PDA

View Full Version : 6th Edition discussion



Just Tony
04-06-2015, 05:07
Pretty straightforward. After almost derailing a thread discussing 6th and not getting a definitive answer as to the pros and cons, I decided to come up with this thread where we can discuss the pros and cons. Also, as more and more Oldhammer communities are popping up, this seemed as good a time as any to discuss.


Now for my views on the edition, and I will preface that these are indeed opinions and will not be treated as absolute law/fact unless specifically stated so.

Pros:

I feel this edition was the most complete feeling edition we've had in quite some time. We had an army list for every race in Ravening Hordes, so that each army was playable and balanced from the start. While a couple armies got stuck with that list alone, they were at least marginally supported for play, if not model availability.

Characters were dialed back to a level that made sense and scaled better with the individual armies. In 5th, you'd look across at a Dragon rider and had serious doubts you could deal with it. In 6th, the thought of that creature charging you and crushing your unit under a wall of attacks wasn't as terrifying as, well, Terror test.

The Force Organization chart, for lack of a better term, was also introduced which steered armies away from wall to wall elites mixed with allied elites and game ending wizards to massed lines of standard infantry with cavalry support and a couple elite regiments to taste. Armies started to look more like armies, and that is always a good thing. This also worked even better to establish balanced forces when combined with Composition scoring in tournaments, and with tournament play one of the considerations for the list building portion of the game.

The tweaking of the combat resolution system to emphasize weight of units. Gone were the days of ten man regiments of uber killy elites, replaced now by deeper Core regiments, the tide of battle ebbed and flowed with the pressure of the battle line. Leadership mattered, as well as strength in numbers.

Army specific magic items were yet another boon, as the lethal and exploitable combos of 5th were cast down.

Magic was also not a game changer anymore unless exploited, and fortunately there were not that many ways to exploit it.



Cons:

Fear autobreak. The main problem with this rule is that it was far too easy to exploit, and combining Fear with pretty much any cavalry made for a rather short combat. This is one change that 7th did that I approve of, giving Insane Courage as a speed bump to Autobreak. While it feels right to me that a mass of 60 skeletons pushing against a 15 man halberdier regiment should show some ill effects, I don't think having it be automatic without at least some way to save from it is very sporting at all.

Wizard batteries. I'm sure I speak for many when I roll my eyes at the thought of a Lizardmen army with three Skink Shamans filtering all their dice into a Slann to 5 dice every spell in his list. This is the other 7th Edition change I preferred, forcing people to think before sinking points into the Power Dice Council. It also made spell casting more tactical, and changed the dynamic of the movement phase as far as wizards went.

Certain army books hit that knocked the balance of the game off kilter, usually tied around FOC exploits or Comp exploiting. "Oh, you have a comp score tourney where you gain benefits for running more Core than anything else? Here's the new Chaos book, which lets you run every elite as Core depending on the general." And it wasn't just the four OP books, it was also underpowering or unnecessary penalty rules for armies simply because they were made after a strong book. This was probably the worst thing about 6th, as it wasn't fixable without either houseruling the hell out of said books, or dialing back to Ravening Hordes, which led to far less variety on magic items.





What were your thoughts? Do you or would you still play? Do you have nothing but contempt for that edition. Let your voice be heard and let the discussion commence.

Kakapo42
04-06-2015, 05:59
Although I never actually played it, 6th edition has a special place in my heart. Part of this is because it was the edition for most of my favourite 'era' of GW, the early 2000s, but most of all because it produced my two favourite army books - Bretonnia and Wood Elves. Say what you will about the rules they contain, but both of those two books are incredible, not just with their evocative background but also the sheer atmosphere they contain (when I first flicked through the Bretonnian book, entirely out of curiosity at the time, it took almost all my strength not to go and start up a Bretonnian army then and there!). The 6th edition Wood Elf army book in particular is effectively the book that got me into Warhammer, sealing the deal after my interest was piqued, and I adore it so much that even to this day I continue to use it instead of the 8th edition one (it's even a plot-point in my army background).

One of the things I particularly like about 6th edition is that something about it encouraged people to use medium sized 20 or 25-strong units, which I really like the look of. I find the massive hulking 30+ units of 8th edition to be incredibly unseemly to look at, and greatly prefer the sight of two 20-strong units over one 40-strong one. I also enjoy the abundance of faction-unique spell lores, magic items, and all the miscellaneous 'add-ons' like Kindreds, Virtues, Sacred Spawnings and the like. They made each faction really feel unique. The extra impact terrain had also feels like a nice touch and seems like it would really promote the importance of movement and manoeuvring units.

The main thing I dislike about the 6th edition core rules (and really just about the only thing stopping me from being a fully fledged 6th edition past-hammerer instead of the partial one I am at the moment) is how most units only act with the first rank. I can understand how it could be reasonable for some combat units, but I'm not sure about it for missile troops, since I feel like it would lead to single ranged units forming massive lines, which I find just as unseemly as the aforementioned giant 8th edition units. For all 8th edition's faults, I do quite like how under it's core rules I can deploy my 16-strong Glade Guard units (and they say you can't make a reasonable Warhammer unit out of one box, tsk tsk) in a nice compact setup of two ranks of 8 and still have it fire to full effectiveness regardless of whether they're on a hill or not.

The lack of spells in the Lore of Life that somehow heal units (as opposed to just characters) is also a point of concern, as I generally like the idea of my Life-magic using wizards (when I'm using wizards with spells from the Lore of Life) acting as healers and medics for the army, including common units. I care about the health and well-being of the troops under my command you see. :angel:

I'm a bit undecided about the combat mechanics. On the one hand I quite like how the 6th edition combat mechanics give a lot of incentive for aggressive tactics and taking the fight to the enemy, the not-ASF for charging units in particular seems like a nice idea to me since it makes great-weapon equipped units a bit more useful in an offensive capacity. On the other hand, I can see how they could lead to some un-fun scenarios. I think perhaps a happy medium between the two would be ideal (perhaps 6th edition's combat mechanics with the added caveat that units fight in two ranks? That way a unit would have to eliminate double the amount of enemies before it's safe from retaliation).

EDIT: Skirmishers in loose formation seems like a nice idea to me too, since meticulously maintaining the spaced formation skirmishers have in 8th edition can get quite tedious without the use of specialised movement trays.

StygianBeach
04-06-2015, 11:41
6th ed was fun at the time, but the best thing about 6th was the complete set of army books.
I would rather use the 7th ed core rules over the 6th core rules, but my hopes for 9th are a combination of 6th, 7th and 8th.

I really enjoyed the Spawnings, Kindreds , Honours, Chaos Gifts, Virtues etc... I thought they were/are great, but I would not want to go back to pages of Army unique magic items.
It was just too annoying keeping track of every armies items and their interactions. The most broken items in 8th are army specific items.

The army slot system was a good idea, but inferior to the current percentage system. There just was no advantage to going light on magic items, like there is with percentages.

I also (even at the time) did not like the no pre-measuring rule as I often found myself absentmindedly measuring stuff during the game.
I find pre-measuring + random charge range a superior solution (especially for Dwarves).

One of the things I miss about 6/7th is how satisfying a flank charge was, especially on a big powerful unit (Temple Guard with Slann for example).
The fighty characters actually had to reform to the flank to fight.

HelloKitty
04-06-2015, 12:13
6th was fun. The pros and cons are about even. Just like how I feel about 8th right now, the pros and cons are about even.

