSU crap where armies stopped looking like armies and more like cav-lines, and the dance of the eighth of an inch became popular.

7th edition was a nightmare for me due to the prevalence of imbalanced army books, the MSU malarchy, and the eighth of an inch dance to the point where I gave up the hobby for about four years until a year or so into 8th.

Interesting observations which I agree with. Did you play anything before 6th edition? If so, how were they, and how do you find 8th to be? :)

The Low King
16-10-2012, 21:31
8th. I Only just started playing when 6th was replaced by 7th and i never played much in 7th because i found it dull. 8th is the reason i play warhammer.

Hawkwood
16-10-2012, 21:38
Well i only played the 8th edition so i take that one. I will also think that the ogres brokeness is becuse that they nedded something to make them more popular when they was the latest army to be introduced. Just my personol oppinion though. Did not see many ogre players before the book release but many after

tmarichards
16-10-2012, 21:45
I'd have to say 8th, as much as the randomness winds me up every now and then it's the most fun I can remember ever having had playing Warhammer.

The bearded one
16-10-2012, 21:47
8th, I love infantry.

Voss
16-10-2012, 22:47
I started in 6th and my favorite was 7th.

I loved the cat and mouse of it.

I'm curious as to what you mean. I've never seen a 'cat and mouse' aspect of warhammer, from 3rd edition to the present.



Also, 3rd and 8th for me.
7th was the absolute nadir of despair, with bad army books and a basic ruleset that hadn't been improved in a decade, merely tweaked to new levels of badness.

Crube
16-10-2012, 22:52
3rd edition was the ultimate for me

More complex certainly, but for me a lot more fun

8th isn't bad by a long stretch, but for depth and detail, and fun.... 3rd all the way

NecronBob
16-10-2012, 23:01
I've only played 5th, 7th, and 8th.

My favorite is 8th.

At the time, I loved 7th; however, as others have said, looking back there was a lot of silliness: having a unit do nothing because it lost its front rank (not unique to 7th, I know), poorly balanced army books, massive amounts of power dice in some armies. I don't miss it. I'm loving 8th though (I'll probably be posting the same type of thing when 9th comes out though. I'll most likely say, "I loved 8th, but I don't miss horde formations.")

Urgat
16-10-2012, 23:25
I've started with 5th, but 8th is by far my favourite. The one I disliked most is 7th.

whatever
16-10-2012, 23:40
Loved 3rd and as a group played it for years well into 5th but I think for many its a nostalgia trip the one you start with always has a soft place in your heart. But I do like 8th best wfb ever written in my opinion; balanced, well written and lots of fun. Its brought me back after a long time away and I must say for all the gripes I hear about gw they have continued to make great figs and have pushed the envelope of fig design and game design time and time again. Even though I have not enjoyed or played every edition I put that down to me wanting something different.

Fear Ghoul
17-10-2012, 00:10
I started towards the end of 4th edition and have continued on and off since then, never having actually played a game until 6th edition.

All things considered I think the 4th/5th edition army books had the best content, the 6th edition army books had the presentation style with a variety of cool artwork and short stories, and the 8th edition books are the best balanced outside of Ravening Hordes.

The core rules have generally become better over time in particular with the fall of 4th/5th edition herohammer and the tidying up of the rules. Which of 6th-8th is the best is up for debate however I feel 8th has the slight edge due to the reduction in impact of charging through random charges, stepping forward, and fighting in initiative order. The previous rules favoured cavalry and monsters much more than infantry is favoured now, and it you could never play a proper horde army because your opponent would still run down your unit just as easily as if you had a smaller unit. The magic phase still has a few warts in 8th, but then when has it not?

Gaargod
17-10-2012, 00:27
7th had the best rules but some of the worst written army books in gw history


This.

The actual core rules for 7th ed were great. They weren't perfect - they could certainly have done with a few, sometimes quite severe, tweaks - but overall good. But the army books however were, with only a couple of exceptions, simply atrocious.

O&G was at least kinda balanced, if almost totally devoid of all the humour so present in the brilliant 6th ed book. We then had a few other mediocre books (with Empire standing out easily as strongest due to a few very good choices), until 7th ed High Elves, which were markedly stronger than most competitors overall. WoC was also very strong, as was Lizardmen (overall easily my favourite book, due to reasonably fluff and overall at least a decent stab at balance, even if some choices were easily stand-out better).
But then the abominations of the VC, DoC, DE and later Skaven happened. Bad times.

Rogue
17-10-2012, 00:47
I started with the 4th, played in the 6th, 7th, and quit in the 8th. I can't wrap my head around the rules of the current edition.

7th had the bedt rules but some of the worst written army books in gw history


Totally agree here. The best time for me was just when the 7th came out before any of the armybooks came out to screw it up. Made a blog post about this a while back here:
http://www.tinylegions.blogspot.com/2011/09/back-to-future.html

Bring_Back_Chaos_Dwarfs?
17-10-2012, 01:19
For those of you guys who played before 3rd edition, when warhammer was a skirmish game (right? or am I wrong here?), how was it? Was it a really complex skirmish game? Was it balanced? I remember seeing pictures of an older warhammer edition game that was definitely skirmish based (not mordheim obviously) on someone's blog. I have the 3rd edition rule book (which really isn't that skirmishing) and I am just really curious about it, as it looked really cool.

Algovil
17-10-2012, 02:01
Started just when 8th was fresh, a great start for a rookie! I can not speak for earlier versions but later versions will get proportionally more votes because of most people here play 8th, but fewer played 7th and very few played say 4th. I vote for 8th because it is all I know. That said I like the direction towards more (cannot find the correct English word here) WYSIWYG rule wise. To me the game is less abstract than other war games, maybe even compared to earlier versions of WHFB? With that I try to say that there are few unkown gamechanging items etct you cannot tell from what you see on the table. All units follow the rules set by the rulesbook, without breaking them. We do not have the situations in 40k where say a 2+ save could be 1/6 chance of wounding or not matter at all. WHFB 6th too me is more about soft-counters than direct hard-counters. Most units, especially from the 8th ed armybook, does exactly, and have the powerlevel, you expect of them from the look on the table. Jervis Johnson actually wrote a great article on this, might have been the standard bearer pages in the White Dwarf.

IcedCrow
17-10-2012, 02:40
Interesting observations which I agree with. Did you play anything before 6th edition? If so, how were they, and how do you find 8th to be? :)

I started at the tail end of 5th before vampire counts was its own book (my first army was the undead list before the split)

I hated that edition. Mainly because I wanted a game that featured ARMIES and not super powered D&D characters (we played D&D for super powered D&D characters) and 5th edition was "HERO HAMMER" for a reason.

