PDA

View Full Version : Best Old Version of WHFB?



drfaust176
13-07-2015, 21:36
So, with AoS hitting the ground just in time for me to get back into wargaming, I decided to look into it... And it doesn't really appeal to me. Not a judgment call, just not my type of game. I liked the old system (WS, BS, S, T, etc.), and ranked units. So I think I'm sitting this one out. But lemons to lemonade- the old rules books are much much cheaper!

With that in mind, I've been out of the game since oh... Storm of Chaos (the one in the early to mid-2000s), and I'm looking to get back in. So which edition do people feel is the general best? Most balanced, most fun, etc?

Mithrilherz
13-07-2015, 21:41
In my opinion and the mates of my gaming group, 8th edition is the best so far.

Griefbringer
13-07-2015, 21:42
My favourites tend to be 3rd edition and 6th edition. If I would design a custom version, it would probably be based on 6th edition with various gritty detail aspects of 3rd edition brought back (plus selected changes from later editions).

That said, I have never seen 1st or 2nd edition rules, so cannot comment on them.

Urgat
13-07-2015, 21:43
8th ed for me, hands down.

Shandor
13-07-2015, 21:44
I think 8 was really cool. I liked alot about it. Sure there could be some balancing here and there. but overall it was a very good Rule setting.

SuperHappyTime
13-07-2015, 21:47
I made a poll saying 8th was Iconic and was called an idiot.

But yea, 8th.

snyggejygge
13-07-2015, 21:51
Best balanced: 6:th edition with Ravening hordes by a mile.

Most fun: Depends on what you want out of the game, 5:th edition was fun in its way. Not balanced at all though. 6:th was fun due to focus on movement & troopers, while 8:th edition is fun due the huge amount of casulties in combat & while I like the movement system in earlier editions better, having a random charge range is fun in its own way, when your gamble pays off it feels quite rewarding.

drfaust176
13-07-2015, 21:54
I appreciate the opinions, and would love to hear more of them.

As for me, I played 5th and 6th, and loved them both in their own way... But 6th seemed so much more balanced, and had more army variety. Plus the magic system was loads better. I'll need to look into 8th, then- maybe once prices drop a bit further. 7th sounds like it was not overly popular at this time, however.

Avian
13-07-2015, 22:21
Seventh edition, if you disregard three of the army books.

Sometimes I like to imagine what could have been if you took the 8th edition army books, and the good parts of the rulebook, and put them into 7th edition.

skavenmatt
13-07-2015, 22:25
6th was my favorite. All of them except 1, 2, and 5th herohammer were good until aos was released.

Ayin
13-07-2015, 22:27
6th was, to me, the cleanest, best Warhammer, but 8th was the most representative of the world, and the most fun, with the best options. I appreciate 6th a lot, but 8th was more fun than I'd ever had playing the game, or just being a part of it.

7th should very likely rank better, being mostly an improved 6th, and that's how I remember it's indtroduction and my excitement for it, but the edition (ie the rulebook) is just so coloured by what became of the game because of a few army books that I can't separate that from the core rules in my head. I'd never been so dissapointed with Warhammer than when our local gaming group basically split between Daemons/Vamps/Dark Elves and everyone else because trying to have fun playing together was hard.

Spiney Norman
13-07-2015, 22:28
8th if you want to play with big units, 6th if you like Bretonnians or Wood Elves, I liked both core editions.

My ideal warhammer would probably be 6th ed with a few core rule imports from 7th and 8th but using the 6E crop of Army books (because it was the army books that turned 7E into such a horrific abortion of a game). Use the magic system from 8th, but the spell lists from 7th and the combat mechanics from 6th. Ok it's a bit more complex than that, but there ae good parts and bad parts from the last 3 editions that could be cobbled together to make something truly great.

drfaust176
14-07-2015, 00:07
I take it daemons, vamps, and dark elves were the broken ones in 7E?
6E did also have the advantage of an official chaos dwarf army, which I am partial to. I heard about Tamurkhan, but I'm always leery of non-canon rules (somewhat ironically, now).

DonkeyMan
14-07-2015, 00:35
I'll quote RA Salvatore. Best version of WFB is "when you were 12".

There is a certain truth to that statement. I like 3rd edition best, because it't the edition that brought me into the hobby. I was slightly older than 12 though.
6th edition was great too! It had Chaos Dwarfs! :)

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 00:39
8th and 6th.

5th was too hero hammery for me. 7th had good ideas but the tournament crowd i ran with turned into checkerboarded cav units doing the 1/8 lateral dance the whole game until someone made the mistake of moving 1/8" too far and got charged. Every game. So I don't have good memories of 7th past the initial eight months of its release. THen of course there were the army books like daemons that just jumped the shark.

Just Tony
14-07-2015, 00:55
6th with Ravening Hordes is damn near perfect, and if you can reach an accord on how to fix the four or five bad army books, 6th in general would be perfect.

Ayin
14-07-2015, 01:07
I take it daemons, vamps, and dark elves were the broken ones in 7E?

Ugh. My good friend, who I've been Warhammering with since the beginning, plays Demons. He was psyched for the 7th ed book, since he'd been running a demons force using the Storm of Chaos list (and I think maybe a White Dwarf list or something before that?) and really loved the army.

He was more frustrated after a month of play than anyone I've ever seen in the hobby. He was facing up with Tomb Kings, Beastmen, Orcs, Empire, Ogres, and just about ready to shelve the army. He tried to intentionally take the clearly worse of the options available to him and not field the army he wanted to because it just didn't allow fair games. The only time he didn't have to do this was pretty much when he went against some of the Vampire players, and then it was just ridiculous games. It's almost hard to explain how bad it was.



6E did also have the advantage of an official chaos dwarf army, which I am partial to. I heard about Tamurkhan, but I'm always leery of non-canon rules (somewhat ironically, now).

The Ravening Hordes list for Dogs of War, unlike Chaos Dwarfs, got re-printed in Warhammer Chronicles 2002 and 2004 (crazy to think White Dwarf used to have enough hobby based material they could do a best of...) and in 2003 got their 5th ed Special Characters redone as well. My buddy played them in 6th, but I played them in 7th (against non-Daemon/Vamp/DE armies) and 8th.

