PDA

View Full Version : Which WFB incarnation do you prefer and why?



kirjalax
26-11-2014, 07:57
Im trying to get back into warhammer since the second and third version and the game has been remade quite a couple of times since the then. It seems like each version has its special features and produces a special kind of gaming style. Which version do you prefer, and why? From what I have seen of the End Times miniatures I get the idea that Warhammer nowadays is directed towards the use of extremely powerful individual models and less towards hordes of rank and file.

Can you specify the sort of good or bad things in each version?

Ramius4
26-11-2014, 08:10
4th-7th edition was all about getting the charge and close combat characters were far more influential.

I much prefer 8th (which is not about uber characters, despite the End Times stuff). It's also the most balanced the game has been since I started in 4th ed. In almost all cases, "extremely powerful individuals" will struggle to do anything meaningful when faced with hordes of rank and file models.

kirjalax
26-11-2014, 08:27
Sounds good, I got the idea that the models GW are producing at the moment are always the best in the game at the moment. But the horde thing is gone in 8th right?

Ramius4
26-11-2014, 08:40
Sounds good, I got the idea that the models GW are producing at the moment are always the best in the game at the moment.

People have claimed that for years. It's rarely true.


But the horde thing is gone in 8th right?

Nope, it still exists. If you're a tournament minded gamer, those games tend to be more focused on high armor, high Strength troops and less hordes of troops. But for more casual minded groups, hordes are alive and well. So partly it will depend on the people you play with, and how you like to play.

Greyshadow
26-11-2014, 10:21
I've been playing since 4th edition. 8th is my favourite mainly due to the new charge mechanic, game very much becomes a game of managing risks rather than a bunch of set plays.

N00B
26-11-2014, 10:54
For me 8th (pre end times) is the best by a long way but it does have its downsides:

1) Magic is a fun and powerful part of the game but too often it just comes down to throwing maximum power at the same spells. There is no easy solution as the big spells often keep the most boring or otherwise overpowered builds at bay. A wizard pretty much becomes mandatory.

2) Non war machine shooting is relatively weak - and for a fun game it probably should be. I think it could afford to creep up just a little on the power scale

3) War machines have about the right power but some of them are just too dominant if the roll for number of terrain pieces comes out low. This means things like monsters become a bit all or nothing rather than magnificent centerpieces.

4) Elite units are still very strong - non elites tend to just die (which is what they are taken for) and most infantry between 5 and 7 pts per model falls between these two and you would only take if you needed to to fill out core (with a couple of exceptions).


The balance between light/heavy cavalry is good and the same between cavalry and infantry. Sure cavalry are still strong and could drop down a level but this is the best it has been in my opinion. Letting riders take their mounts leadership for monstrous cav works for me although it does leave things like Demigryphs undercosted but that is more an armybook issue than a rules set problem. Playstyles vary - some hordes, some small units, some cav, some infantry, some gunlines... the game 6 months ago was the best it has ever been.

Spiney Norman
26-11-2014, 13:34
8th edition just before the end times series started

There were several things I didn't like about the core rules, stuff like true line of sight, how powerful the magic phase was and the tendency towards ever larger units etc but in the main it was such a massive improvement over 7th edition I learned to live with them.

The biggest strength of 8th edition imo has been the consistently restrained nature of the army books, ok chaos is probably the most powerful and tomb kings is a little weaker than the others but the power gap between them is shed-loads smaller than at any point during 6th or 7th edition.

Just Tony
26-11-2014, 14:00
6th edition still is my favorite. Swarms did their jobs, the focus was on psychology more than SLAUGHTERDEATHKILL, and while magic could be ugly, add in the 7th edition rule that wizards can only use the dice they generate or the pool dice limits the whole power battery thing. Also, add in the 7th edition Insane Courage rule. There were a couple books that were jacked, but simply using Ravening Hordes bypasses that. That's where I'm at.

N00B
26-11-2014, 14:11
8th edition just before the end times series started

There were several things I didn't like about the core rules, stuff like true line of sight, how powerful the magic phase was and the tendency towards ever larger units etc but in the main it was such a massive improvement over 7th edition I learned to live with them.

The biggest strength of 8th edition imo has been the consistently restrained nature of the army books, ok chaos is probably the most powerful and tomb kings is a little weaker than the others but the power gap between them is shed-loads smaller than at any point during 6th or 7th edition.

Living in a household with Bretts and Beastmen the balance of the books coming out in 8th is something to be relish in the anticipation as much as in the delivery. At least the woodelves came...