I like 8th. There are a few things I am not a big fan of, mainly steadfast combined with broken units like slaves being a brain-dead crutch IMO, and how weighty magic is to the point that people feel compelled to:

1) take level 4 wizards in every game

and

2) take bloated super units to take advantage of the all-or-nothing scoring system of 8th as well as the steadfast rule.

I think with some tweaks, 8th is a lot of fun though. Certainly our league uses a couple of houserules:

1) Magic Resistance always gives you a ward vs spells, even the super death spells
2) Disruption cancels out steadfast so that flanking and what not mean more
3) Double 1s are miscasts and override double 6s (like the older editions) which puts more risk on just tossing 6 dice at a super spell and not caring

m1acca1551
17-10-2012, 03:06
8th for me, i really have not had so much fun with wfb before!

Maoriboy007
17-10-2012, 03:27
6th Edition for me, one of the first editions that allowed you to redirect a charge it had its problems but every edition does. 8th edition isn't all that bad, but Iced crow gives many of the reasons it can't get my vote. I also agree with Gary wyper about 7th having good rules but terrible books, the worst rule in it was the fear rule, but TBH Fear Autobreak wasn't so much the fault of 7th as it was an evil of older editions that overstayed its welcome.

m1acca1551
17-10-2012, 06:46
I started at the tail end of 5th before vampire counts was its own book (my first army was the undead list before the split)

I hated that edition. Mainly because I wanted a game that featured ARMIES and not super powered D&D characters (we played D&D for super powered D&D characters) and 5th edition was "HERO HAMMER" for a reason.

I like 8th. There are a few things I am not a big fan of, mainly steadfast combined with broken units like slaves being a brain-dead crutch IMO, and how weighty magic is to the point that people feel compelled to:

1) take level 4 wizards in every game

and

2) take bloated super units to take advantage of the all-or-nothing scoring system of 8th as well as the steadfast rule.

I think with some tweaks, 8th is a lot of fun though. Certainly our league uses a couple of houserules:

1) Magic Resistance always gives you a ward vs spells, even the super death spells
2) Disruption cancels out steadfast so that flanking and what not mean more
3) Double 1s are miscasts and override double 6s (like the older editions) which puts more risk on just tossing 6 dice at a super spell and not caring

Some great points from icedcrow as usual, 8th has some glaring bad points that an be fixed by house ruling etc, but in general the majority of abusivnes comes from older books that are simply way over the top. With either spamable unit choices, or magic items or users able to ensure they can break a magic phase and utilise it to its full "potential".

In saying that, once :shifty: all the books are uptdated 8th will be simply awesome.

Scythe
17-10-2012, 07:56
8th edition, by far. They made a good effort to finally update some things in the core rules to shake the game around, and push big infantry units. It also made the game more dynamic, and more about overall battle plans and strategy instead of a measurement and distance judging contest.

The early years of 6th edition were quite fun though, Ravening Hordes was a great reset after the two herohammer editions of 4th and 5th. That said, 4th/5th being the years I started playing, running around with a couple of uber characters devastating everything was pretty fun from time to time. Not the best editions, but good times nonetheless.

shelfunit.
17-10-2012, 08:22
3rd edition was the ultimate for me

More complex certainly, but for me a lot more fun

8th isn't bad by a long stretch, but for depth and detail, and fun.... 3rd all the way

Absolutely agree. In terms of relative balance 8th is the closest I've seen to 3rd - magic in both editions skews it fairly heavily depending on the spells rolled, but points values to abilities-wise 3rd was the last "formula" based balance system. Since then it has moved heavily to the "feels like it is worth these points/ pointed to sell lots" system of "balance".

Lemonbrick
17-10-2012, 08:50
I voted 8th and 6th currently I love the troops focus of 8th , makes armies actually seem like armies, although it has some hiccups I hope will be cleaned up in the 9th , I also stuck a vote in for 6th as I have a huge bunch of happy memories learning my undead and building them into a ace fighting force. That saying I have many happy memories of 4th, 5th and 7th edition for that matter!

whatever
17-10-2012, 12:01
@Bring_Back_Chaos_Dwarfs (http://www.warseer.com/forums/member.php?81649-Bring_Back_Chaos_Dwarfs)

3rd Edition, now your testing my memory last time I played it was at least 5 years ago. But it defiantly not a skirmish game however it allowed you to take all sorts of combinations of troops and characters so you could end up with quite a small number of troops to play with depending how you built your force. If you have a set by all means give it a go its a cracking rule set just very dated.

A lot of wargamers including myself had grown up with either D and D or historical and the historical sets of the time were heavy and hard work with lists and lists of tables so it gets very complicated very quickly. It is defiantly not a tournament set of rules and I am not sure if there were any at the time (someone might know more ).

With any set of rules from this period you always had to do some work filling in some gaps in the rules You here rule discussions on here and GW being called all sorts but then sections of rules didn't exists and some were so impossible to play that they were dropped or changed.

It was more of a gentlemen type thing you were so used to getting to a point that didn't work or just got such odd results that you and your opponent would have to sit down grab a drink and work it out. I think at times it used to make the community stronger however it was a much smaller community so in an area you really did get to know folk who were playing. Guess it made us understand that there is nothing that cant be solved by a roll off. No matter what you played at the time it just happened, most rule sets were made by enthusiastic amateurs or 1 man band company's and you were just glad you had any sort of rule packages to play with just ask the next older historical player what they were like or better get them to take you through a game of the 80's your head will hurt.

There is one other thing that I do miss that used to make sense was that if you got to a point that really was not covered you could always call gw and one of the design team used to help you out. There was no internet or mobiles so it was find a land line and go have a chat. I miss this interaction and when people such as the mayor of London can take the time to answer questions on twitter (he gives it 3hrs a month) why cant one of the designers take the same approach and connect with the customers here is hoping.

Give 3rd a go great game and just enjoy it warts and all something doesn't always have to be perfect to be a great hoot. You may well learn how far GW has come and dragged wargaming as a whole a lot further down the road look what we had and we loved it. Ramble over ;-)

Oogie boogie boss
17-10-2012, 12:38
I've been playing since 4th, and I think the current ed. is the best. Great synergy with the army books, interesting magic, emphasis on big units. Great stuff.