The cons for 6th were as irritating to me as the cons for 8th are... that being fear/autobreak (though back then i was a tournament player and took advantage of this every chance I get, I realize how broken it was), people loading down on power dice, and the heavy presence of cavalry / 1/8 inch dance that was prevalent in all of the tournaments and leagues I was a part of that destroyed immersion for me, as I am based in historicals and seeing the majority of armies that I faced were mostly cavalry that laterally danced around each other until one of the units accidentally stepped within that fraction of an inch to be charged peeved me. (and again full disclosure back in 6th and 7th edition I was a hard core traveling tournament player and only played in competitive min/max style games)

The slot system was cool but abused. Often the core was simply three min sized core units that cost 100 points or less, depending on your army. (my vampire army was three units of five dire wolves for my core) - I feel strongly that core units should make up a lot more than this which is why I like the 25% rule better.

However the pros were that, at least in the first two or three years - the game was probably at its best in terms of balance before certain army books were released that started to bring that down. It also was the edition that stopped me from full scale selling everything I owned and quitting because 5th edition was not about mass fantasy battles - it was about super heroes fighting each other with some token wound counters walking around the table cheering them on (it was very similar in scale and flavor to warmachine IMO though 5th ed fantasy came well before warmachine)

Bubble Ghost
04-06-2015, 14:41
The only pro that matters to me is that 6th* was the best set of game rules from the period when armies looked like armies, and tables looked like battlefields. Not like an assortment of unrelated Todd McFarlane toys duking it out on a tennis court, which is what I always think of when I walk past a game of 8th edition (and sadly now 40K, too). I don't care how balanced the game's rules are now - I'm just not interested in taking part in the kind of battle they portray, and I see 9th ed only taking it further away from the being the kind of game and setting I signed up for.

Which is why I'm trying to convince people to play a game of Warhammer 6th...



*I never played 7th, but through circumstance, as opposed to being repelled by it

HelloKitty
04-06-2015, 15:52
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cNPBbWhOS0

Those look like pretty decent armies and terrain to me :)

Katastrophe
04-06-2015, 16:17
A thought about 6th and the movement dance (not a fan of random charge or pre-measuring for charges and movement). Would a rule like - a unit can close on a failed charge at the cost of 1 WS per inch and no longer counts as charging. Thus if you declare a charge and you are 1" short you lose charge and 1WS but you close and engage to fight a regular round of combat. Or you can choose to "fail" the charge and take your normal failed charge move. Just a thought. If people are interested in playing an older edition, fixes to some of the abuses would be needed. Of course you would have to limit this as well but I think would incentivise people to take a chance if they are close.

As for movement, I kinda like the - put a penny where you wanna go all your units to go - then try to get them there, movement. Sometimes things do quite end up where you want them to, which gives you some feel for things not working how you want all the time. Same with shooting, choose your targets then start shooting at them. The pre-measuring really

HelloKitty
04-06-2015, 17:01
I think that now that chargers don't always strike first coupled with step-up that a lot of the issues with the dance may not be as big of a deal.

I basically want a system that resembles how I envision battles and see them in media... two sides running at each other or one side running at the other vertically, not moving laterally around each other. The second being a battlefield that has blocks of infantry. If charging is so heavily favorable as it was back then, gaming the game means taking mostly troops with high movement value and excluding those that don't. That can be fixed simply by making things like spears a hard counter to cavalry.

I play a lot of hail caesar these days and like that structure but that is a command heavy system where you have to give successful orders to move, so you can still fail orders (and thus not charge) whereas warhammer is pretty much always a 100% precision control by the player (meaning players have absolute control over everything). With random charges and with hail caesar's command structure, I have never seen the movement dance once so that is why I prefer them simply for creating a system that closer resembles what I feel a battle would "look like".

We also have a lot of infantry because we have anti-cavalry infantry blocks, so loading down on cavalry would be an uphill game... you need balance.

I'd be in favor of fixed charge length again if things like spears and pikes shredded cavalry, so that overloading with cavalry would be a foolish decision and you'd have pieces in place to counter the cavalry, which should be good at certain things but in warhammer cavalry was simply the most optimal solution to almost everything with high movement, high armor, high offense, and the charge rules as they were.

Katastrophe
04-06-2015, 18:39
I'd be in favor of fixed charge length again if things like spears and pikes shredded cavalry, so that overloading with cavalry would be a foolish decision and you'd have pieces in place to counter the cavalry, which should be good at certain things but in warhammer cavalry was simply the most optimal solution to almost everything with high movement, high armor, high offense, and the charge rules as they were.
generally speaking, losing charge bonus for cav would be sufficient to make things like spears/pikes etc more than nasty for 90% of Cav units. Only a few were given continuos high S attacks. most rely on the lance +2S to dish out major damage. Then having high saves should not really be effected by running into spears/pikes etc.

Playing 6th, which they are discussing would not have step up or strike at initiative, both of which were kind of overreactions to increase damage output and make you buy more models (at least that is how I saw most of the 8th ed changes - reasons to buy more models and make units bigger than in 8th). But I am all for making non-elite infantry more viable than say all Cav.

infamousme
04-06-2015, 19:30
One thing we did that somewhat nullified the "dance". We would allow you to add D3 to your charge distance, but the com a would take place in initiative order rather than the charger automatically going first.

Bubble Ghost
04-06-2015, 19:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cNPBbWhOS0

Those look like pretty decent armies and terrain to me :)

You misunderstand. I meant that everything is too high fantasy, and the sheer physical size of units and models is such that the battlefield appears far too small.

popisdead
04-06-2015, 20:22
6th edition was terrible. Carpenters could remove your army with warmachines, dwarfs were uber lame of play against, power dice were broken (hello 19 power dice Tzeentch) and until Wood Elves showed up nothing was interesting. it was all bland with no fun rules.

Katastrophe
04-06-2015, 20:27
One thing we did that somewhat nullified the "dance". We would allow you to add D3 to your charge distance, but the com a would take place in initiative order rather than the charger automatically going first.

I think such patches have been common for closing the gap since 4th edition. I've gone few places where the dance was common place.

CrystalSphere
04-06-2015, 22:52
I remember the skaven army of doom, the darkelf and woodelf diffuse lists, the chaos/vampire characters who killed anything so combat resolution was worthless, also how hard hitters cavalry units charged killed the front rank and nobody could touch them. Fun times.

The only thing i agree is that back then the miniatures (handcrafted, not that CAD crap) and the armybooks were better designed, the rules had some flavor (ex. intrigue in the court, even if the execution was poor) and the background bits were also interesting - not just a rehash of 5th edition narrator style background.

I donīt think 6th was balanced for tournaments and they like, but the system was fun and if you agreed with your opponent on avoidin the cheese, then i guess it was quite fun. I used to like the redirection mini-game, but in the end the whole movement dance became a bit tedious.

English 2000
05-06-2015, 01:48
Pretty straightforward. After almost derailing a thread discussing 6th and not getting a definitive answer as to the pros and cons, I decided to come up with this thread where we can discuss the pros and cons. Also, as more and more Oldhammer communities are popping up, this seemed as good a time as any to discuss.

What were your thoughts? Do you or would you still play? Do you have nothing but contempt for that edition. Let your voice be heard and let the discussion commence.

I'll begin by saying thanks for starting this thread Just Tony, since I was the other half of that discussion on the 9th edition thread.

Tony, you have in the past said in other threads (or at least given me the impression) that you feel 6th is the be all and end all of Warhammer Fantasy.

I on the other hand remember a slew of problems with the game and genuinely feel that 8th is the most fun edition to date.

I was a student and worked at my local gaming store during the heyday of 6th. I played more 6th than any other edition and LOVED it. I've made lifelong friends from people I gamed with at the time.