That army was never as fun as it was in 8th. The magic lores, rules for units and universal magic items made it a reasonable force to play (granted, stuck with two or three just TERRIBLE units, but that's pretty much standard Warhammer). In 7th I could have fun games against some armies. In 8th I could have fun games against most OPPONENTS. It was a huge change.

The CD rules in Tamurkhan are solid. The potential is there to just load up on the trains-with-guns and such, but the army has the potential to also be played really thematically. It basically allows several builds (though of course one is better than the others) and, in larger games (using non-Grand Army rules) a lot of those options start to shine.

Ayin
14-07-2015, 02:30
One other thing I just remembered after walking past my bookshelf and seeing the old armybooks there,

6th edition had some REALLY good armybooks. The sixth edition High Elf, Dark Elf and Dwarf (but especially High Elf) books were beautiful (with their 'sketch' style art) and so well done with each factions story presented in a completely biased fashion, told by that race, or even a member of that race. The War of the Beard/Vengeance White Dwarf articles and army lists grew out of those, and they were amazing and done in the same fashion.

In comarison, the 7th edition High Elf armybook was in many sections just wholly copied, page for page, words and graphics, from the 5th ed one. I was extremely dissapointed with that.

Urgat
14-07-2015, 10:22
Seventh edition, if you disregard three of the army books.

Sometimes I like to imagine what could have been if you took the 8th edition army books, and the good parts of the rulebook, and put them into 7th edition.

You'd have 8th ed with a different magic phase :p
I'm not sure people remember the Ravening Hordes lists correctly, I remember them being simple, sure, but balanced? Not in my memories, no.


One other thing I just remembered after walking past my bookshelf and seeing the old armybooks there,

6th edition had some REALLY good armybooks. The sixth edition High Elf, Dark Elf and Dwarf (but especially High Elf) books were beautiful (with their 'sketch' style art) and so well done with each factions story presented in a completely biased fashion, told by that race, or even a member of that race. The War of the Beard/Vengeance White Dwarf articles and army lists grew out of those, and they were amazing and done in the same fashion.

In comarison, the 7th edition High Elf armybook was in many sections just wholly copied, page for page, words and graphics, from the 5th ed one. I was extremely dissapointed with that.

They were good fluff books, but rules-wise... ask the DE players :p

Inquisitor Kallus
14-07-2015, 10:38
Age of Sigmar!
*runs*

Spell_of_Destruction
14-07-2015, 10:45
I'm sure we had an identical thread not too long ago?

I would say 7th edition (which is really just a tweaked version of 6th and all of the changes were good) with the 6th ed army books but while they were largely balanced there were a few real turkeys (HE and DE spring to mind).

I think 7th ed HE book would be fine if SoA was changed so that it simply allowed GW carrying Elves to strike in initiative order. 7th ed DE book needs a bit more work but it's mostly dubious magic items that broke it and the cost of the Hydra needs to be increased by 25-50%.

GrandmasterWang
14-07-2015, 10:55
8th by far!

Most balanced, most fun.

Also the only edition besides 4th I believe where my Big Hats got an official army list :)

8th is by far the most strategic WHFB game released and actually made me feel like a general of a Fantasy force. Armies started to look like armies and the agreed upon (by both players) roll needed to charge eliminated all the bs half inch arguments of the previous editions.

So 8th for me.

I personally think it was probably 5th which gave me the most characterful army books though....like my beloved Dogs of War.

Matt Wards Daemons are the worst thing to ever happen to Fantasy balance wise...... also the beginning of the end for the system they ruined the game for so many.

90 point characters with 3+ ward saves who could unstoppable modify your leadership combined with ridiculous magic phases (oh I have like 50 powerdice thanks to my core troops), autobreak fear and terror bomb run down shenanigans due to harpies behind your units. ... simply horrid.

If I recall a couple tournaments during that time even sometimes had top 10 places all Daemons.

So Chillhammer/8th for me. The definitive fantasy Edition so I'm not so mad that it's the 'final' as imo GW finally got it right and I wouldn't really have wanted to purchase another ruleset (9th) of it only provided tweaks when 8th with slight modifications was so damn good!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Kisanis
14-07-2015, 11:02
I started in 5th, played a lot of 6th, skipped 7th, and played a bit of 8th for the first year it was out. Then life changes and we didn't play a lot of 8th.
I would love to play 6th+8th again and re-live the game and determin which I prefer.

I think 6th (using the 7th edition bret book; because the white dwarf list sucked). would be fun.
I think 6th had its issues, but it wasn't *broken* and things that were broken, were not terribly so. I especially miss guessing for cannons, and not being able to measure anything and having to eyeball a lot.

Anyone care to start a thread on a community FAQ'd 6th edition?

KurganFr
14-07-2015, 11:02
I played most of my games under 5th edition, and it was great (except for the Flying High monsters). I played a bit of 8th too and enjoyed it. These days, I'm collecting old campaign books (Grudge of Drong etc.) which I intend to play either with 8th edition or Kings of War rules.

duffybear1988
14-07-2015, 11:07
6th edition because it made blocks of troops useful again and was actually fun to play. Back then you could also buy a full regiment of 20 men for the price of 1 hero nowadays as well. GW prices have gone crazy over the last decade.

Kakapo42
14-07-2015, 11:16
My favourite army books are from 6th edition. As mentioned earlier, those books were INCREADIBLE with their beautiful artwork and amazing atmosphere.

My favourite core rules are currently a toss-up between 8th and 6th edition. There are things I like about both (8th edition's pre-measuring, units acting in two ranks and a lore of life spell that heals basic troops, 6th edition's pseudo-ASF for all charging units, importance of terrain and skirmisher rules). I haven't seen the 7th edition core rules, but if they're anything like 6th's and have the same parts about 6th that I like I would probably quite like them too.

MiyamatoMusashi
14-07-2015, 11:47
I liked 6th and 7th best... it was a while ago (9 and 13 years respectively I think?) so I'm not even sure I can remember the differences between them, only that I thought they were each really good rulesets.