Arnizipal
17-10-2012, 12:54
6th edition right after the change from 5th. For a couple of years the game was less about heroes and the armies looked "right". then it started evolving into that MSU crap where armies stopped looking like armies and more like cav-lines, and the dance of the eighth of an inch became popular.

7th edition was a nightmare for me due to the prevalence of imbalanced army books, the MSU malarchy, and the eighth of an inch dance to the point where I gave up the hobby for about four years until a year or so into 8th.
I mostly agree with this.
I started playing in the last days of 5th, with all its craziness it inherited from 4th edition.

When 6th edition rolled around it was a breath of fresh air to me and my gaming group. You could actually field armies instead of just a few powerful characters and a small entourage.
6th Edition was the heyday for me and my friends. We played often and the rules worked pretty well.
7th edition improved the core rules, but the armybooks suffered in quality. Our group had lost a lot of players by this time due to real life issues (jobs, girlfriends, people moving away...) so I didn't get to play very often. It's gotten even worse in recent years since I only have one (semi-)regular opponent left. I've played less than 10 battles under the 8th edition ruleset :(

So, as a matter of nostalgia and general rules quality I pick 6th edition as my favorite :)

boli
17-10-2012, 14:01
I started in 4th edition and technically played 5th edition although it was more a case of using 5th edition rulebooks under 4th edition rules.

There were so many problems and issues I hated about it; although the actual games were fun. I've had battles where 50% of your points were spent on 2 characters; a level4 mage and a lord on the biggest monster you can find. Units were just chaff to fill up your points and were little more than stuff the enemy characters can kill. I was unusual in that I actually liked units and spent more than the 25% allowance. Needless to say I didn't do very well ;)

I didn't play for 15 years but 8th edition is sooo much better and it really feels like having armies... rather than just characters and chaff. Step-up is by far the best rule they added. there was nothing more annoying than not being able to attack when you are charged you simply stood there, had a couple fo guys kileld and took a leadership test; often failing.

Combat lasting more than the charge = win!

needless to say I voted 8th :)

zoggin-eck
17-10-2012, 14:10
I missed out on 1st to 3rd editions, but I think the game is at a pretty good state at the moment, and 8th has convinced me to get back into it properly, which is nice. I do like big units, pre-measuring, building rules, random charges, terrain that doesn't grind units to a halt and some of the things I know others don't like about it, though.

I really did enjoy the early days of 6th edition, there was quite a lot of energy into making the game world something special, and that one big rulebook seemed so full of stuff at the time. They pumped out lots of background for each army in White Dwarf, extra rules and lists etc. and at the time I enjoyed Albion and Storm of Chaos, even if I do understand people's (and later, Gav's) views on it. It may not have been everyone's favourite, but it certainly felt "new" longer than the other editions I've played through. When Ravening Hordes (ha, why do they keep using the same names?) came with White Dwarf, it really was a fun time where I tried out plenty of armies that I'd collected the odd unit and character for, since we suddenly had every army list and didn't need to buy any books. Plus, these lists were so simple to use and learn.



5th had some of the best minature range (though i guess much of it was from earlier editions) the paint jobs sucked of course (red period) but the mins had way more humor than they currently do.

I love earlier 3rd edition models and later, modern plastic kits, but I'll agree that the 5th edition releases (and 4th, in my eyes) really were nice, painting them up now. So many models I decided were bad based on the studio paint jobs and not seeing them in person, (or just not being able to afford metal units at the time!) I am now really enjoying giving justice (hopefully!) now. Some real gems, like the 5th edition High Elf archers, spearmen and reavers which I thought "why re-make these?" at the time, really were quite nice. As for 4th edition, chunky boringly painted models like the Dark Elves are something I'm now happy to snap up on ebay.



Also: Flying high.......

That's enough for me! 4th/5th flying high rules were great fun. The 3rd edition rules looked a little too fiddly, but this really was a fun part of the game where your "imagination" (said in Spongebob's voice) came into play. I always thought it was cinematic picturing dragons, eagles and griffons fighting up high (just like in the background stories!) and it was great fun fearing that a huge monster could come crashing down upon my doom diver at any point. It was a great "should I, shouldn't I?" question of whether to waste a turn flying high or not, and if you should keep the odd character "war machine minder" in your own force, just in case.

I always find it interesting reading about 3rd edition. It has this magical quality, and I'd love to get into it via the Chaos books just for a laugh. Fascinating to see that it was the "least playable" in Rick Priestley's eyes in an interview. Doesn't mean "worst", but I'd love to know which of his editions he likes the best.

8th is a welcome return to GW pushing Warhammer as a narrative, scenario driven game just as much as a "balanced" game. Lots of ideas of ways to play, scenarios, terrain and so on encouraged by White Dwarf and supplements. In the short amount of time so far, we've seen a book on Magic and monsters, another on monsters and related scenarios with a narrative campaign, one on a narrative campaign with extra chaos list rules and a Chaos Dwarf army list and one light hearted one on campaigns, with light rules for siege, underground, marshes etc.

Urgat
17-10-2012, 15:40
Flying high was silly. If both players had a flying monster, it'd actually spell doom for the first one going up. And then you combine that with terror bomb, plus mega panic checks, and it has ruined quite a few games of mine in a couple turns.

Ealdwulf
17-10-2012, 15:51
While I've only played 8th a handful of times, I have to say it's my favorite.

I am a little surprised however that it is doing so well in this poll. For all the internet naysayers, it seems that 8th is actually fairly popular!

Maybe this is due to people that disliked 8th having left the hobby.

Personally I feel that rules changes come and go, but the Warhammer hobby is not something (for me) that hinges on a rule or two I don't like. I enjoy hanging out with friends, building my armies, painting. To me the rules are just a small part of the hobby, and while they are important and I believe 8th edition is well made, some people seem to focus entirely too much on the rule book to define their fun.

IcedCrow
17-10-2012, 15:57
Yeah flying high. Worst rule ever.

Here's one of my favorite anecdotes from 5th ed:

I am undead. My opponent's "army" (lol) was 5 knights, a dragon riding king, an allied level 4 high elf sorcerer, 10 archers led by another wizard. (bretonnia)

Turn 1 - fly high
Turn 2 - land in the middle of my army with sword of courrne which caused any model within 6" of it to take D6 wounds with no save. Game over.

Genius.

TheDungen
17-10-2012, 18:15
let me sum up 8th with a quote from Gilead's Blood, "there's to much magic here"

Urgat
17-10-2012, 18:32
Yes, that definitvely sums up what 8th ed is all about :o. Since we're comparing edtions, 8th ed magic and spells are tame compared to 5th ed ones, by the way.