GW cared about the hobby. I've got the 2002 Annual and the General's Compendium to prove that.

GW sponsored Rogue Trader Tournaments
White Dwarf was awesome and full of hobby articles.

We got FAQs and Erattas.

New players were joining the hobby all the time.

Warhammer forums weren't as mainstream, but were growing (it was Portent, not Warseer back then) so people could surprise you in tournaments.

In short, I had a blast during 6th

6th edition was the golden age of Warhammer Fantasy.

But it was not the golden age because of the rules, it was the golden age because of the support GW gave the game.

Some of the rules problems I recall:

The movement shuffle. I know you've denied it existed Tony and maybe in your meta that's true. Everyone I know still talks about it. It was a real thing.

It was a game of charges: Whoever charged first usually won because they wiped out the front rank and the other player couldn't fight back. Hence it became a game of cavhammer.

Magic: I recall magic being far more dominant in 6th than in 8th. "I'm sorry, your Tzeentch army has how many power dice? And here I was thinking my Necrarchs were supposed to dominate the magic phase....."

Scroll Caddies: Everyone had them, no one wanted them. A required point sink to be competitive and totally boring.

High Elf Players: "I can't be competitive without an all cavalry army". All cavalry armies are really good in cavhammer. I know one guy who took elf infantry. He did it once. I smashed him off the table. He went back to all cavalry.

Incidentally, those high elf players were full of crap. I started infantry heavy high elves in 6th to prove a point. I won two thirds of my games with them. Not as good as my 80%+ win ratio with VC, but they could hold their own.

Uranon's Thunderbolt. D6, S6 hits with no armour save and no LOS required is really good against cavalry. Especially when it's on a high elf mage on a horse hiding in a forest so you can't ever get to him.

Speaking of forests. Forests, WTF. Terrible rules. They may as well have been impassable for all the times I saw people go into them. Except high elf mages. They loved woods, they made them invisible.

Missile Troops: Why oh why couldn't they fire in two ranks unless they were on a hill?

Guess Range Weaponry: war machines shouldn't be about how good I am at guessing distances. I was really good. I went undefeated for 2 years with a zero magic Orc and Goblin army (I had 1 tie during that time period), I was never off by more than 1/2" with my guess ranges. Guess ranges severely punished people with bad guesses and just slowed the game down for people like me.

Bretonnians. Cavhammer+ with a banner that negates ranks... you know, the ONLY thing that might allow infantry to hold a charge. And scroll caddies that you can't kill even if you get into combat with their unit (I had a Bretonnian army).

Fear: Undead just keep summoning stuff back until you roll badly one round and autobreak. Or just kill everything with a Blood Dragon (I had an Undead army).
Better yet, I'll just make you run off the board when I charge. Because Boo!

Strigoi Flying Circus.

Beastmen: let's make an army that shows up wherever and hits you from the flank or behind. Because **** the core mechanics (I had a beastman army).

Ogres: We got the Ogre army. I hate everything about Ogres Kingdoms. Rules, fluff, models. Everything. I didn't have an any of them.

Battle Standard Bearers: I don't recall seeing one outside of a Bretonnian army. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but they were rare. They should be a centrepiece of every army (kinda like they are in 8th)

Steam Tanks. 'Nuff said. I started an Empire army in 6th, but only because I wanted to add a Sylvannian Levy to my VC. Stanks were all but banned around here.

Storm of Chaos: Amazing idea. Terrible fluff ending.

Lothern Sea Guard army. Nuff said.

Daemon army. I had an all Slaanesh Daemon army. I won every single game with it. Every single one. Totally unbalanced.

Cult of Ulric. Best Empire fluff ever. Weaker than a snotling on the table. I wish I had bought all of those wonderful models.

Grimgor: Who the **** is Grimgor? Screw Grimgor, it should have been about Morglum Necksnapper (I had an orc and Goblin army). Ok, that's fluff not rules but I'm still bitter ok!

You'll notice that most of my complaints are about armies that I owned, not armies that beat me. This is simply to make sure no one thinks I'm whining because I'm upset about losing games and to show that I can recognize all the imbalances with what I used.

I will also point out that I simply refused to use a lot of the most broken stuff (Banner of the Lady for example) because I wanted the game to be fun for both people.

To answer your last question, would I play 6th again? Yes I would, but only because the community has dwindled so much over the years that once 9th completes the execution I'll just be happy to find anyone to play Warhammer with. Perhaps I'm being dramatic about 9th, but the more I hear the less I like.

I know I mentioned problems with Ravening Hordes on the 9th thread but I don't have a copy so I can't review it to remind myself what the problems were. I vaguely remember ridiculously cheap Marauders all over the place.

Bubble Ghost
05-06-2015, 03:03
Cult of Ulric. Best Empire fluff ever.

Couldn't agree more.:shifty:

snyggejygge
05-06-2015, 05:07
I loved 6:th edition when it was played with Ravening hordes, we used to play 1999 pts to avoid lords & have only 1 rare choice.
Our group was sick and tired of herohammer, 6:th edition was a fresh breath with focus on units, if you used ravening hordes & played 1999 pts there's literally no army that can abuse magic or build the cavalry lists everybody complain about & the rules themselves are great. Lots of problems from 6:th comes from bad armybooks.
The Tzeentch list literally has max 8 powerdice, Chaos knights are special, Bretonnia has problems with ranked units, fear spamming VC , while still good, can't be supported by a Blood Dragon lord etc etc
Cannons are good, but even if you guess well it aint as good as those of today.
Chaos marauder spamming might work, but they are just empire swordsmen with a few more options, how can this be a problem compared to todays Chariot or troll spam that is Woc?

Horace35
05-06-2015, 08:47
long post

Pretty much agree with the whole post.

8th certainly needs some tweaks and could do with unit sizes reigning back a bit but I prefer how it plays

logan054
05-06-2015, 08:51
For me, I think as a game, 8th has the better rules, armywise, I think 6th had the better and more interesting books. I think when 8th is gone I will start playing battles using the 8th ed rules and slightly altered 6th ed books.

DeathGlam
05-06-2015, 12:41
I loved 6th for the support the game got, still have all the books etc but as a rule set it often lead me to taking breaks from the game, as i just was not a fan of the charge shuffle dance, which happened all the time in my area.

Best part of 6th was the release of the Ogres as an army, im a big Dogs of War fan, i fell in love with Golgfag the first time i read his background entry, so when suddenly i could build an entire army of mercenary Ogres travelling the world and kicking ****, i was sold. :D

English 2000
05-06-2015, 13:17
Best part of 6th was the release of the Ogres as an army

I'm about to hulk out..........
[emoji12]

DeathGlam
05-06-2015, 14:17
I'm about to hulk out..........
[emoji12]

I just love my Ogres, have done since 1997(my introduction to the Warhammer world) when i was given a copy of the old Dogs of War army book, i will admit never liked any of the prehistoric theme of certain Ogre units(so im not a fan of the second Ogre release) but a brightly painted travelling band of merc Ogres was my dream come true.

Helps that the basic Ogre plastic kit is still my favourite kit too, i have converted so many of those bad boys for various projects over the years, they still bring me joy.

Ramius4
06-06-2015, 03:03
Long post

Agreed with 95% of it. I'd also add: Lapping around. Horribly implemented rule.

I'd also point out that the slot system, while a noble idea, was not at all effective as it was intended to be. How is your Lord slot for say Chaos, in any way equal to a Lord slot for Empire? For characters at least, percentages deal with this sort of inequity.