However, as I recall, the army books broke them (anyone remember how ridiculous VCs, DEs and Daemons were compared to everything else?) - the rules were good, army book power creep (especially for magic) broke it.

I was hoping that 9th Ed would return to the 6th/7th approach but with a better magic system, a few other changes, and army books that didn't break the game. Sadly, it seems it was not to be. :(

Griefbringer
14-07-2015, 12:01
I think 6th (using the 7th edition bret book; because the white dwarf list sucked). would be fun.


As far as I know, there was no Bretonnian book released during the 7th edition. There was one for 6th edition, released in early 2004.

Commodus Leitdorf
14-07-2015, 12:18
I have a soft spot for 6th but I'm going to say 8th since I have never felt disadvantaged in a fight regardless as to who I'm playing against.

CrystalSphere
14-07-2015, 12:50
The 7th ed. rulebook is superior in everyway to the 6th ed. one, the only drawback of that edition were some of the imbalanced armybooks. The best rulebook would be a mix of 7th and 8th taking the good things from both.

Spell_of_Destruction
14-07-2015, 13:40
The 7th ed. rulebook is superior in everyway to the 6th ed. one, the only drawback of that edition were some of the imbalanced armybooks. The best rulebook would be a mix of 7th and 8th taking the good things from both.

Yes, 8th introduced some nice changes that made weaker massed infantry more viable. One of the downsides to 6th/7th was that the rules didn't really provide much reason to take units larger than 25-30 models.

Steadfast would not imbalance 7th terribly, especially if limited to Core units. It would give units like Empire State Troops a fighting chance of lasting more than a turn against more powerful units.

I also found that armies that armies that 'cheated' the standard morale rules (such as Vampire Counts) had a major advantage in 6th/7th. Such abilities were never priced appropriately and combined with Fear+Outnumbering auto-breaking, it sometimes felt that my Undead opponents were playing on 'Easy' mode.

Ayin
14-07-2015, 13:43
As far as I know, there was no Bretonnian book released during the 7th edition. There was one for 6th edition, released in early 2004.

Yeah, it was late 6th edition. Between 2002 and 2004 there were army lists for Demons, Dogs of War, Lizardmen, Woodelves and Bretonnians in the Warhammer Chronicles.

Ayin
14-07-2015, 13:44
I also found that armies that armies that 'cheated' the standard morale rules (such as Vampire Counts) had a major advantage in 6th/7th. Such abilities were never priced appropriately and combined with Fear+Outnumbering auto-breaking, it sometimes felt that my Undead opponents were playing on 'Easy' mode.

Fear + Outnumber = Autobreak seems to be looked back on with extremely coloured glasses by some in the community.

Sothron
14-07-2015, 14:43
6th edition for Chaos Dwarfs. I can't remember which VC edition gave me Blood Lord with the +2 WS and -1 Magic but that was a great edition to play the game in.

Griefbringer
14-07-2015, 15:07
I can't remember which VC edition gave me Blood Lord with the +2 WS and -1 Magic but that was a great edition to play the game in.

At least in 6th edition VC book Blood Dragons get +2 WS, -1 power dice and full plate armour. As well as special rule about challenges.

Sir_Turalyon
14-07-2015, 15:12
6th with Ravening Hordes, or maybe ported 8th armybooks (the rules were great, some armybooks were abyssal).

5th if you get rid of magic supplement (which was valid way to play it) :P.

Ayin
14-07-2015, 15:49
At least in 6th edition VC book Blood Dragons get +2 WS, -1 power dice and full plate armour. As well as special rule about challenges.

6th was also the edition of variant army lists included in the back of the armybooks. The Vampire Count one specifically had some great lists, and the both the Necromance and Blood Dragon ones saw a lot of play in my area (with me using the Blood Dragons, Wight's in Lance Formation, skeleton archers, ect., converted Bretonians models, it was awesome).

MiyamatoMusashi
14-07-2015, 15:54
6th was also the edition of variant army lists included in the back of the armybooks. The Vampire Count one specifically had some great lists, and the both the Necromance and Blood Dragon ones saw a lot of play in my area (with me using the Blood Dragons, Wight's in Lance Formation, skeleton archers, ect., converted Bretonians models, it was awesome).

Yeah - I miss my Lahmian vampire with an enthralled Bretonnian hero fighting by her side, and my Von Carstein army that mixed skeletons, wolves, and Empire State Troops in the same list! So characterful.

The_Real_Chris
14-07-2015, 16:17
Warhammer Ancient battles!

(It really was you know...)

Oh, fantasy?...

I would say 3rd. The system straddled warband/militia and small army and that tended to match what I could collect and paint cheapily and realistically, but there are rules innovations and changes from later editions that are commonly incorporated in.

Ayin
14-07-2015, 16:39
Yeah - I miss my Lahmian vampire with an enthralled Bretonnian hero fighting by her side, and my Von Carstein army that mixed skeletons, wolves, and Empire State Troops in the same list! So characterful.

All of them were really solid. Also, one of the lists (either Necrarch or Necromancer) allowed unridden Zombie Dragons as a Rare choice, something way ahead of it's time considering 8th. The 6th ed Vampire book was excellent on all counts, the Necrarch experimentation notes were amazing.

Sothron
14-07-2015, 17:13
6th was also the edition of variant army lists included in the back of the armybooks. The Vampire Count one specifically had some great lists, and the both the Necromance and Blood Dragon ones saw a lot of play in my area (with me using the Blood Dragons, Wight's in Lance Formation, skeleton archers, ect., converted Bretonians models, it was awesome).

Yes, I loved playing my Blood Dragon list. I still played it throughout 7th and 8th, just had to tweak with opposing player consent as needed.

Kisanis
14-07-2015, 18:11
As far as I know, there was no Bretonnian book released during the 7th edition. There was one for 6th edition, released in early 2004.
I think youre right there. It used the 7th edition styling, and was shortly before 7th I beleive. My memory is fuzzy on it.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Griefbringer
14-07-2015, 20:27
I think youre right there. It used the 7th edition styling, and was shortly before 7th I beleive. My memory is fuzzy on it.