Petey
17-10-2012, 18:43
For those of you guys who played before 3rd edition, when warhammer was a skirmish game (right? or am I wrong here?), how was it? Was it a really complex skirmish game? Was it balanced? I remember seeing pictures of an older warhammer edition game that was definitely skirmish based (not mordheim obviously) on someone's blog. I have the 3rd edition rule book (which really isn't that skirmishing) and I am just really curious about it, as it looked really cool.

It was the coolest thing I'd ever seen in a miniatures game, by which I mean, it was the ONLY thing I'd ever seen as a miniatures game. I don't remember it very well, though I remember liking 3rd ed better (I still have that tortured book, missing all it counters for elves and orcs)

Boreas_NL
17-10-2012, 19:15
I voted 6th for the sake of nostalgia (my first real battles were fought with 6th ed.) and I voted 8th for the smooth gameplay.

As far as armybooks go, I would have voted 5th or 7th. Obviously, 5th for the sheer variety the Empire book offered and 7th because it's the best we ever had... Naturally, 8th ed. is utter crap, I hardly deem it worthy to wipe my ass with...

Malorian
17-10-2012, 19:54
I'm curious as to what you mean. I've never seen a 'cat and mouse' aspect of warhammer, from 3rd edition to the present.

7th was the absolute nadir of despair, with bad army books and a basic ruleset that hadn't been improved in a decade, merely tweaked to new levels of badness.

The bait and counter aspect of 7th was amazing. There was no redirecting a charge, no attacks based off initiative, no steadfast, no combat reform, and what this meant what that the charge mattered and winning the movement phase won you the game.

The dance you could play with throwaway units, support units, and the main blocks. To me it was a perfect game.


The problem was the army books that went with it. I highly suspect that if it wasn't for DoC and VC and how it changed the game that there would be many more votes for 7th edition.


I'm currently loving 8th edition, but even though I find it more fun I miss the tactics of 7th.

Askari
17-10-2012, 19:58
8th Edition is the only edition of Fantasy that got me to... well play Fantasy. Really didn't like the mechanics of the earlier ones I'd read/tried.

Infact, I like 8th Edition so much it's overtaken my love for 40k, which was in turn stifled by 6th Edition.

Sir_Glonojad
17-10-2012, 20:07
Fluffwise - 5th Edition definitely. I actually am a fan of Stillman's Bretonnia. And those beautiful, full-colour rulebooks (both of them) which GW has miraculously "invented" a dozen years later , heh. Still, it may be a "Secondary School Nostalgia" with a quarter of my (malpe part of) school group collecting.

Ruleswise - 6th was a great step ahead (and that comes from a Bretonnian player who only had appalling Ravening Hordes rules through a few years if the edition - I actually considered playing with Imperial rules before gatting White Dwarf's "5.9" ruleset). I haven't played in 7th ed that much (see the intro of my HE paintblog :p ), but the magic overload echoes got even to me. This edition, although magic is still powerful, saw a lot of great improvements from my POW - I like being able to measure at any time, I really disliked guessing which wasn't really a part of tactical skill and actually promoted dirty tricks like measuring ones hand, forearm etc., I like two-rank shooting and combat, volley shooting for archers, and even Initiative-based combat order (though believe charges and weapons should have I modifiers).

Rotgut
17-10-2012, 21:16
8th by far. The earlier editions were games that you had to struggle to make work, 8th is a game that you have to struggle to break.

logan054
17-10-2012, 22:08
The bait and counter aspect of 7th was amazing. There was no redirecting a charge, no attacks based off initiative, no steadfast, no combat reform, and what this meant what that the charge mattered and winning the movement phase won you the game.

The dance you could play with throwaway units, support units, and the main blocks. To me it was a perfect game.

I think the real issue with previous edition was you had to much importance on placed on getting the charge, I don't really like how they have made it for the most part pointless, for, I think I think stepup and possible steadfast would have been enough to give infantry a decent chance against cavalry, this really was the problem of 6th and 7th, it was all about msu cavalry units charging into large blocks of infantry, killing the front rank and then breaking them on the charge, it was just to much.

While I think 8th ed is the best edition so far, it does still suffer from magic being far to important because of certain overpowered lores of magic, that and cannons...

main thing I liked about 6th was the armybooks, so full of character (well the HoC was anyways :) ).

dirach.
17-10-2012, 22:15
It is a tricky question. I started with 4th edition and at the end on 5th I remember being tired of the dominant place of characters. I wanted the footsoldiers mean something. I also disliked the 5th edition warhammer world where everything should be cute, funny and colorful. I wanted the world grim as in the roleplaying game.

I really liked 6th edition because of the grimmer tone in the background and that they brought back some themes from before 4th edition and the roleplaying game. I also enjoyed the annuals with experimental rules and alternative armies, there was just so many good ideas to try out. Finally liked the change that made troops more important, even if it was the elites who dominated and not the footsoldiers.

The 7th edition stripped away many of the experimental ideas as the annuals was stopped and white dwarf didnīt publish much stuff like that. So even if the rules was better, the hobby and creativity was weakend.

8th edition got my vote as I love footsoldiers have found their place in the game. All the different elements of the army seem to have their place. I also like the battles beigng won by fighting. With storm of magic, blood in the badlands and the warhammer forge, much of the experiments and crazy ideas have come back. I love that. But even if the rules are better than ever, and we have got more alternatives I must say that the background have become more epic, more good vs evil, and more silly in a bad way. I liked the 6the edition background better.

Storyteller
17-10-2012, 22:58
I had to split my vote between 6th (which for me was the high-point of the hobby as a whole) and 8th (which I think is the high-point in terms of gameplay to date).

8th is, I think, the best rules set I've played with (I've mostly played 5th, some 6th, and a tiny amount of 7th). It has certainly made for the most consistently fun games - I can remember in other editions saying - 'that was a great game', or 'that was a bit of a nothing game', but this version I can't think of a game where I didn't feel like everything was on the knife-edge. High drama! It's really brought us all back into it.

As far as the whole hobby package goes, however, I'd have to say 6th edition hands down. I started playing in 5th ed and though I probably played fewer games in 6th I remember very fondly that transition period, the new depth and feel which seemed to be added to the story/background, the focus on rank and file and ESPECIALLY the fantastic experimental rules and scenarios which came out. Also, the hobby seemed more accessable/affordable, the Dogs of War were still around and so was Mordheim!