Also, except for a couple of armies that could field useful Core troops, pretty much everyone took minimum Core units due to the slot system. When someone is spending 90-150 points out of 2000 to fill their mandatory Core units, that's not a restriction, that's an insult to common sense.

This is a situation that still somewhat exists, although Steadfast has at least made those units act as more than wound markers. (I feel the correct approach would be a combination of slots and percentages, something none of the editions has managed).


Lots of problems from 6:th comes from bad armybooks.

Just want to first say that I'm not picking on you specifically.

I see people make this claim all the time, yet they seem to ignore the fact that the very same thing can be said of 7th and 8th ed as well (and to some degree, even to the herohammer days of 4th-5th). Army books have always imbalanced the game as they are released, ever since army books first existed in 4th.

If you ignore army books as a factor (which people really should), 7th edition as a set of rules was a strict upgrade to 6th, I don't even see how a person could argue that.

That being said, I personally find 8th to be more fun than either of those. Although the dynamics of the way the game plays is very different to previous editions, so I won't be drawn into a discussion of "mine is better than yours". You're certainly entitled to think 6th (or any other edition) is more fun.


What were your thoughts? Do you or would you still play? Do you have nothing but contempt for that edition. Let your voice be heard and let the discussion commence.

While I don't have any contempt for any of the editions, I have no desire to go back and play anything besides 8th. I had a blast playing 4th-5th, right up until 6th showed me that the game could be better. In the same way that I then had a blast with 6th-7th, right up until 8th showed me that the game could be better.

Naitsabes
06-06-2015, 05:21
lots of good points raised on both pro&con.

For me another big con of 6th was skirmishers. I think the good-hearted GW rules writers intended these units to move around as blobs, changing shape somewhat, maybe for squeezing through gaps in terrain. But, what 'creative' players did was form all kinds of funky shapes with appendices of single-model lines coming out of the main body to block charges or prevent movement. I seem to remember that you could place your skirmishers in a way that they could not be charged but prevented any forward movement of the block unit. A bit fuzzy on that one. And skirmishers didn't get march-blocked so could run circles around you. And it could take forever for the 'creative' player to micromanage every single model's position. Note that I am not to keen on the 8ed skirmish rules either. But, they are the lesser evil for me.



While I don't have any contempt for any of the editions, I have no desire to go back and play anything besides 8th. I had a blast playing 4th-5th, right up until 6th showed me that the game could be better. In the same way that I then had a blast with 6th-7th, right up until 8th showed me that the game could be better.

This I agree with. Well said.

Ramius4
06-06-2015, 06:44
I seem to remember that you could place your skirmishers in a way that they could not be charged but prevented any forward movement of the block unit.

You could easily. All it took was placing the closest skirmisher model on the flank of the block unit, outside of 90 degrees. Then string them out with all the other models being farther away, even by just a little bit. Since you had to make contact with the closest skirmisher model, and weren't allowed to wheel more than 90 degrees during a charge, you made it impossible.

While I didn't see this in my group's basement games (because we wouldn't pull that kind of stuff), I saw this in tournaments quite a lot.

Coyote81
06-06-2015, 06:52
lots of good points raised on both pro&con.

For me another big con of 6th was skirmishers. I think the good-hearted GW rules writers intended these units to move around as blobs, changing shape somewhat, maybe for squeezing through gaps in terrain. But, what 'creative' players did was form all kinds of funky shapes with appendices of single-model lines coming out of the main body to block charges or prevent movement. I seem to remember that you could place your skirmishers in a way that they could not be charged but prevented any forward movement of the block unit. A bit fuzzy on that one. And skirmishers didn't get march-blocked so could run circles around you. And it could take forever for the 'creative' player to micromanage every single model's position. Note that I am not to keen on the 8ed skirmish rules either. But, they are the lesser evil for me.



This I agree with. Well said.

I disagree quite a bit, I thought skirmishers was a very important and interesting part of the game system. Did they need to be regulated on how many you could take, since an army of skirmishers was over the top, yes. But the consistent nerf of the rules for skirmishers put them in a position where noone even bothers to take them. I thought they were a great way to screw with and prevent the mindless charge countercharge dilemma big blocks of infantry have. Skimishers now are either overcosted (most shooting skirmishers are) or entirely ineffective in combat. The were used as chaff for the longest time, but now you rarely see them outside of armies like WEs and LM. In real warfare, were a surprise charge from even 1/4 of the number of soldiers could bring a uncoordinated block of soldier to a halt and perhaps even break them through sheer psychological effect.

I would like to see the return of the style of warhammer that used various units from skimishers to chariots to blocks and warmachines working in concert to win the battle. All too often as of late it ends up being one big units versus another big unit comparing relative Str with a little bit of dice rolling luck swing the battle one way or another. I guess in a simplified but not necessary accurate way, I feel the strategy of the game, gave way to the strategy of list building.

Ramius4
06-06-2015, 07:00
Skimishers now are either overcosted (most shooting skirmishers are) or entirely ineffective in combat.

That's much more of an army book problem, then an actual rules issue. Skirmishers were nerfed, yes. But the designers didn't really change what most of them cost. It's one of the reasons you really only see them used as either shooters or redirectors these days. The close combat types aren't worth their points cost. With proper reductions, you'd see them used more. Simple as that.


I would like to see the return of the style of warhammer that used various units from skimishers to chariots to blocks and warmachines working in concert to win the battle.

As would I, but again that's more of an army book issue. Poor internal balance is what kills it. There's a few army books that can pull off this style of play, but it has to do with those particular units being costed correctly, and therefore... Useable.


I guess in a simplified but not necessary accurate way, I feel the strategy of the game, gave way to the strategy of list building.

It has always been this way, that's not even close to being unique to 8th edition. Again, an army book problem.

Urgat
06-06-2015, 15:45
The tweaking of the combat resolution system to emphasize weight of units. Gone were the days of ten man regiments of uber killy elites, replaced now by deeper Core regiments, the tide of battle ebbed and flowed with the pressure of the battle line. Leadership mattered, as well as strength in numbers.

Sorry, can't agree with that. As a goblin player, I had zero incentive to bring more than 20 gobs a unit. It was actually free points for the enemy if I brought more. The measly +1 for outnumbering didn't change a thing when my opponents roflstomped my blocks with their cavalry, chaos warriors, saurus or whatnot and I had to roll snake eyes regardless. I actually completly fail to see how you can remember any different. In 4th/5th ed, there was no elite dominating the game, it was all about characters. The elite domination was the 6th/7th ed era. Numbers and chaff units were a thing for the silly ones like me who refused to do the trendy thing, but certainly not an efficient move to do.

Ramius4
07-06-2015, 00:03
Sorry, can't agree with that. As a goblin player, I had zero incentive to bring more than 20 gobs a unit. It was actually free points for the enemy if I brought more. The measly +1 for outnumbering didn't change a thing when my opponents roflstomped my blocks with their cavalry, chaos warriors, saurus or whatnot and I had to roll snake eyes regardless. I actually completly fail to see how you can remember any different. In 4th/5th ed, there was no elite dominating the game, it was all about characters. The elite domination was the 6th/7th ed era. Numbers and chaff units were a thing for the silly ones like me who refused to do the trendy thing, but certainly not an efficient move to do.