Bretonnian book was released in February 2004, while 7th edition was released in July or September 2006, so there were around two and half years between the two.

There were also other army books released after Bretonnia during 6th edition cycle. Ogre Kingdoms came out sometime in 2004, Wood Elves in late summer 2005, and Dwarf 6.5 book sometime in early 2006.

Tidings
14-07-2015, 20:49
8th if you want to play with big units, 6th if you like Bretonnians or Wood Elves, I liked both core editions.

I barely remember 6th, what made it favor Wood Elves? If I remember right charges were bonkers in 6th so I understand Bretonnians but I don't see how Wood Elves gained.

-Tidings

Darnok
14-07-2015, 20:56
8th edition.

It is the most complete "tool kit" for WHF that I can think of. You have a very solid basic ruleset, additional options in "Storm of Magic", different expansions and the "Endtimes" books, and apart from very few exceptions (namely Brettonians and Dogs of War) solid armybooks for all existing factions. Add the vast background provided in those books, as well as the BL output until recently, and I wonder what you could still ask for. Competetive gaming needs some kind of comp score system, but in my experience the Swedish Comp works well.

The one field 8th edition doesn't work that well in is very small games - but luckily there are so many options available for that. You could even use the AoS rules for that - they actually work well for this kind of game. ;)

Shandor
14-07-2015, 23:12
8th edition.

It is the most complete "tool kit" for WHF that I can think of. You have a very solid basic ruleset, additional options in "Storm of Magic", different expansions and the "Endtimes" books, and apart from very few exceptions (namely Brettonians and Dogs of War) solid armybooks for all existing factions. Add the vast background provided in those books, as well as the BL output until recently, and I wonder what you could still ask for. Competetive gaming needs some kind of comp score system, but in my experience the Swedish Comp works well.

The one field 8th edition doesn't work that well in is very small games - but luckily there are so many options available for that. You could even use the AoS rules for that - they actually work well for this kind of game. ;)


Well we had alot fun with Minimosh (750 or 500 points) Played alot without Magic in small games and worked really well.

PS: Triumph and Treachery was as cool "addon" also.

Ayin
15-07-2015, 00:04
I think youre right there. It used the 7th edition styling, and was shortly before 7th I beleive. My memory is fuzzy on it.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Some 6th ed books were released with the updated cover art (I think it was the red border?) when they were being printed during 7th. GW has done that across game systems when an army isn't going to get a new book for an edition and the cover style has changed (Dark Eldar got it post 3rd ed in 40k as well).


8th edition.

It is the most complete "tool kit" for WHF that I can think of. You have a very solid basic ruleset, additional options in "Storm of Magic", different expansions and the "Endtimes" books, and apart from very few exceptions (namely Brettonians and Dogs of War) solid armybooks for all existing factions.

I think it's actually very hard to argue against 8th on anything other than a personal 'I just liked it better' level, but my one dissapointment was that they never made an 8th Bret book to complete the edition (and I PLAY Dogs of War, or did). Looking back now, I can understand why, and I still very much like the 6th Bret plastics (along with the WE and CW), but as a time capsule of a game that I'll likely be playing for years, it's too bad for all those Bret players who held out hope for so long that the game line ended before they got a new book.

Spell_of_Destruction
15-07-2015, 00:48
I barely remember 6th, what made it favor Wood Elves? If I remember right charges were bonkers in 6th so I understand Bretonnians but I don't see how Wood Elves gained.

-Tidings

WE were very strong for a time in 6th/7th and it was only when the slew of power books came out in later 7th that they started falling down the tiers.

You could make a pretty strong list just using Glade Guard, Dryads, Wild Riders and Treemen. A pain in the @rse to play against as well as they didn't play with a normal battle line.

Ayin
15-07-2015, 01:03
I barely remember 6th, what made it favor Wood Elves? If I remember right charges were bonkers in 6th so I understand Bretonnians but I don't see how Wood Elves gained.

-Tidings

Skirmishers were a powerful force in the game (terrain had a wildly more drastic effect on ranked units and movement) and Fast Cavalry were much easier to use. Combined with Dryads being a good choice (as opposed to in their final book in 8th where they were hammered into the ground in effectiveness) and units being smaller (easier to cause 25% damage for Panic checks through shooting) it was a good time to be a wood elf. Even the Chronicles Wood Elf lists were fun to play and not at all bad (in fact, I think in the original Storm of Chaos online campaign Wood Elf players were still using their Chronicles list and recorded the best win/loss ratio, but I could be wrong on that).


-Edit-

As to what happened in 7th to the Wood Elves, to put it into perspective, Dogs of War did a fair job on the field because they had an amazing Core skirmisher unit (Duelists, effectively Empire Swordsmen often armed with Pistols) and a cheap and effective Fast Cavalry with S4 ranged Core. With minimal changes to the actual core game rules (6th becoming 7th) the army was rendered virtually powerless against about half of the 7th ed armies due to the wild shift in power of the game.

Spell_of_Destruction
15-07-2015, 01:28
Everyone talks about Daemons, VCs and DE (and to a lesser extent HE although HE still had some hard counters. ASF on everything was just very annoying for most other players) as the lists that broke 7th and that is true insofar as they were three books that really raised the bar to an unprecedented level (with Daemons being irredeemably broken).

It seems to be forgotten that 7th ed Lizardmen and Skaven (the Hell Pit Abomination was aptly named) were just as bad. It's just that by the time those books were released the meta had completely shifted and the power level seemed justified.

Mr_Foulscumm
15-07-2015, 01:51
The only thing 8th needed to be the perfect edition would be if disrupting ranks from flanking also took away steadfast.

I still vote 8th though. :)

hacksaaw
15-07-2015, 02:37
8th killed whfb, it wrecked any sort of realistic depiction/interaction of units with terrain. It removed the impact of being flanked on formed up troops. It created a care bare army banner impact upon psychology. Magic was idiotic with throw away casters designed for the miscast successful cast destroying units on turn one.