I think the General's Compendium pretty much sums up the wonder of the whole 6th ed. hobby package for me.

Spiney Norman
17-10-2012, 22:59
8th ed isn't perfect but after a couple of years of it, I'd say its my favourite so far. I started in 5th and by the time 6th edition came around 5th was in such a horrific mess it was a massive improvement. 7th wasn't really a new edition so much as a burial of the 6th way of doing things, ramming it into the ground with increasingly overpowered army books until 8th had to step in and sort the whole mess out again. Which it did rather admirably, yes there are one or two rules I think could have been done better and the magic emphasis as a whole could do with toning down, but in terms of inter-army balance and enjoyability the game is in a better place than its been for a decade, which can only be a good thing,

Havock
18-10-2012, 04:09
7th.

I liked chesshammer.

Too bad about the power creep. When I started out in early 7th things were pretty balanced. You had the SAD, and chosen chaos knights were considered badasses and beyond dangerous even if you only took one unit. You had Mortal Tzeentch armies with a million power die, but with a rather ****** lore to back it up.

Ah, good times :)

ASTINOFF
18-10-2012, 04:58
8th Ed is my choice.

Why? Because they fix closed combat so everyone can hit the enemy. They fix the terror/fear thing. I don't like to saw my 25 Phoenix guards runing off tha table because of some undeads. More infantery. Less 5 knight destroy 10 units of infantry.

StormCrow
18-10-2012, 06:27
I've played 6th, 7th and 8th and a friend always tells stories about 5th. Out of those I think 8th is the best by quite a margin. 6th was far too static, 7th had pretty massive balance issues, but so far 8th has had a great roster of army books and rules supplements. And the added rules have greatly improved the game and made it more interesting to play in all phases of the game.

Ben Curry
18-10-2012, 09:22
I voted for 8th Edition. It's so much smoother than the rest. Focus is in overall game plan rather than guessing distances and knowing game breaking rules.

Karak Norn Clansman
18-10-2012, 17:19
So far the common consensus seem to be that 8th edition is the best one for gameplay in a long time, perhaps the best edition yet. (The more venerable veterans also point to 3rd edition as a high peak besides 8th, and a lot of people appreciate 6th for its solution to 5th edition's hero mess.) In no small part this liking of 8th is due to the importance of infantry and stepping-up, as well as the internal balance between the army books released so far. 8th edition's warts seem to be mainly the heavy emphasis on magic, some overpowered lores and maybe the impossibility of breaking steadfast units through flank and rear charges. Storm of Magic, Blood in the Badlands and Warhammer Forge are also appreciated, especially when WD have lost so much content in the recent years. We are in for a treat if GW continues this generally positive trend with 8th edition.

Nice collection of data this far. :)


As far as armybooks go, I would have voted 5th or 7th. Obviously, 5th for the sheer variety the Empire book offered and 7th because it's the best we ever had... Naturally, 8th ed. is utter crap, I hardly deem it worthy to wipe my ass with...

I think you're seeing this solely through an Empire lens, Boreas. :D

But rules aside, what about the background? Does that section also make the cut as toilet paper? ;)

Hudson Gameover
18-10-2012, 17:44
4th is where I started, and I still play it every now and then for a bit of fun.

X% points in: Characters, Troops, War Machines, Monsters, Allies...

What's not to like?

Also, Frenzy doubled attacks, magic weapons were OTT and virtually unrestriced (no points limit, each character could take a certain number...), Wizards could kick the crap out of warriors...

My general used to be a Black Orc, with the Deathsword (S10), Armour Of Brilliance (Good save, and -2 to hit) and the Silver Seal (-1 to hit, plus a few other bits...there were no "ward saves" in those days). IIRC, the sword is now Crone Hellebron's, the armour belonged to Louen Leoncourt, and the seal is from Karl Franz.

Happy, if entirely too crazy, times.

Also, armies were cheaper, and not just because everyone put their points into characters.

Also: Flying high, magic cards, one Undead army, one Chaos Army, multi-wound infantry, fantastic White Dwarf battle reports (and the rest of the magazine was good too...)...I think I'd better stop now, I've got a tear in my eye...

Everything Bigbywolf said. Loved my undead army and my goblin army in those days and god damn the white dwarfs used to be good.

zak
18-10-2012, 18:12
8th for me. I liked 6th and 7th, but for me 8th has more balance and for that reason alone it got my vote. 7th had some really good rules, but the army books just decimated it. 6th was just too much Hero hammer for me.

DaemonReign
18-10-2012, 19:25
8th by far. The earlier editions were games that you had to struggle to make work, 8th is a game that you have to struggle to break.

A very good observation. Actually the most important thing about 8th Ed.

zhu bajie
18-10-2012, 21:33
Voted 2nd. Why?

* Lustria - Amazons with power weapons. Yeah!
* Flexible point-buy armies across all races (goblins and skellies in one army, for example)
* Scenarios: Terror of the Lichemaster, McDeath, Bloodbath at Orcs Drift etc.
* scalable from mass combat down to skirmish

3rd editions maneuvers are excellent - it's the only edition that has historicals-like tactical play, if it had an orders system it might actually pass as a serious wargame :-) Hmm. yeah, and it's not "nostalgia" it's that the game isn't so dumbed down and has an entirely different depth and philosophy (http://realmofzhu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/oldhammer-contract.html).

6th is a nice ruleset (skirmish, campaigns), but army-books kill it, and it lacks the sophistication of 3rd.

GrandmasterWang
19-10-2012, 05:50
8th is best. Started in 4th. Have fond memories of it back in the day but the massed combat gameplay style of 8th is where it is at imo

Echunia
19-10-2012, 06:24
I love 8th and it's really fun, but I could never vote it for best edition ever. The problem for me is that there are so many rules that I find stupid and would change: Disruption not breaking steadfast, Too good spells, Terrain not mattering much, Large target rule not meaning anything, Terror being mostly useless, TRUE LINE OF SIGHT?! /wrists ... The list goes on. I think that one of the reasons that 8th is such a good edition is that the armybooks are great.

I voted 7th because as a rules set I wouldn't change much, maybe try to make infantry more viable (fighting in 2 ranks or smthn). I loved, as malorian called it "the cat and mouse" of 7th, I think that because of the importance of the charge the movement phase was more tactically challenging. The problem with 7th was the armybooks more than anything. If 7th had as balanced armybooks as 8th then it would've been glorious.

someone2040
19-10-2012, 07:51
Hmm... It's really tough.
In terms of pure rules, I think 8th edition is by far the most enjoyable game. My belief is magic gunlines, gunlines and cavalry having a distinct edge really made 7th lose it's edge by the end of things.
7th was definitely a better ruleset than 6th as well, as it basically just tweaked the game.
Here's hoping 9th is along the lines of balance tweaks to 8th and they hit the mark.