Agreed. The only time you'd see someone bring more than 20 models was if they either had a few points left over and nothing else to spend it on, or bought 3 or 4 more models when they knew they'd face heavy shooting and wanted to soak up a couple wounds. Otherwise anything over 20 was a waste.

tenpole
07-06-2015, 07:51
Steam tanks were dropped originally at the outset of the Empire army book. I guess they were considered over-powerful but then the Steam tanks were introduced in the Warhammer Annual 2002. I dont know what the idea here was, maybe to promote the sale of the Annual 2002 (although I only bought mine last month) or maybe it was to give Empire armies a boost. I think they released a newer model for the steam tank at this time but not too sure.

Ramius4
07-06-2015, 20:39
Steam tanks were dropped originally at the outset of the Empire army book.

Not sure who you're responding to or why, but I'll comment. First off, the Empire lost a LOT more than that in the transition from 5th to 6th. Here's a little list (which I'm sure is missing one or two things).

Halflings
Halfling Hot Pot
Imperial Dwarfs
Imperial Ogres
War Wagon
Steam Tank
Knightly Orders (other than being able to give Knights a cavalry hammer and call them White Wolves).
90% of their special characters

The Empire had previously been a very multicultural army.


I guess they were considered over-powerful

You realize this line of reasoning makes no sense right? They wrote a new book, they had plenty of opportunity to rewrite the rules and include it.


but then the Steam tanks were introduced in the Warhammer Annual 2002. I dont know what the idea here was, maybe to promote the sale of the Annual 2002 (although I only bought mine last month) or maybe it was to give Empire armies a boost. I think they released a newer model for the steam tank at this time but not too sure.

Rules for the Steamtank were in the annual, but the annuals were just a compilation of all the previously published Errata's, FAQ's, special characters, new units, etc. IIRC the Steam Tank rules had already been posted on GW's website and in White Dwarf even before the annual came out. Very little of the content in those annuals was new.

Speaking of the annuals... Although they seem like a good idea on the surface, they really aren't. If you played during 6th ed, you'd want to have the 2002, 2003, and 2004 books they produced. I can still remember a tourney during 2003 in which I had to carry around 4 books just to play the damn game. I had my army book, rulebook, and the 2002, 2003 annuals for the updated magic lores and some key FAQ's.

English 2000
07-06-2015, 20:51
Not sure who you're responding to or why, but I'll comment. First off, the Empire lost a LOT more than that in the transition from 5th to 6th. Here's a little list (which I'm sure is missing one or two things).

Halflings
Halfling Hot Pot
Imperial Dwarfs
Imperial Ogres
War Wagon
Steam Tank
Knightly Orders (other than being able to give Knights a cavalry hammer and call them White Wolves).
90% of their special characters

The Empire had previously been a very multicultural army.
Reiksguard foot. Or was that later?

Ramius4
07-06-2015, 20:54
Reiksguard foot. Or was that later?

Yeah, they lost those too. But they basically had a name change and became Greatswords.

Urgat
07-06-2015, 21:01
Agreed. The only time you'd see someone bring more than 20 models was if they either had a few points left over and nothing else to spend it on, or bought 3 or 4 more models when they knew they'd face heavy shooting and wanted to soak up a couple wounds. Otherwise anything over 20 was a waste.

Forgot undead (and other fear-causing infantry). They're the ones who'd benefit from outnumbering because of the autobreak.

Ramius4
07-06-2015, 21:03
Forgot undead (and other fear-causing infantry). They're the ones who'd benefit from outnumbering because of the autobreak.

Yeah, but the undead still didn't actually buy more than 20. They'd just raise more.

Just Tony
08-06-2015, 14:02
Rather severe delay in getting back to the thread I myself started, but military duty. What can you do? Won't get to everyone with the time I have right now, may wind up taking a couple posts.


Sorry, can't agree with that. As a goblin player, I had zero incentive to bring more than 20 gobs a unit. It was actually free points for the enemy if I brought more. The measly +1 for outnumbering didn't change a thing when my opponents roflstomped my blocks with their cavalry, chaos warriors, saurus or whatnot and I had to roll snake eyes regardless. I actually completly fail to see how you can remember any different. In 4th/5th ed, there was no elite dominating the game, it was all about characters. The elite domination was the 6th/7th ed era. Numbers and chaff units were a thing for the silly ones like me who refused to do the trendy thing, but certainly not an efficient move to do.


Agreed. The only time you'd see someone bring more than 20 models was if they either had a few points left over and nothing else to spend it on, or bought 3 or 4 more models when they knew they'd face heavy shooting and wanted to soak up a couple wounds. Otherwise anything over 20 was a waste.

When I saw people stop at 20 man regiments in 6th, it was because they were only four wide. Once again, I know we're going anecdotal and with local metas here, but it was pretty much universal where I was at that people had a layer to soak up casualties to give them til turn 2 before they lost any rank bonus ranks, unless of course the opponent was gunline, in which case foot troops would always take a bit of a beating. But that's a flavor thing, I can totally see the point sink point of view.

As far as rule abuse shenanigans, the skirmish one is unique, but I can see it. Nobody has mentioned the Fanatic Slingshot (TM). You take a single rank of Night Goblins, right up against the deployment line. Turn to the left/right using one quarter of your move. Wheel the front of your newly formed conga line towards your own table edge. Providing you aren't playing on a rainforest table or in the streets of a city, you should be able to fling the back towards the enemy deployment zone and have Fanatics in enemy units on Turn 1. This is because of the wording of the Wheel move rules, stating that the back of the unit may move farther than their movement allowance to execute the move. By the letter of the rules, this move is completely legitimate. By the spirit of the rules, it's an abomination.

I don't think there's been an edition yet that some extremely creative person hasn't come up with some severely out of spirit move that abuses the letter of the rules. If you're not the kind of person that searches for that sort of move, you wouldn't spot it in the rules. I think that THAT is the problem with the game designers. They don't have a beardmaster/cheesemaster vet the rules for easy to abuse rules.

Addressing the 1/8" shuffle, nothing surprises me. I saw something similar once, as an O&G player backed his boar boyz up 1" to bait a charge. A volley of shots from 4 RBTs got him moving. I also noticed that the same player had difficulties with me as I flung my entire army forward at max speed with the exception of my ballistic troops. My armies are always built to take a charge, and I never had to worry about the opponent charging me first until they started making root 2A or more units, cav or otherwise.

That reminds me. 5 man front of Knights charges your infantry unit. Assume champion is there, and therefore 6 attacks. 3 to 4 hits, depending on WS, and 2 to 3 wounds depending on S/T. Add in 5 horse attacks hitting 2.5 and wounding 1.25 models. Now we assume some sort of armor save, and without targeting the Champion in a Challenge or specifically sending attacks his way, his attacks back are guaranteed. So unless you're flinging forward naked models, 1-2 models attack back giving you 2-3 attacks back, assuming they weren't well-armored troops who could absorb the attacks. Spears add 5 models with 5 attacks back, HE Spears add double that. Given that people took infantry units large enough to max our rank bonus, we assume that the receiving unit has +3 for ranks, +1 for banner, +1 for outnumber. Unless the Knight unit happens to be 8 man or larger, we assume they have +1 for standard. So a cav unit would have to do 4 unanswered wounds to break even, and 5 to win combat. The model I showed above gives you the 4 to break even on average. Now I get the whole luck of the dice thing, but it could also backfire and you do 1 wound. Just using that model, you'd either have to roll stellarly to make that front rank wiping combat that everyone claims happened every time, add in characters to the mix which assumes that the receiving unit doesn't have a character that could stop the other character OR could challenge to absorb as many attacks as possible. The math simply doesn't support the claims made about uber killy cav unless they are attacking zombies or unarmored Goblins.