It could be fun in the pile up dead bodies on the side sort of way, but it was as decisive in driving whfb down the crapper as anything else. Especially because 7th worked well as a rules set, just had some issues with the ridiculousness balance of the army books.
It was the last edition that could be used as the basis for historical games, 8th could never do that as the fundamental under pinninggs had been removed.

Tidings
15-07-2015, 02:45
Thanks for the answers about Wood Elves in older editions guys. I was a new player back then and I remember struggling a lot, but most of my opponents were Dwarves, Warriors of Chaos and Bretonians. I either couldn't avoid their charges or just couldn't kill them because of toughness/armor.

-Tidings

Spell_of_Destruction
15-07-2015, 03:08
8th killed whfb, it wrecked any sort of realistic depiction/interaction of units with terrain. It removed the impact of being flanked on formed up troops. It created a care bare army banner impact upon psychology. Magic was idiotic with throw away casters designed for the miscast successful cast destroying units on turn one.

It could be fun in the pile up dead bodies on the side sort of way, but it was as decisive in driving whfb down the crapper as anything else. Especially because 7th worked well as a rules set, just had some issues with the ridiculousness balance of the army books.
It was the last edition that could be used as the basis for historical games, 8th could never do that as the fundamental under pinninggs had been removed.

8th ed certainly seems to divide people and I must admit that I haven't played it too much (mainly because I wasn't willing to put in the seemingly massive expense required to make my 7th ed army 8th ed ready).

It struck me that in typical GW fashion they overcooked the changes. Boosts to weak mass ranked infantry were welcome but as Mr_Foulscumm has suggested, it would be nice to have ways to overcome steadfast and reward well executed flanking manoeuvers. Hordes of elite infantry should never have been on the cards - I would have limited those rules to Core infantry.

Ayin
15-07-2015, 03:09
Especially because 7th worked well as a rules set, just had some issues with the ridiculousness balance of the army books.

Yeah. Just 'some' issues. Clearly nothing so big as units maintaining rank bonus when flanked by units that did not themselves possess ranks.




It was the last edition that could be used as the basis for historical games, 8th could never do that as the fundamental under pinninggs had been removed.

Having really considered this at length in the past, I encourage you to start a thread on this topic, because I'm confident 8th was possibly and likely the absolute best approximation of actual ranked combat that Fantasy ever produced for a huge variety of reasons.

memitchell747
15-07-2015, 03:32
Was it 7th that my Night Goblins would avalanche panic off the board? First half of the first turn, a crappy Griffin causes a Terror check, one NG unit panics another, etc. Entire army gone off the board before my first phase. That edition was why I quit playing WFB.

Ayin
15-07-2015, 03:35
Was it 7th that my Night Goblins would avalanche panic off the board? First half of the first turn, a crappy Griffin causes a Terror check, one NG unit panics another, etc. Entire army gone off the board before my first phase. That edition was why I quit playing WFB.

Technically that could happen in 6th or 7th. Pretty sure 6th had vastly increased Panic from what most would be used to now, including tests when already engaged in combat. It became a PROBLEM in 7th because of the introduction of more surefire ways to drop opposing armies leadership.

Okuto
15-07-2015, 03:51
6th was the best imo, felt most rewarding, 7th is only good if you pretend daemons, VC, and DE don't exist;)

8th was just big blocks of hordes, deathstars and magic insanity, great if you liked random-ness and the odd chuckle but annoying if you wanted a strategy games with fantasy undertones.

Ayin
15-07-2015, 04:11
6th was the best imo, felt most rewarding, 7th is only good if you pretend daemons, VC, and DE don't exist;)

8th was just big blocks of hordes, deathstars and magic insanity, great if you liked random-ness and the odd chuckle but annoying if you wanted a strategy games with fantasy undertones.

And 6th was small units, cavalry forces, and ignorable magic with auto-include universal builds.

I actually loved 6th, saw it as a huge improvement from 5th and think it was one of GW's high points. Just the secondary gaming material alone, the Warhammer Chronicles, optional army lists in the army books AND in the White Dwarfs, General's Compendium (how awesome was that?!)., ect made it amazing, but people sometimes view it as this 'glory day' of Fantasy where things were better in every way.

Magic's an easy example. Suiciding level 1's 6 dicing level 6 spells and blowing themselves up in large templates beside enemy units destroying (roughly 66-33%) enemy super units is the common example, but (besides the fact I never actually saw anyone succeed at the fast-cav suicide mage Cascading beside an enemy unit) it's not as if 6th's magic system was great. That's where the term 'Scroll Caddy' originated, and lots of armies (including two of the three I played) just took nothing but that, one level 1 wizard (because level 2 didn't give you any extra power dice) with two scrolls hiding in the back somewhere in a unit of archers, and that was their magic phase. An absolute minimal investment because magic, on the whole, was just a way to get some extra S4 hits off in a second wonky shooting phase that did much better at killing skirmishers in the woods, but was rarely worth any real investment unless you were going full Lord level caster with bonus dice, and even then, the Scroll Caddy had a good pretty good chance at holding his own for long enough to let your combat investment win the game (auto-shutting down two spells made that not hard at all to do).

None of the editions was perfect (though i was really excited for 7th when it was announced that it was going to make magic a bigger part of the game with a harder Miscast table, boy was I in for a surprise...), but 6th and 8th were both very strong.

Darnok
15-07-2015, 04:21
Just the secondary gaming material alone, the Warhammer Chronicles, optional army lists in the army books AND in the White Dwarfs, General's Compendium (how awesome was that?!)., ect made it amazing

And amazing it was! It was not about the game itself though - 40K got similar content - but another approach towards its customer base from GW at that time. The "game" part in "Games Workshop" still meant something at that time.

Ayin
15-07-2015, 04:34
Yeah, it's almost hard to explain the difference. Basically kids, back during 6th, GW put out a huge amount of content for their GAME, not just models, because Games Workshop was a game company that sold models created by Citadel Models. When you picked up a White Dwarf, it was full of conversion ideas, alternate army lists, trial rules for new things, official errata's and FAQ's, and battle reports, with army showcases of customer painted (and converted) armies and tournament conversations.