In terms of Armybooks, I will say that 6th is definitely the better edition. Only for the fact though that every army (apart from DoW :( and Chaos Dwarves) got Army Books (And even the aforementioned had Chronicles/Ravening Hordes lists respectively). Additionally we got Albion, Storm of Chaos, Lustria and lots of cool rules in Generals Compendium and White Dwarves.
However, it's not all roses. 6th edition still very much had strict limitations such as 0-1 on specific things. Wonders for balance, but for diversity not so much. Additionally you only had 2-3 special characters per book, and they were all very powerful (Kroak topped 1k points, don't see that anymore).

7th edition is unfortunately ruined by some rather nasty books. I think for the most part, the earlier and later books were a lot nicer (Even if some like Lizards and Skaven do much better in 8th than in 7th), but the middle books ruined the edition. But on the plus side, the bad things about 6th books such as 0-1 and few special characters were dissapearing.

8th edition books are adding new units in, while 7th was very conservative on really just updating existing things IMO. This is good and bad, and we've still got a ways to go before we can fully judge 8th edition books. One really frustrating thing though is cutting down the race specific magic items down to 2 pages. 8-10 items is not very much in the grand scheme of things, even with 40+ common items. One would think that GW developers have enough inspiration to be able to create new and interesting items for races without stepping on each others toes or the common magic items toes.

Anyway, still vote 6th in terms of Army books.

Overall, just gonna say 8th. Magic items is a small gripe in the scheme of things. The books are lovely fully colour and hard cover now. I never had issues with my books falling to pieces, but they do feel very sturdy now. The rules are good as well, and aren't stagnant like I felt at the end of 7th. I guess we'll wait until the end of 9th to find out if I start feeling the same way :).

As for other editions. I started playing the game young~ish (12) in 5th edition. Really when I started, I didn't have a clue what I was doing or how to work these so called "Armour Save's" out. So while I started in 5th, certainly I judge myself as started playing in 6th so can't comment on earlier editions.

Shimian
19-10-2012, 07:53
To make a long story short: I like the 8th best :)

Karak Norn Clansman
19-10-2012, 08:27
One really frustrating thing though is cutting down the race specific magic items down to 2 pages. 8-10 items is not very much in the grand scheme of things, even with 40+ common items. One would think that GW developers have enough inspiration to be able to create new and interesting items for races without stepping on each others toes or the common magic items toes.

Ah, yes, I almost forgot this point on the issue of 8th edition.

In my hobby group I were not alone with liking the wide range of magic items specific to armies during 7th edition, especially for background reasons, but in the end I am grateful for the current approach. It certainly isn't for reasons of creativity that GW have cut down on the number of magic items in the army books and instead centralized them to the main rulebook. A discussion about this at home concluded that the prime cause was balance, since some 7th edition books had sick magic items and, if I remember correctly, some unrequired gaps in points-cost between magic items (from different army books) with about the same gameplay effect. This simply might have happened because of the sheer amounts of magic items in WHFB during 7th edition, although attempts to spice up the game certainly played their part. With more common magic items and fewer army-specific items this aspect of the game becomes simpler to keep balanced, and if nothing else because most of the same items are available to everyone.

Although I miss the old magic item pages and woe for the day when Dwarf runes of magic disappear, the magic item system of 8th edition has been a step forward in my eyes.

WarbossKurgan
19-10-2012, 14:21
Voted 2nd. Why?

* Lustria - Amazons with power weapons. Yeah!
* Flexible point-buy armies across all races (goblins and skellies in one army, for example)
* Scenarios: Terror of the Lichemaster, McDeath, Bloodbath at Orcs Drift etc.
* scalable from mass combat down to skirmish

I started playing properly in 2nd (I read a lot of stuff about 1st, decided to get into it as 2nd came out) and I love it for these reasons - I've played all editions since but I voted 8th for the simple reason that it's the most fun.

snyggejygge
19-10-2012, 17:43
6:th edition was a great edition gamingwise for me, many armybooks were toned down & it felt more balanced than ever after having played through 5:th edition of herohammer. The only thing I would change to that edition would be to add the random charge rules & the step-up in combat, making knights less dominating.

Fluffwise I think the 2 original realm of chaos books is the most interesting to ever have been released by GW so I vote 3:rd as well, back then the game felt more interesting & storylike compared to todays games.

Durloth
19-10-2012, 18:37
I loved 6th for the fundamental change of both the game, the aesthetics of the artwork and the mood of the fluff. From when it comes to presentation, it was not just a quantum leap from the silly cartoon universe that was 5th edition, but I'd say far superior to later editions of WFB. Just look at the artwork and fluff of the Brettonnia, 6th Beastmen or Wood Elves books and compare them to later ABs and you'll see what I mean; Beautiful vignettes, strange small stories (not all about battle BTW) and the great black and white paintings in what I consider the peak of the "GW-style".

That being said, I had never had more fun with the game itself than right now, so I voted 6th and 8th.

Shield of Freedom
19-10-2012, 19:22
Dude, Ogres aren't broken. I beat them (soundly) with Bretonnia. A 6th edition book!

Sir_Glonojad
19-10-2012, 21:04
But Bretonnia is surprisingly playable... especially as a Grand Army with 4 trebuchets :p

Von Wibble
20-10-2012, 12:00
Dude, Ogres aren't broken. I beat them (soundly) with Bretonnia. A 6th edition book!

In fairness it should be pointed out that Bretonnia are probably Ogres worst match up. Cavalry in general are tough for ogres because they get the charge and thus rob the ogres of impact hits, and with high armour saves and the ward save they win in combat, and tend to break through as ogres don't often get steadfast. Ogres are very powerful because they are good against infantry blocks - which is where the meta in general lies. However they are vulnerable to heavy cavalry, which bretonnia has to use and other armies choose not to in general.

OT, I voted 8th. There are tweaks that can improve it for sure but the fact heavy cavalry doesn't rule the roost, the fact charging isn't all improtant, the stepping up rule making it possible to fight back so infantry aren't just a rank bonus for your character, % limits rather than just units so you don't just see a couple of cheap missile units for core, just a few of teh good things.