All said, once again I think that a couple things could have fixed the problems that 6th did have, if you didn't have a club that practiced fair play and restraint of course. Power Dice battery tactic? 7th's limiting PD use to the ones the wizard themselves generated plus the generic pool. Overpowered units? 0-1. Fear Autobreak? Insane Courage, or removing that portion of the rule. A further -1 to break check would represent the rule well enough, I think. Firing in two ranks in 6th would affect pricing, I think, and I don't really have faith in the community to adjust the prices accordingly. As it stands, when HE lost that rule, they lost 1 point per Archer. How many people felt that cost was "right"? I don't think too many would.


Also, as a personal rant. How's come when people try to play the potential output card for 8th, everyone sweeps in to dispel that with averages and realism, yet when they assume autohit/autowound in 6th, it's accepted as the status quo for criticism? I had a unit of Men At Arms that got Conflagrated by my brother's Slann. 19 hits. Is that average? I sincerely doubt it. Will I say that you'll always wipe whole units with Conflagration? Nope.

Urgat
08-06-2015, 14:37
There was no point building up numbers on goblins back then ; as the chargers hit first ignoring initiative, and as goblins were fragile as wet toilet paper, anything hitty (DE and a necromancer-themed VC army aside, I mostly faced devasting melee stuff like brets or chaos) charging them would easily deal enough casualties to remove a rank or two. Couple that with animosity... so instead you'd go MSU (even though gobs costed only 2 points!), with the fabled checker formation. At least, back in 6th ed, fanatics were a serious deterrent to blind charges.

Just Tony
08-06-2015, 17:47
You were also choosing to play a low cost, low leadership, low toughness, low skill and low armor army. In my mind I could lay out an army that could deal with threats if I didn't handicap myself. Not saying you have to load up on Black Orks, I'm saying that a little variety and combined arms would help a ton. I was always outnumbered running a High Elf army composed mostly of Spearmen and Archers, barring a few notable exceptions. I didn't complain, because I knew that handicap going into it. I chose that army for its strengths AND weaknesses.

You can't call an edition bad simply because one army run one certain way is at a disadvantage, especially if the disadvantage can be mitigated with a few unit choices.

Urgat
08-06-2015, 19:36
You were also choosing to play a low cost, low leadership, low toughness, low skill and low armor army.

The kind of army that should benefit most from numbers, don't you think? At least I think you understand why I like 8th ed best, even if you don't share that opinion. I can still play my underdogs, and actually pull my weight now. Up until now, it had never been an option.


I'm saying that a little variety and combined arms would help a ton
Goblin armies don't lack in variety :) (I also have trolls, giants and snotlings).


You can't call an edition bad simply because one army run one certain way is at a disadvantage, especially if the disadvantage can be mitigated with a few unit choices.
I'm not saying 6th ed was bad, I enjoyed it a lot, but it never let me play my gobs the way gobs ought to be played (http://www.warseer.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=214645&d=1433255057). No edition but 8th ed did.

ColShaw
08-06-2015, 20:21
I loved 6th Ed, and loved 7th Ed. I hate 8th, and it pretty much killed my enjoyment of the game. Take that for what it's worth.

I'm going to disagree about 20-strong units being perfect in either edition. If I ever went up against them, I'd just fire a little bit of missile fire into each one, pick off a guy or two, and knock down their max-rank bonus. Then my 35-strong Night Goblins units would sling their nets and laugh. Having a few ablative bodies was awfully handy.

I played infantry all through 6th and 7th. Sometimes I lost to cavalry, more often I beat them. I'd have a unit or two of cav to make spoiling charges or threaten flanks, and I had Fanatics for the Night Gobbos. Nothing frightens charging min-strength cav quite like d6 S5 -3AS autohits. If even one or two knights died to the crazy Gobbos with their ball-and-chain, the Gobbos would win the combat.

I get what people are saying about the charge shuffling. But in my experience, it was possible to minimize enemy charge ability through other clever tactics (my lone Trolls were really good at this for redirection, my Spider Riders would threaten flanks or redirect and flee, etc.). Getting the charge was important, but it didn't tend to decide the games I played.

Playing against MSU cavalry was often entertaining; Kill one or two members of the unit with a Bolt Thrower and the unit would be mostly useless. You could annihilate a min-max player by doing stuff like that.

6th was leaps and bounds better than 5th as a wargame. 7th had a few sidesteps or back steps, but overall I liked it better than 6th. 8th... golly. Killed the game in my area and in my soul. :(

Groza
08-06-2015, 20:31
I also prefer 6th/7th but I don't hate 8th as much as you ColShaw. I'd say it's the thing I hate least about contemporary GW affairs.
For me 8th just feels bloated. Everything does too much damage, units are usually too big so you move less things around. Models are bigger too so there's a disconnect in scale between the centerpieces and the rest of the army (although this has nothing to do with rules).
6th/7th was a more tame game, more relaxed but I felt more involved in it when playing. I felt that my decisions mattered a bit more and it was more fun to watch it unfold, win or lose.
With 8th I often feel like I'm on autodrive. Throwing dice (lots of dice) and waiting for things to happen that I know will happen beforehand.
Honestly, the most common surprise in the games of 8th I've played was wizards getting whisked by a miscast and that gets old (and very annoying) extremely fast.

Urgat
09-06-2015, 05:33
I loved 6th Ed, and loved 7th Ed. I hate 8th, and it pretty much killed my enjoyment of the game. Take that for what it's worth.

I'm going to disagree about 20-strong units being perfect in either edition. If I ever went up against them, I'd just fire a little bit of missile fire into each one, pick off a guy or two, and knock down their max-rank bonus. Then my 35-strong Night Goblins units would sling their nets and laugh. Having a few ablative bodies was awfully handy.

I played infantry all through 6th and 7th. Sometimes I lost to cavalry, more often I beat them. I'd have a unit or two of cav to make spoiling charges or threaten flanks, and I had Fanatics for the Night Gobbos. Nothing frightens charging min-strength cav quite like d6 S5 -3AS autohits. If even one or two knights died to the crazy Gobbos with their ball-and-chain, the Gobbos would win the combat.

I get what people are saying about the charge shuffling. But in my experience, it was possible to minimize enemy charge ability through other clever tactics (my lone Trolls were really good at this for redirection, my Spider Riders would threaten flanks or redirect and flee, etc.). Getting the charge was important, but it didn't tend to decide the games I played.

Playing against MSU cavalry was often entertaining; Kill one or two members of the unit with a Bolt Thrower and the unit would be mostly useless. You could annihilate a min-max player by doing stuff like that.

You sound like you have amazing luck with dice, honestly. Spear chukkas, shooting, fanatics didn't have much of an impact. My opponent had (way more efficient) shooting of their own, and/or light cavalry or dogs for the fanatics. You can only net one unit at a time, and the malus to S instead of wounding more often than not didn't prevent being woulded on 3+ for me. Besides, I didn't face MSU cavalry, the chaos knights were 7 wide, and Bretonnians have lances. In either case, killing one guy of the unit still netted me a snake eye test if I got charged.

ColShaw
09-06-2015, 11:49
You sound like you have amazing luck with dice, honestly. Spear chukkas, shooting, fanatics didn't have much of an impact. My opponent had (way more efficient) shooting of their own, and/or light cavalry or dogs for the fanatics. You can only net one unit at a time, and the malus to S instead of wounding more often than not didn't prevent being woulded on 3+ for me. Besides, I didn't face MSU cavalry, the chaos knights were 7 wide, and Bretonnians have lances. In either case, killing one guy of the unit still netted me a snake eye test if I got charged.