Also, I agree with Just Tony, Swarms are a troop type that pretty much never sees play (outside of about 1 army) but a type that I think looks good on the battlefield.

Oogie boogie boss
26-11-2014, 14:50
I have to say 8th. It's got the most balanced selection of army books (ignoring End Times), it's focused on armies rather than characters (ignoring End Times), the models have been mostly great and there's an element of randomness that challenges you skill as a general more.

I enjoyed 5-7th Eds in different way, but this feels like the most 'complete' edition.

Andy p
26-11-2014, 14:56
6th edition still is my favorite. Swarms did their jobs, the focus was on psychology more than SLAUGHTERDEATHKILL, and while magic could be ugly, add in the 7th edition rule that wizards can only use the dice they generate or the pool dice limits the whole power battery thing. Also, add in the 7th edition Insane Courage rule. There were a couple books that were jacked, but simply using Ravening Hordes bypasses that. That's where I'm at.

I find most combats in 8th are won by forcing someone to break. Are break tests not part of psychology? Wasn't that the objective in the past editions as well?

I've found from playing 6th-7th then moving onto the 8th, all that changed was how I engineer this and so I had to adapt.

Mr_Foulscumm
26-11-2014, 15:36
I prefer 8th edition by a large margin.

Not counting the End of Times books though. Love the fluff, hate the new units.

Stepping up in combat is probably my favorite part of 8th. I hated having the front rank wiped out and just standing there in combat twiddling my thumbs like in earlier editions. Actually like the Random charge distances as well. I kind of miss guessing ranges form my war machines, but I can live without it. :)

dalezzz
26-11-2014, 16:28
8th for me , I like big units. Random charges are a good thing too
3rd also but I think that's probably nostalgia .... and warhammer Armys :)

Haravikk
26-11-2014, 17:21
I prefer 8th overall, I just don't like the added randomness and (potentially) high strength of magic. If GW could actually release a core game that's got 8th edition infantry mechanics but with slightly toned down magic but more reliable magic, maybe geared more towards buffs/hexes, then I think it would be better; keep the really random powerful magic to supplements/scenarios so we're not as reliant on fate over tactics. I know there's always some element of fate with dice-rolling, but with the main army components it's easier to mitigate or adapt to some of the risk, but with magic the swings back and forth can be much more severe which IMO is more often annoying than fun as either one player is unhappy their magic is barely achieving anything, or the other is annoyed that it's costing them the game.

I mean, 6th and 7th were okay, but one-shotting was not fun. Especially when a tiny unit of chaos knights could potentially mow down two units a turn because infantry was basically just window dressing for heroes.

Lord Dan
26-11-2014, 17:50
With every edition I recall sitting around with friends discussing the things we'd like to see changed in the next edition. There's still some of that with 8th, like alterations to steadfast and victory conditions, however overall we gripe about far less than any other edition.

If that's any kind of benchmark, 8th edition has been fantastic. :D

theunwantedbeing
26-11-2014, 18:18
I preferred 7th.
Largely as 8th feels like they asked a group of 12 year olds what they wanted to do differently in the next edition, then were forced by the parents to implement every suggestion made. So we get uber spells, deathstars, no psychology, magical resistance is ruined for no good reason and steadfast appears, along with all manner of dumb things that you'de expect a whiney gamer to want to make their army better without thinking how everyone else was going to get it too.

That said.....
I like the percentage system for selecting your list as it allows far more flexibility at least.
Fighting in ranks works fairly well for the most part (so long as you're not monstrous infantry)
Random charges work okay.
There are more spells available overall.
The 8th ed books have a lot more units in them.
Monsters are less sucky.

So I don't hate 8th edition, it just needs a load of tweaks made to iron out all the creases.

Rogue
26-11-2014, 19:10
I have played 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th. Personally I liked the 6th the best. It seemed to have a more cohesive plan unlike other subsequent editions, but was more troop centered than its previous editions. Like many people I don't like the rulebooks that came out in the 7th, but unlike most people out there I don't like the rules that they made in the 8th to fix them.

SteveW
26-11-2014, 19:21
Played since the very end of 4th and 8th is by far the best edition IMO. There is not a single rule i'd rather play in any of it's older incarnations.

leopard
26-11-2014, 19:41
Started with 3rd edition, and 1st 40k for that matter, these are the top two for me.

Far from perfect but 3rd was it seemed a lot more tactical - advanced and trailing forces, a much longer game, time to use movement and get into position - outflanking as well, building rules that actually worked (though that required the longer game). Seemed a much better 'framework' of a game, the special rules were all in the main book (mostly) and the army lists were pretty simple as a result and the rules fitted together better as well as they seemed to have been written together not the slow changes over time and sticking plaster we have now. Initiative modifiers, stat modifiers and a huge range of spells.