8th really is my favourite edition, but GW had pretty clearly set it's mind to work at the End Times two years in (and by then they'd only released like...three army books for the edition? Maybe two?) and was following a completely different direction, which is unfortunate, because things like alternate unit formations (Horde vs Steadfast vs Standard), multi-purpose magic phases, new unit types and hugely expanded core magic items lists would have fit in PERFECTLY with the spirit of the game during 6th and the people running the show.

Whitwort Stormbringer
15-07-2015, 06:50
Well this is just my opinion, but personally I liked 5th ed. best. I know for many, this was the pinnacle of beardy gaming, but my group was never into tournament or competitive gaming, and what it really offered was lots, and lots, and lots of versatility.

I won't deny that 6th ed. was probably a better-balanced set of rules, but as a transition from 5th ed. it really generalized a lot of things. Overall, your characters had fewer options open to them, and army-building parameters were narrower. Instead of A% regiments, B% characters, C% war machines, Y% monsters, Z% allies, you got stuck with the Lord/Hero/Core/Special/Rare stuff, with no allies.

I liked the wealth of magic items, steeds, and so on and so forth that you could outfit your characters within 5th ed., right down to unit champions. 6th took a lot of that away. What 6th ed. did in the long run, though, after everything was released, was offer an overall-greater diversity of armies and unit types. It also changed the aesthetic of the Warhammer world from the "red phase" of 'Eavy Metal painting to the beginning of what we now recognize as the Warhammer World, and that's not altogether a bad thing (many armies were much improved, even if I do prefer my old school dwarfs to anything that's been released since).

Anyways, in answer to the OP, I'd say 6th ed. for a good balanced set of rules, that still holds up to modern games IMO. Since it's all OOP now, and the rules from 6th-8th are fairly compatible, I'd also feel free to adopt one edition's core rule book, but incorporate new characters/units/abilities from later editions' army books as you see fit, too. 6th was also a huge improvement on the magic system.

If you're looking for the no-holds-barred fantasy mass-battles of yore, I say 5th ed. captures my imagination the best by far, though.

Just Tony
15-07-2015, 07:26
I'm sure we had an identical thread not too long ago?

I would say 7th edition (which is really just a tweaked version of 6th and all of the changes were good) with the 6th ed army books but while they were largely balanced there were a few real turkeys (HE and DE spring to mind).

I think 7th ed HE book would be fine if SoA was changed so that it simply allowed GW carrying Elves to strike in initiative order. 7th ed DE book needs a bit more work but it's mostly dubious magic items that broke it and the cost of the Hydra needs to be increased by 25-50%.

All of the changes were good? Castrating swarms and double dipping in the combat phase both come to mind when I think about mistakes made in 7th. Also wasn't a fan of the 5 man front. 25mm base models with a 4 man front worked well, and most of the sets were built around that number.


The 7th ed. rulebook is superior in everyway to the 6th ed. one, the only drawback of that edition were some of the imbalanced armybooks. The best rulebook would be a mix of 7th and 8th taking the good things from both.

See above. The only good parts of 7th were Insane Courage and the rules about the Power Dice pool.


Yes, 8th introduced some nice changes that made weaker massed infantry more viable. One of the downsides to 6th/7th was that the rules didn't really provide much reason to take units larger than 25-30 models.

Steadfast would not imbalance 7th terribly, especially if limited to Core units. It would give units like Empire State Troops a fighting chance of lasting more than a turn against more powerful units.

I also found that armies that armies that 'cheated' the standard morale rules (such as Vampire Counts) had a major advantage in 6th/7th. Such abilities were never priced appropriately and combined with Fear+Outnumbering auto-breaking, it sometimes felt that my Undead opponents were playing on 'Easy' mode.

It took me a second to realize you were serious. When you charge a Sate Troops unit, you would get a stand and shoot reaction from their handgunner detachment followed by a flank charge from their "insert flavor of the month CC unit here" detachment, negating ranks on the chargers and making them 5+ in the hole with CR before the attackers could even swing a sword. Unless, of course, the Empire was a blathering idiot who didn't take those detachments for every unit he had. Can't say that, for some reason nobody ever ran spear units in 6th according to anecdotal evidence, even though they were the unsung heroes of the CC phase.

Spell_of_Destruction
15-07-2015, 07:39
It took me a second to realize you were serious. When you charge a Sate Troops unit, you would get a stand and shoot reaction from their handgunner detachment followed by a flank charge from their "insert flavor of the month CC unit here" detachment, negating ranks on the chargers and making them 5+ in the hole with CR before the attackers could even swing a sword. Unless, of course, the Empire was a blathering idiot who didn't take those detachments for every unit he had. Can't say that, for some reason nobody ever ran spear units in 6th according to anecdotal evidence, even though they were the unsung heroes of the CC phase.

Well your meta must have been completely different to mine because I never found detachments to be that strong. They had their uses but generally the detachment could be fed some chaff or shot/magic missiled to death if of much concern to your opponent. Then in some cases getting more bodies into combat (even into the flank) and therefore granting more attacks to your opponent was a great way of feeding him combat res.

Swordsmen were the best throughout 6th/7th as they had that much valued quality of dying far less quickly. A unit of 30 swordsmen with the Griffon Standard certainly had its uses in 6th.

By 7th, the State Troops were just tag alongs for the Cheese Altar and Stanks.

MiyamatoMusashi
15-07-2015, 08:32
8th killed whfb, it wrecked any sort of realistic depiction/interaction of units with terrain. It removed the impact of being flanked on formed up troops. It created a care bare army banner impact upon psychology. Magic was idiotic with throw away casters designed for the miscast successful cast destroying units on turn one.