If they could make non combat skirmishers, scouts and fast cavalry better, allow 50% VPs for half destroyed units, tone down a few BRB spells a touch (changing "kill" to "cause a wound with no armour saves allowed" would be sufficient), make terror and march block actually do something, make terrain actually block LOS and limit movement, and nerf cannons, I'd say you have by far the best ruleset. And if criticisms of a 500odd page book are limited to 2 lines thats not bad at all.

J.P. Biff
20-10-2012, 23:22
Tough for me to choose. In the end I enjoyed 7th the most. I enjoy 8th, but I'm also a different player now. Back when I was competitive I loved 7th. 8th has taught me to have fun in a different way. But there are times when I wish I was still playing the more involved 7th edition. IMO IMO IMO before someone jumps down my throat saying "8th is just as involved!"

OrlyggJafnakol
21-10-2012, 18:35
Third Edition is the best for me... and I agree with all the points made about this version of the game, so far. Also, without the success of Third none of the other later editions would even exist, would they?

Sir_Glonojad
21-10-2012, 18:49
Well, this obviously goes different in the UK and other Western countries (as there was a rather slim chance to get Warhammer behind the Iron Curtain I guess), but wasn't the boxed games of WFB-4 and 42k what brought mass interest in the system?

OrlyggJafnakol
21-10-2012, 18:59
but wasn't the boxed games of WFB-4 and 42k what brought mass interest in the system?

No, it was the ground work by Bryan Ansell, lead by the Warhammer Third Explosion in the late 80s, that paved the way for Kirby to buy up the company, dumb down the quality of the product and market aggressively towards kids. Over a million miniatures were being sold a month off the back of Warhammer Third in 1987. The casting factory range for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week between 1987-1991. The market was everybody. No Warhammer Third. No Realm of Chaos. No Horus Heresy. No Warhammer today.

Urgat
21-10-2012, 21:40
No Warhammer Third. No Realm of Chaos. No Horus Heresy. No Warhammer today.
Yeah well no warhammer 1st, no warhammer 2nd, and no warhammer 7th, no warhammer 8th. I'm not sure what's your point. To paraphrase you, without the success of second edition none of the later editions would even exist, including third, now would they?
They all did well enough that GW didn't go under, and they've probably never stopped expanding ever since.

dral
21-10-2012, 22:32
I voted for 3rd.

Although i missed out playing 5th through to 7th, and 8th is definately good, 3rd seems the most complete game. I've read people call it complicated a few times, but it really wasn't. There were more basic rules (including the best manuever options ever) but races for all the armies were in one book (plus the realm of chaos stuff, which was great for ideas, but pretty unbalanced to play).

In the rule book plus warhammer armies you could field anything, there was no mix of special rules that invariably conflict, but each race still had character. Siege added a bit more too.

I loved 3rd (even if it did cause me a massive headache upping the points for my skeletons from 2.5 to 10 points when it came out) and i'd like to see elements like the line of sight, character and move and manuver sections restored. The best of 3rd with 8th would be great.

chromedog
22-10-2012, 10:11
I've only played two editions.

3rd and 8th (and have only played 8th for a few months).
It seems I'm fortunate - I have no bad habits from the last 4 editions to unlearn (I hadn't played in over 15 years).

williamsond
22-10-2012, 10:39
loved 3rd not so convinced about 8th, it feels to me less about tactics and manover and more about having a goodmagic phase and huge units(some might say big unit editions are about GW selling more models)

FashaTheDog
23-10-2012, 05:43
Heh, seems I'm just one of many who went direct from 3rd to 8th with no layover in between. I too liked 3rd the best and miss the complex and simple maneuvers. The toned down magic is nice (Wind of Undeath caused a S3 hit with no saves allowed to every living model on the table - where's your aura now :p), but I still also miss push back and push back pivot. The current edition just feels lacking somehow by comparison.

zhu bajie
23-10-2012, 12:40
Yeah well no warhammer 1st, no warhammer 2nd, and no warhammer 7th, no warhammer 8th. I'm not sure what's your point. To paraphrase you, without the success of second edition none of the later editions would even exist, including third, now would they?

GW wasn't Warhammer focused during 1st / 2nd. Sure they were well supported with product, but they didn't feature much in WD (and didn't even get that good reviews) and didn't have that much shelf-space in your average GW store in comparison with D&D. GWs business model was based on importing and reprinting RPGs (D&D, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, MERP, Star Trek) from the US and supporting them with miniatures through it's part ownership of Citadel, and publishing games from independent designers (Warlock, Talisman, Golden Heroes etc.) as well as Steve and Ians games (Battlecars, Judge Dredd Boardgame). Bryan changed all that when he took over from Steve and Ian - and moved the focus to building Warhammer as a viable IP, and on games development entirely in-studio that would support the miniatures business. None of that depended on Warhammers previous sales, but on the fact that miniatures sales was bringing in more than rules sales, and Warhammer was the only IP on the table. Although I'd say the company was built on the success of WH40K:RT more than WFB3.

King Arthur
23-10-2012, 16:48
As a Bretonnian cavalry and warrior hero list is was golden era for me won almost all my games rather than my 66% now good times.

Karak Norn Clansman
07-10-2013, 09:52
Now, a year on since the thread was started, is 8th edition still many people's favourite edition? Have the last year's army books seen a positive development for the game as a whole? Have the "codex creep" been kept under better check than most previous editions?

At least I certainly think so.

Kakapo42
07-10-2013, 10:22
I voted 6th, not so much for rules but for the models, background and general 'feel' of the time. Wait 6th was around the very early 2000s right? I might be thinking of 7th. Pretty sure it's 6th though.

I would have voted 8th as well, because it's the edition I started in and the rules seem fairly ok (I'm not the competitive type so balance is less of a deal breaker for me), but by the time I noticed it was a multiple choice poll I had already voted. :cries:

TheDungen
07-10-2013, 10:45
you are thinking 6th, their website was an ever growing database of hobby article and forum boards where from time to time the devs popped in an commented on the issues the players had. This thanks to Owen Rees as webmanager.

And in charge of the dev team was Gav, who drew heavily upon real life inspirations (especially for tactics) to make the army books of his era ever more interesting.

Then came 7th and they scrapped the old website, turned white dwarf to a product catalogue (and stopped printing their annual product catalogue) and dumbed down the game to whoever charges wins. (ok I'm exxagerating)

logan054
07-10-2013, 11:01
I would actually say 6th and 7th while Chaos had the HoC book, since they changed the armybook I haven't really had the same kind of love for my chaos army.