3rd, add in random charge distances - perhaps 2d4 for M5 and less, 2d6 for M6 - M8 and 2d8 for M9 and up.

Add in step up and steadfast and I think it would be a good game, but never a fast one to play which was its greatest drawback.

Played a lot like a historical game, differing formations, the units lacked the huge range of oddball rules but you had a lot more ways to actually use them and had to plan in advance more.

snyggejygge
26-11-2014, 21:21
My favorite edition so far has been 6th, it needs some tweaks to be perfect, but so does 8th. My dream edition is a mixof 6th & 8th, or rather 6th with minor tweaks from 8th.
In 6th a charge was usually too powerful, add step-up & its a lot more balanced. Chargers still strike first, but have to face return attacks.

In 6th power & dispeldice generation was too reliable, have the same Magic system as now, but with old spells. Also higher level could be + to channel instead of + to cast.

Large targets should gain stomp 1, ogres & stuff wont need it due to step-up.

Shields shouldnt have parry imo, just +1 save, but add +2 save vs shooting, then we could add bucklers which give a save only in combat.

8th suffers from a few things which I really dislike, such as psychology having too little impact, flank & rearcharge not being as devastating as they should be, op spells & cannons, steadfast being used with inspiring presence, unmodified LD actually being modified, bsb being a too cheap upgrade. Other than that I enjoy it, & its a vast improvement over 7th!

Katastrophe
26-11-2014, 21:46
My favorite edition so far has been 6th, it needs some tweaks to be perfect, but so does 8th. My dream edition is a mixof 6th & 8th, or rather 6th with minor tweaks from 8th.
In 6th a charge was usually too powerful, add step-up & its a lot more balanced. Chargers still strike first, but have to face return attacks.

In 6th power & dispeldice generation was too reliable, have the same Magic system as now, but with old spells. Also higher level could be + to channel instead of + to cast.

Large targets should gain stomp 1, ogres & stuff wont need it due to step-up.

Shields shouldnt have parry imo, just +1 save, but add +2 save vs shooting, then we could add bucklers which give a save only in combat.

8th suffers from a few things which I really dislike, such as psychology having too little impact, flank & rearcharge not being as devastating as they should be, op spells & cannons, steadfast being used with inspiring presence, unmodified LD actually being modified, bsb being a too cheap upgrade. Other than that I enjoy it, & its a vast improvement over 7th!

For the most part I would agree here. I'd likely limit units to front rank fighting and step up to 1 rank. So if a unit could kill 2 ranks worth, no step up. That would give incentive to widen units rather than just be 5 across.

I'd drop steadfast but allow units to get CR of 6 from ranks. That long with step up (as above) should dissuade most small units from frontally attacking deep cheap infantry without having some flankers as well.

CountUlrich
26-11-2014, 23:31
8th is not perfect, but by a wide margin it is the best incarnation of the game thus far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kakapo42
26-11-2014, 23:54
Overall my favourite would have to be 6th/7th edition - around the early 2000s era. There was not a single model from that time that I do not like, it had my favourite background (and all that End Times background was nowhere to be seen) and I like the spirit and atmosphere of that incarnation the best (more the 6th edition than 7th in that case). Best of all were all the army-specific magic items and spell lores, as well as all the other options for customisation (Kindreds and Spites, Virtues - which I have a horrible feeling will not survive the inevitable Bretonnian re-release - etc.),you could make some very unique and characterful combinations with those.

In terms of core rulebook mechanics though, my favourite would probably be 8th, mostly for little things like pre-measuring, units fighting in 2+ ranks rather than just 1 and there being spells from the Lore of Life that actually heal things.

Really 6th edition with those parts of 8th grafted on (maybe one or two other spells from the other Spell Lores too, though not the big earthshaking ones) would probably be one I'd be very happy with.

Brother Haephestus
27-11-2014, 01:43
Eighth is by far my favorite. As with many other commenters here, there are little nit-pigglies, but generally speaking I *love* playing 8th. Before that it was 4th. I came into game just as 3rd was going to the wayside. I didn't really understand WFB, and with 3rd I thought it was more role-playish than it really was (I made an "army" that was nothing but characters .... ooops). 5th Edition was also a lot of fun because I wasn't heavily invested in 4th, so the rules changes weren't glaring to me. I drifted away for 6th/7th (too much deployments and real-life combat during those years), but coming back for 8th has been amazing. I've really had a great time, and GW is going to have to make 9th pretty darned solid, or I am more than happy to keep riding the 8th Edition train.