Completely agreed. There's more, too, not least of which include endless random tables to roll on, and the price problem being exacerbated by needing five boxes of expensive models to make just one viable unit... but we've been over it all five years ago. I think 8th did as much to hasten the end of Warhammer as anything. Clearly, those who love it, really love it, and will happily try to explain why all this is wrong - but there's fewer of them than there ever were before.

stegadonshepherd
15-07-2015, 09:00
Played 7th and 8th...only one or two battles in 6th if i remember correctly...it was a long time ago.
As far as i can remember warhammer always had issues, and was unbalanced.
demons, dark elves, and VC were indeed really bad books.
Also, competitive players, and fear+outnumber = autobreak.

I never cared for the rules of each edition, it always seemed to me to be a flawed game, but the only one i could
play with the minis i loved - so far no game has topped that, and unless i start trying other rulesets probably no game will ever will.

The version i liked so far the most was 8th, it seemed to me they tried to take the game from the competitive crowd, and lead it
to more hobbyist waters...and you could measure at all times.
The fact that you had to measure to move but you had to remove the
tape to charge was probably the worst feature of old editions.

I think i'll give AoS a chance for now. The rules were never what got me in warhammer anyway.
If it turns out to be unplayble after a few games there is always storm of magic.

VMBTS
15-07-2015, 09:59
If only using one, 6th edition all the way.
With mixing,7th core rules, 6th army books and maybe throw in a few rules of 8th or whatever you feel like making the game better.

turtle123
15-07-2015, 10:50
I would say none of them.

Sat for nearly 15 years waiting for a Cathay army... Seriously it was like the 6th edition book had a one or two paragraph blurb about Cathay on the last page next to the Dragon Isles and Araby paragraphs. Waited and waited... Who wouldn't want an army of stone foo dogs, terracotta warriors, Chinese dragons and Kung Fu monks? The 5th LM codex also teased me with the story about the Cathayan survivor of the shipwreck encountering the LM and them sparing him due to his dragon tattoo on his back.

Now that Cathay fell to the Orcs and the world as we know it becoming AoS world, I'll never get it!!! Thank you GW!!!

Shandor
15-07-2015, 10:54
Completely agreed. There's more, too, not least of which include endless random tables to roll on, and the price problem being exacerbated by needing five boxes of expensive models to make just one viable unit... but we've been over it all five years ago. I think 8th did as much to hasten the end of Warhammer as anything. Clearly, those who love it, really love it, and will happily try to explain why all this is wrong - but there's fewer of them than there ever were before.


I didnt mind to get 5 or more Boxes of Models to make a viable army block. GW Models where always expensive. But i really had the feeling im fielding a real Army to battle.. not just a band of gladiators having an Tavern fight.

But for those didnt like big Blocks.. you could always play MSU style army and it was a very successful way to play in 8th Edition.

EagleWarrior
15-07-2015, 12:09
I think I'd go for 6th or 7th. I never really liked the somewhat chaotic nature of 8th magic. You may well argue that magic is raw chaos, and you'd have a point, but it's not really my thing. It was always the people and the cultures that appealed to me with Warhammer (and 40k), rather than the big, spotlight fantasy elements. This is a lot of why I'm not keen on AoS. ;)

The_Real_Chris
15-07-2015, 12:54
8th was the last nail in WFBís coffin. The gameplay changes while embraced by some were a factor in others simply walking away. The massive increase in cost for armies expected for pick up games was dire. People simply couldnít buy their armies or were daunted at the cost. The increase in model count made prep a lot longer and most people want those painted armies. The speed painting techniques pushed by army painter werenít necessarily aped by GW. Ways round all these things, but they built up. There wasnít a rage quit, just a strong drift away.

It was a shame. WFB has a strong attraction for many gamers. The system was successful amongst historical players. It offered a way to play with ranked troops where you still felt an attachment to the individuals. I mostly play abstracted formation games now, but still I get why feeling each state trooper mook matters appeals. The background was easily accessible and understandable for new players, admitably more so as the ideas contained within became more mainstream. GW basically ran it into the ground incrementally.

It is a shame that there isnít yet a widely played alternative. People say KoW but it really isnít, it is a different game, back to the abstraction route which while far more sensible loses something for a lot of people. The different editions also makes coming up with a widely accepted fan version difficult.

Lestat
15-07-2015, 16:12
Old Beard here.
Best rules system, was and always has been 3rd ed.
Apart from the magic system, which makes 8th kill units in one casting look tame.
It really wasn't balanced at all, but then none of them have ever been.
Worse is probably the current one, where they decided to try and 40K the game.
But seems they havn't done that enough, which is why we are getting age of sigmar.
8th ed, didn't have enough marines in it to survive.

Pacman
15-07-2015, 18:23
8th killed whfb, it wrecked any sort of realistic depiction/interaction of units with terrain. It removed the impact of being flanked on formed up troops. It created a care bare army banner impact upon psychology.

Agree with all of this. There are some good bits in 8th, but in general it shows real signs of the rot having set in in the design team. Sensible wargaming tropes (eg: don't march big regiments through the woods) got abandoned in favour of "rolling more dice = having more fun!", an idea which has led us to AoS. The terrain rules in 8th are just bizarre, with no connection to reality or common sense.

6th was great, if only because it was such a good set of changes from 5th. You got the impression back then that the game was being looked after by designers who a) knew about wargames and b) listened to the players.

Ayin
15-07-2015, 20:28
Well this is just my opinion, but personally I liked 5th ed. best.

You must have been a big fan of 8th.

Having personally jumped in at the tail end of 5th (with the Dogs of War and an armybook i still have :) ) and lucking into a few dozen White Dwarfs from a friend starting just before 5th, I didn't get a lot of time to enjoy 5th but got to do a lot of reading backwards. The openness of 5th is one of the things that really caused me to be excited for 8th. Percentages for army selections and wildly increased and centralized Common Magic Items was great to see.


Also, LoL at state troops+Detachments being dominant. I realize it hasn't always been as bad as it was in 8th, as pre-that Missile troops didn't suffer the -1 S&S penalty for assisting their parent unit and Detachments didn't cause Panic and Flank Charges were easier to pull off with Detachments (for multiple reasons, not the least of which varied unit size and frontage), but the dominant 6th ed Empire build looked very similar to the 7th ed 'Knights of the Holy Cannonball'.