Well, I do have a lucky rep among my gaming buddies. But as everyone knows, a lucky guy believes he's a tactical genius, right? ;)

SuperHappyTime
09-06-2015, 23:42
Well, I do have a lucky rep among my gaming buddies. But as everyone knows, a lucky guy believes he's a tactical genius, right? ;)

One makes their own luck by forcing the odds into their favor.

I didn't get into the hobby until midway through 8th, but I went and got this still in a tattered shinkwrap on eBay recently:
215065
Just waiting for somebody who wants to play to come around ;)

Just Tony
09-06-2015, 23:48
You sound like you have amazing luck with dice, honestly. Spear chukkas, shooting, fanatics didn't have much of an impact. My opponent had (way more efficient) shooting of their own, and/or light cavalry or dogs for the fanatics. You can only net one unit at a time, and the malus to S instead of wounding more often than not didn't prevent being woulded on 3+ for me. Besides, I didn't face MSU cavalry, the chaos knights were 7 wide, and Bretonnians have lances. In either case, killing one guy of the unit still netted me a snake eye test if I got charged.

As far as the bolded, I get a bit of a giggle when the main argument against 6th Ed. is that front ranks were swept off by 5 man units of knights until people lay out the math to show that it wouldn't happen as often as was said, and suddenly the number of knights changes or there are suddenly characters in the mix. When you lay out an equation, you put ALL of the data out there at once. How annoyed would you be if I asked you to solve for X where X =Y-7 and after you answer I suddenly say "Well, I meant to say X=Y-7 OVER 24Z squared."? That's how annoyed I am right now.

And I'd say dice luck isn't indicative of how good/bad an edition is either. Sounds to me like your opponent just knew how to outmaneuver you.

Groza
10-06-2015, 05:17
In either case, killing one guy of the unit still netted me a snake eye test if I got charged.
But how.
Let's look past the "cav units always won on the charge for a second", how did we go from "won on the charge" to "won and I had to roll snakeyes".
Even for goblins that means winning with 5CR to spare.
Which will mean an average of 8 kills against the static CR of your block.
I'm not gonna do the math right now but i'm pretty sure even if they are 7 wide chaos knights or a bret lance formation the average casualties aren't that high.

Urgat
10-06-2015, 05:46
One makes their own luck by forcing the odds into their favor.

Appart from taking 6 spear chukkas, I'm not sure how you can stack the odds in your favour in regard to shooting stuff.


As far as the bolded, I get a bit of a giggle when the main argument against 6th Ed. is that front ranks were swept off by 5 man units of knights until people lay out the math to show that it wouldn't happen as often as was said, and suddenly the number of knights changes or there are suddenly characters in the mix. When you lay out an equation, you put ALL of the data out there at once. How annoyed would you be if I asked you to solve for X where X =Y-7 and after you answer I suddenly say "Well, I meant to say X=Y-7 OVER 24Z squared."? That's how annoyed I am right now.

I challenge you to find a post of mine saying 6th ed is bad because of 5-man knights :p I've only been talking about how 8th ed allowed me to field big units of gobs and 6th did not, haven't I?


And I'd say dice luck isn't indicative of how good/bad an edition is either. Sounds to me like your opponent just knew how to outmaneuver you.
There's no outmaneuvering skills to rolling 8+ for fanatics, hitting on 5/6 with spearchukkas, killing anything with 5 bows or throwing nets. I think you'e extrapolating way too much from what I write in my posts ;) I did say I liked 6th ed, don't be so agressive :p

ColShaw
10-06-2015, 10:55
There's no outmaneuvering skills to rolling 8+ for fanatics, hitting on 5/6 with spearchukkas, killing anything with 5 bows or throwing nets. I think you'e extrapolating way too much from what I write in my posts ;) I did say I liked 6th ed, don't be so agressive :p

Well, using 6 Chukkas will net 2 hits a turn, on average. And you didn't need an 8+ with Fanatics. If the enemy was charging, the Fanatics were guaranteed to hit. And there were interesting tricks you could do with Fanatics, if you didn't mind killing some of your own Gobbos; the usual thing for me was to not put Fanatics in the Speargobbos, but in the Bowgobbos a little behind and to either side of them. Then, when the enemy got close to the frontline units, I'd throw the Fanatics through my friendly units, which were nice and deep (there were reasons I built them 35-strong, with 7-rank depth), and the Fanatics would usually stop just on the far side of the spear units. That meant the enemy charge would stop on top of the Fanatics, which would cause an extra d6 hits each. 2d6 Fanatic hits would put a big hurt on most things, including medium-sized Knight units.

I really didn't have much problem dealing with MSU cavalry.

Urgat
10-06-2015, 12:22
And you didn't need an 8+ with Fanatics. If the enemy was charging, the Fanatics were guaranteed to hit.

You knew anybody stupid enough to charge nearby night gobs w/o trying to pull the fanatics first? :eyebrows: The first thing my opponents would do would be to march fast sacrificial stuff to my night gobs.

As for favourite tricks, mine was to release fanatics too short, fail animosity and then gleefully roll "we'll show them" and a move superior to what the fanatics did. I've done that at least a couple dozen times. Now I know where my luck went: you stole it! Give it back!

Avian
10-06-2015, 13:03
You knew anybody stupid enough to charge nearby night gobs w/o trying to pull the fanatics first? :eyebrows: The first thing my opponents would do would be to march fast sacrificial stuff to my night gobs.
Did you try putting the units with Fanatics in the second line? Makes it drastically more difficult for the opponent to lure them out prematurely.

In Dark Trees
10-06-2015, 14:00
I loved 6:th edition when it was played with Ravening hordes, we used to play 1999 pts to avoid lords & have only 1 rare choice.
Our group was sick and tired of herohammer, 6:th edition was a fresh breath with focus on units, if you used ravening hordes & played 1999 pts there's literally no army that can abuse magic or build the cavalry lists everybody complain about & the rules themselves are great. Lots of problems from 6:th comes from bad armybooks.
The Tzeentch list literally has max 8 powerdice, Chaos knights are special, Bretonnia has problems with ranked units, fear spamming VC , while still good, can't be supported by a Blood Dragon lord etc etc
Cannons are good, but even if you guess well it aint as good as those of today.
Chaos marauder spamming might work, but they are just empire swordsmen with a few more options, how can this be a problem compared to todays Chariot or troll spam that is Woc?

The Ravening Hordes period, short as it was, was my favorite time to be a Warhammer player. Those were good, if unfussy, lists. I'm going to go download them and see if nostalgia is getting the best of my reason, however.

In Dark Trees
10-06-2015, 14:04
One makes their own luck by forcing the odds into their favor.

I didn't get into the hobby until midway through 8th, but I went and got this still in a tattered shinkwrap on eBay recently:
215065
Just waiting for somebody who wants to play to come around ;)

Is that the 5th edition box set? If so, I'll be over in a second. Let me just create a 500-point Beastlord.

ColShaw
10-06-2015, 15:26
You knew anybody stupid enough to charge nearby night gobs w/o trying to pull the fanatics first? :eyebrows: The first thing my opponents would do would be to march fast sacrificial stuff to my night gobs.

As for favourite tricks, mine was to release fanatics too short, fail animosity and then gleefully roll "we'll show them" and a move superior to what the fanatics did. I've done that at least a couple dozen times. Now I know where my luck went: you stole it! Give it back!

You can't have it; the luck is mine, my precious...

I had my own sacrificial stuff to use for interception, and as Avian noted, I tended to put Fanatics in my second line instead of the front. Spider Riders weren't very good fighters, but could chase off enemy fast cav. The army operated as a whole, organic unit; I had a great win record with the Gobbos back in the day.