Karak Norn Clansman
07-10-2013, 11:21
you are thinking 6th, their website was an ever growing database of hobby article and forum boards where from time to time the devs popped in an commented on the issues the players had. This thanks to Owen Rees as webmanager.

And in charge of the dev team was Gav, who drew heavily upon real life inspirations (especially for tactics) to make the army books of his era ever more interesting.

Then came 7th and they scrapped the old website, turned white dwarf to a product catalogue (and stopped printing their annual product catalogue) and dumbed down the game to whoever charges wins. (ok I'm exxagerating)

GW also scuppered their bitz service, which might have been good business sense but is a true hindrance to us hobbyists. 7th edition's codex creep was on the face of it horrible, but the game was still fun if you didn't expect to win sometimes. On the positive side of things, the army books actually started to contain all the major background about the armies during 7th edition, something which many 6th edition army books sadly didn't (such as Dwarfs). 6th edition had some adorable miniatures and good-looking armies without too exaggerated monsters, but for gameplay 8th edition is the funniest this far.

Lord Solar Plexus
07-10-2013, 11:43
While I've only played 8th a handful of times, I have to say it's my favorite.

I am a little surprised however that it is doing so well in this poll. For all the internet naysayers, it seems that 8th is actually fairly popular!

Well, this poll is partly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most people here supposedly play the game while many who absolutely hate this edition wouldn't even take note of this thread.

Karak Norn Clansman
07-10-2013, 12:09
Well, this poll is partly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most people here supposedly play the game while many who absolutely hate this edition wouldn't even take note of this thread.

Perhaps. Yet most of those who play the game will have experienced earlier editions. Couldn't the poll be a truthful indicator that most of those prefer 8th edition over, say, 7th or 5th edition. Considering how many who holds 3rd edition of WHFB as their favourite, I'd hazard a guess that the poll isn't too inaccurate, despite the small sample. There might be a too-strong tendency towards the current 8th edition, but the general picture of the popularity of the different editions is probably somewhat on-spot.

zoggin-eck
07-10-2013, 13:12
Fancy that! I can't believe it's actually been a year.

Remember how I though 8th had been a good example of them pushing some narrative battles for a change? Well, I guess they haven't released much since! A couple of iPad only campaigns doesn't make up for the next Forge book being put-off :(

I must admit, a year later, I've been collecting everything I need to get into 2nd edition (and 3rd, so I can pick and choose if I like). This is more a change of heart in my case, not some huge backlash against 8th edition. I'd just prefer to be able to use any and all of the models I own, and 2nd is still familiar enough without switching to a whole new system.

TheDungen
07-10-2013, 14:53
actually once you measure 8 towards all previous editions you find that it's 60:40 in favour of it, nearly half the players preferring another edition isn't really that great a accomplishment. But once we take into account that more than half think it's the best edition ever despite the rose covered shades or nostalgia it's not a bad one either. There are some things with 8th I don't approve of but most of those have to do with models and fluff rather than gameplay.

usually editions come in pairs, one is a major rehaul and one a slight tweeking of the one before it. 7th was the latter, and would propably have been more popular than 6th f they hadn't made some unpopular business decisions during it and lowed to let codex creep (army creep?) run rampart.

9th will be such a tweeking for 8th and unless they screw it up it should end up better than 8th. There is a distinct progress of the system throughout all editions. Though we may be nostalgic for certain elements (rpg elements in my case i miss my mordheim/warhammer skirmish).

Zoolander
07-10-2013, 15:08
7th had the best rules, 8th had the best balance between books. Too bad the rules are so bad they ruin the game entirely.

gd09garett
07-10-2013, 18:54
I voted 8th and 6th currently I love the troops focus of 8th , makes armies actually seem like armies, although it has some hiccups I hope will be cleaned up in the 9th SNIP

Voted 6th, though really it is 6th- Ravening Hordes.

Also, people keep saying that 8th edition finally makes armies look like armies and I simply do not agree. Model counts may be more army like, but the blobs, deathstars and trains have more in common with mobs than armies.

TheDungen
07-10-2013, 20:41
7th rules may have been more polished than 8th and 6th. But no more so than 5th were, it's again the thing about every second edition being a more polished version of the one before it. 5th was the polished version of the herohammer editions 4 and 5. 7th was a polished version of 6th the MSU editions if you will. 8th is the first edition of the horde editions, and 9th will probably be just as polished as 7th was. Between the polished versions the difference is mostly what kind of game you want warhammer to be.

FashaTheDog
14-10-2013, 04:00
Still like third best. My interest in Fantasy just isn't held as strongly by this edition as it was the last one I actually played.

SteveW
14-10-2013, 04:38
I wanted to put 4th because it's the one responsible for me playing, but 8th is a far superior version of the game to all other versions.

DeathGlam
14-10-2013, 16:02
I started and got my nostalgia years in playing 6th quit 7th due to it just being no fun for me personally(before the army books that some people have mentioned) now played a few games of 8th again and im really enjoying Fantasy more then i ever have before, it is not perfect but i have not enjoyed a GW game this much since i was a kid playing Warhammer Quest with my brother and that is all i really want, a good time with friends but then i should add im a casual player, never played a pick up game with strangers and never been to or plan to attend a tournament.

Chain
14-10-2013, 22:41
while I like a lot of 8'th it got to many things i dislike to.

magic in 8'th is distastful as is the warmachines precission(mostly cannons) ASF is also dislikeable due to the rerolls. The loss of a great individual MI list is also sad as is true line of sight and the extend of randomness in enviournment.

I'll probably go with 7'th fear and the not striking back are the drawbacks there.
5'th is my fav for armybooks with it being the only ed i almost got every AB at however it was all about the characters

Nymie_the_Pooh
14-10-2013, 22:52
I wanted to say sixth because they were still doing things for the game outside of the rulebook and army books. If we are talking about just the core set of rules and army books then I like eighth a smidge more than sixth. Fifth was called herohammer for a reason. I had not personally experienced any earlier editions. Seventh felt like if I charge then I win so anything with both mobility and a little hitting power could drop much more expensive units on the charge. Eighth needs some work, but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion and there is some decent external balance between the army books. Not perfect, but generally better all around in my opinion. It needs some tightening up in places. For instance cannons need some tweaking since there is no guessing any more, but I for one don't miss shuffling units around waiting for the other player to make the quarter inch mistake before I did. While steadfast needs some work, I like the fact I have a reason to bring a unit of fifty or sixty Goblins now. Mass Goblins are still not an amazing option, but it is an option now where it was not in past editions.