Ramius4
27-11-2014, 01:57
(too much deployments and real-life combat during those years)

Thank you for your service :)

Carry on.

Maoriboy007
27-11-2014, 01:58
definitely 6th, probably the worst thing about it to my recollection was fear autobreak.

Ramius4
27-11-2014, 02:00
definitely 6th, probably the worst thing about it to my recollection was fear autobreak.

That was bad. But then so were a lot of other things. The magic phase could be horribly abused. Hordes of Chaos was the main offender.

Cap'n Facebeard
27-11-2014, 03:20
I've just started playing 6th edition again, using the lists in the Ravening Hordes booklet. So far a major difference I can see in 6th's favor is that there is a greater need to plan movements and much less of units randomly exploding from magic spells. The rulebook lores in 6th were quite evenly balanced and even a magic-heavy army can't rely on just blasting its opponents.

Maoriboy007
27-11-2014, 22:03
That was bad. But then so were a lot of other things. The magic phase could be horribly abused. Hordes of Chaos was the main offender.Meh, there weren't quite as many OP spells in sixth , in fact the only way to get ay value out of the magic phase was to abuse it, you can still abuse it now only its far more effective.Credit were credit is due, 8th improved the way casualties are handled but that otherwise 6th edition rules made for some fun games. A pet peeve of mine in 6th was that 7 strength chariot buster rule.

Ludaman
27-11-2014, 22:32
definitely 6th, probably the worst thing about it to my recollection was fear autobreak.

Ravening hordes 6th edition before anyone got their books was nice :). Add in step-up and It might be the simplest, most balanced way to play. depending on how "The End Times" play out, I might try convincing my friends to go back to it :)

Katastrophe
27-11-2014, 23:23
Ravening hordes 6th edition before anyone got their books was nice :). Add in step-up and It might be the simplest, most balanced way to play. depending on how "The End Times" play out, I might try convincing my friends to go back to it :)
Use the 8th Ed Armybooks. Tweak a few rules as you go, likely a great game.

Col. Tartleton
28-11-2014, 02:04
Core Book from Eighth and Army Books from Sixth is roughly where I'd like 9th to be.

Ludaman
28-11-2014, 02:49
Core Book from Eighth and Army Books from Sixth is roughly where I'd like 9th to be.

There are only a couple terrible offenders in 8th. We could just let Chaos warriors and Beasts have their 6th books back and everyone but the guys who own Nurgle daemon princes would be happy :)

Col. Tartleton
28-11-2014, 03:07
I meant for the internal alternate lists with more character variety and customization. Like in my old sixth edition Skaven book I had the optional clan lists which unlocked new character choices and changed unit rarity. It needed some tweaking for power but it was cool to be able to unlock things like Eshin sorcerers or Warlock Masters or Harbingers of Mutation etc.

That sort of thing was cool.

m1acca1551
28-11-2014, 06:41
As far as core rules go, 8th by far, all round in stands above other editions and with a few tweaks to magic, tlos etc it would be even better.

As for the nostalgic factor though, 4,5,6 edition was the best, why? Most of my gaming was done then, was new to the hobby and everything was new and shiny and had character. 7th killed that with hyper crazy power creep.

shelfunit.
28-11-2014, 08:02
Started with 3rd edition, and 1st 40k for that matter, these are the top two for me.

Far from perfect but 3rd was it seemed a lot more tactical - advanced and trailing forces, a much longer game, time to use movement and get into position - outflanking as well, building rules that actually worked (though that required the longer game). Seemed a much better 'framework' of a game, the special rules were all in the main book (mostly) and the army lists were pretty simple as a result and the rules fitted together better as well as they seemed to have been written together not the slow changes over time and sticking plaster we have now. Initiative modifiers, stat modifiers and a huge range of spells.

3rd, add in random charge distances - perhaps 2d4 for M5 and less, 2d6 for M6 - M8 and 2d8 for M9 and up.

Add in step up and steadfast and I think it would be a good game, but never a fast one to play which was its greatest drawback.

Played a lot like a historical game, differing formations, the units lacked the huge range of oddball rules but you had a lot more ways to actually use them and had to plan in advance more.

Same here, and very similar thoughts on modifying it too.

Alltaken
28-11-2014, 14:53
Monsters are less sucky.

Monsters with regen, or wards. In 7th before 1D6 cannons my stegs where kings, bow they are nobles, too afraid of getting a ball the face and dropping its use a lot.