I also did really weird things with them, like having my Orc Warlord in a unit of Night Goblins with Nets; Netters plus Armor of Gork equaled a T6 Orc that usually was hit at -1S from enemies. This could be hilarious. That guy won more challenges...

Urgat
10-06-2015, 15:51
I don't remember honestly, I stopped (mostly) using fanatics somewhere in the middle of 6th ed, and took more useful stuff with the points saved (hefty save, 30 pts back then, fanatics...). Never regretted it really.
People who didn't know me would bring stuff in front of my gobs, say "so?", and get charged (hahaha, the look on their face, priceless), those who did got used to no fanatics, so once in a while I'd field a few and as they did not expect them, well, see previous parenthesis. Most of the time though when I use fanatics, I just throw them in an area where there's nothing, and I want to keep it that way (with nothing coming in it). Kindda lioke chanelling tools.
In 8th ed, fanatics are worthless. With vanguard, big units, no ignoring saves anymore, etc, I find they're a waste of points. I prefer to take a couple more trolls or more wolves instead of three fanatics, really.
I also tried the catapult thing (you know, launching the fanatics trhough your own troops), but I find it gamey and sad, so I stopped very fast. Playing the rules is not how I like my Warhammer. I'm certainly no tourney winner, but I'm fine with the results (a steady half win half lose throught the editions - bar 5th ed. Got stomped all the time in 5th ed, it wasn't all-gobs friendly at all. I couldn't compete with overtooled Chaos lords and the likes).

ColShaw
10-06-2015, 17:35
I also tried the catapult thing (you know, launching the fanatics trhough your own troops), but I find it gamey and sad, so I stopped very fast. Playing the rules is not how I like my Warhammer.

What's gamey about it? You're deliberately killing your own troops. I find it no worse than the Skaven shooting into their own units to kill enemies in close combat. It's certainly no gamier than march-blocking, redirecting, or any of the other movement tricks of the Warhammer trade.

I agree that the threat of Fanatics is worse than the Fanatics themselves, and can exert disproportionate pressure on an opponent's tactics. I never put full Fanatics in all my Night Goblins.

tenpole
10-06-2015, 18:47
I don't remember honestly, I stopped (mostly) using fanatics somewhere in the middle of 6th ed, and took more useful stuff with the points saved (hefty save, 30 pts back then, fanatics...). Never regretted it really.


25 points o+g book in 6th. Also no armour save throw at all in 6th.

HelloKitty
10-06-2015, 19:28
What's gamey about it? You're deliberately killing your own troops.

It is to most people the very definition of gamey. You're taking a model with a 2D6" movement and giving it an unlimited movement. There is a cost (your own models) but the feeling of "gamey" is not defined by whether there is a cost or not.

Of course "gamey" has no concrete definition other than "gaming the game", which to some people is nothing more than cleverly bypassing the boundaries of a ruleset by exploiting a loophole but retaining its "legality". It is mostly an emotional term, much like "power gamer" is.

ColShaw
10-06-2015, 19:34
It is to most people the very definition of gamey. You're taking a model with a 2D6" movement and giving it an unlimited movement. There is a cost (your own models) but the feeling of "gamey" is not defined by whether there is a cost or not.

Of course "gamey" has no concrete definition other than "gaming the game", which to some people is nothing more than cleverly bypassing the boundaries of a ruleset by exploiting a loophole but retaining its "legality". It is mostly an emotional term, much like "power gamer" is.

Unlimited? Hardly. It's limited by the unit(s) it moves through, just as the rule states. An enemy still has to be within 8" to trigger it. How is it a loophole? The rules of the Fanatic specifically state what to do when it runs into a unit. This isn't even remotely a gray area.

I might agree if I were talking about throwing the Fanatics in a different direction than that of the enemy unit that triggered them; that's technically legal, but I believe it to be against the spirit of them.

The spirit of Night Goblins? I always figured they'd think throwing a Fanatic through a rival regiment on their own side was hilarious.

Avian
10-06-2015, 20:47
The "wheel launch" was gamey (I can't recall if that is legal these days), as was launching them from a point *inside* the unit, but boosting the move by sending them through your own units was something made explicitly possible in the army book. It was clearly intended to work that way.

Just Tony
10-06-2015, 23:55
Appart from taking 6 spear chukkas, I'm not sure how you can stack the odds in your favour in regard to shooting stuff.



I challenge you to find a post of mine saying 6th ed is bad because of 5-man knights :p I've only been talking about how 8th ed allowed me to field big units of gobs and 6th did not, haven't I?


There's no outmaneuvering skills to rolling 8+ for fanatics, hitting on 5/6 with spearchukkas, killing anything with 5 bows or throwing nets. I think you'e extrapolating way too much from what I write in my posts ;) I did say I liked 6th ed, don't be so agressive :p

Sorry, all the posts from previous threads are starting to blend together. You have my sincerest apologies.

I have to add in, though. Ten man front on archer units. Bonus if on a hill.


Also, a LOT of stuff to respond to and my break is short this time. Catch it in an hour and a half, I suppose.

Just Tony
11-06-2015, 01:50
The "wheel launch" was gamey (I can't recall if that is legal these days), as was launching them from a point *inside* the unit, but boosting the move by sending them through your own units was something made explicitly possible in the army book. It was clearly intended to work that way.

The Wheel Launch? Is that anything like the single file slingshot I mentioned earler?

HelloKitty
11-06-2015, 02:38
Unlimited? Hardly.

Unlimited is of course hyperbole. It was limited by how many units you could stack forward. I've seen a fanatic with a 2D6" movement slingshot forward nearly the entire width of the table to land in an enemy's artillery park at the rear of his formation with that tactic.

Like I said - gamey is subjective to the person. Most people I played with thought it was very gamey. (this is not disputing its legality)

Avian
11-06-2015, 06:11
The Wheel Launch? Is that anything like the single file slingshot I mentioned earler?

Yeah. People use the word slingshot for two very different maneuvers.




I've seen a fanatic with a 2D6" movement slingshot forward nearly the entire width of the table to land in an enemy's artillery park at the rear of his formation with that tactic.
Give that Goblin a commendation! :D

Just Tony
11-06-2015, 12:41
I can honestly say that this thread is a bit of an eye opener. Some of these tactics I never saw in practice. Even our tourneys were more restrained than that. If that is what people were seeing, it's no wonder they have negative feelings about the edition. To be fair, though, they pull that kind of stunt every edition.

Ramius4
11-06-2015, 12:56
I can honestly say that this thread is a bit of an eye opener. Some of these tactics I never saw in practice. Even our tourneys were more restrained than that.

It's the edition that drove me away from tournament gaming if that's any indication. Definitely not the way I like to play games.


If that is what people were seeing, it's no wonder they have negative feelings about the edition. To be fair, though, they pull that kind of stunt every edition.

Yes, every edition has its own issues and gamey loopholes, etc. However, I still maintain that 7th had fewer than 6th simply because it was strictly a minor update to the 6th ed core rules. Again, I'm not talking army books, that's irrelevant.

HelloKitty
11-06-2015, 12:58
I can honestly say that this thread is a bit of an eye opener. Some of these tactics I never saw in practice. Even our tourneys were more restrained than that. If that is what people were seeing, it's no wonder they have negative feelings about the edition. To be fair, though, they pull that kind of stunt every edition.

Absolutely every edition has its gamey stunts. To me, the bads about 8th edition were the belly-blobs, the ability to create death star mega units due to no unit caps, and the prevalence of the "six dicing the spell" strategies.