And Spearmen? Looking to go defensive on a formation and the choice is between 4 more WS3 S3 attacks at 6+ or your unit being WS4 and 4+? Swordsmen were the hands-down better choice all the way into 8th where they were replaced due to Step Up allowing Halberds to finally actually do damage, and the old 3x3 Detachments of Swordsmen only became obsolete when you needed ranks to counter combat res.



Also, don't be hurt turtle123, but I'm going to have to laugh at you for not enjoying Fantasy for a DECADE AND A HALF because you were waiting for a Cathay book. Not Dogs of War or Chaos Dwarves who had a book once and who had the occassional army picture (Dogs of War got a shot in 7th ed army book) or model sneak back into the game (CD's of course on the Hellcannon) or Wood Elves who had to wait a ridiculous amount of time between books, but that you were upset that an army that never existed never existed.

I should say that I've seen at least one REALLY well done Cathay army over the years using the Empire (the obvious choice) with it's ranked troops, halberds, black powder machines and (at the time) Ogre Mercenaries from the original Ogre Kingdoms book and (I'm pretty sure) the Cursed Company as TerraCotta Warriors.

Griefbringer
15-07-2015, 21:26
Sat for nearly 15 years waiting for a Cathay army... Seriously it was like the 6th edition book had a one or two paragraph blurb about Cathay on the last page next to the Dragon Isles and Araby paragraphs. Waited and waited... Who wouldn't want an army of stone foo dogs, terracotta warriors, Chinese dragons and Kung Fu monks? The 5th LM codex also teased me with the story about the Cathayan survivor of the shipwreck encountering the LM and them sparing him due to his dragon tattoo on his back.

You should have started earlier on. Cathay was already referenced a number of times in the 3rd edition rulebook (1987), including rules for the sky rocket war machine invented in Cathay. And there was also a one page Nipponese mercenary contingent list that could have probably well supplemented a Cathayan force. So if you had started back then, you would have an opportunity to wait for 28 glorious years for the Cathayan army book.

On another note, anybody knowing what is the status with fishmen book at the moment? I think some people have been impatiently waiting for it since 2002 or so.

Ayin
15-07-2015, 21:41
Fishmen. Gold.

gd09garett
16-07-2015, 00:30
If you and your group can play the way GW intended, 5th edition was a lot of fun. If you tend to look for loopholes to exploit, 6th edition with some 8th edition rules [ex. modified steadfast (based on ranks counted in combat rather than just more ranks), and step up].

Kisanis
16-07-2015, 03:11
I played a lot of 5th and a lot of 6th. Hero hammer 5th was fun and horribly broken.
But it had so much possibility that I felt it made up for the brokeness.

6th brought so much balance (conceptually) to the game.

I would love to turn the time back and play some oldhammer games with my friends if they would.

Too many options, too little time.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Ayin
16-07-2015, 03:25
I'm legitimately sad that I tossed my old 6th ed rulebook a few moves ago. It even had the photocopied rules changes and fixes glued in. Remember that? They were released in White Dwarf and Warhammer Chronicle and fit right into the book over what they replaced, even having correct background parts and detailing.

Imagine. Support for the game. Rule fixes. White Dwarfs with a purpose.

Pacman
16-07-2015, 06:39
Lol, the nostalgia is strong in this thread.

Ayin
16-07-2015, 06:49
It pretty much has to be, since it's nostalgia for the entirety of the Warhammer Fantasy game in all of it's editions.

Feefait
16-07-2015, 06:50
I don't know the name/number of the edition but there was one that had 2 boxes, one for armies and one for magic. There were magic cards in the box for each army. I think that was the edition we played the most so I remember it fondly. I do remember it being very hero heavy, but there were some really cool things you can do. I think I had a skaven lord on a manticore. lol There was also some craziness, and that is when Forge World first came into our group which totally unbalanced an already precarious balance. Still, very nostalgic. Before that games were a bloody mess as far as I remember. 8th is pretty darn good though, and probably the edition my friends may actually play again someday. Though in all honesty it's been at least 2 years since we've even considered a game.

Spell_of_Destruction
16-07-2015, 07:16
I don't know the name/number of the edition but there was one that had 2 boxes, one for armies and one for magic. There were magic cards in the box for each army. I think that was the edition we played the most so I remember it fondly. I do remember it being very hero heavy, but there were some really cool things you can do. I think I had a skaven lord on a manticore. lol There was also some craziness, and that is when Forge World first came into our group which totally unbalanced an already precarious balance. Still, very nostalgic. Before that games were a bloody mess as far as I remember. 8th is pretty darn good though, and probably the edition my friends may actually play again someday. Though in all honesty it's been at least 2 years since we've even considered a game.

Sounds like 4th/5th which were comparable with 6th/7th in their similarity.

I started collecting WHFB in 5th and it certainly had its charms. That said, rank and file infantry were more or less there for heroes and monsters to kill. It wasn't unusual to max out on characters and monsters as you only needed to invest 25% of your points in rank and file units.

We used to play games with heavy restrictions on magic items, wizards etc. While it made for a much more balanced game, it lost a bit of its charm and we were basically playing a less sophisticated version of 6th edition.

One of the ironies of the current situation with WHFB squatted and 40k as the goose that lays the golden eggs, the 5th to 6th ed WHFB transition was generally considered a lot more successful than the 2nd to 3rd ed 40k transition even though it similarly rendered all pre-existing army books and many armies obsolete. Both editions were a 'reset button' for the gaming system. The vast majority seemed to welcome the players whereas 3rd ed 40k tended to polarise opinions (although it undoubtedly won a lot of new players).

turtle123
16-07-2015, 07:47
You must have been a big fan of 8th.


Also, don't be hurt turtle123, but I'm going to have to laugh at you for not enjoying Fantasy for a DECADE AND A HALF because you were waiting for a Cathay book. Not Dogs of War or Chaos Dwarves who had a book once and who had the occassional army picture (Dogs of War got a shot in 7th ed army book) or model sneak back into the game (CD's of course on the Hellcannon) or Wood Elves who had to wait a ridiculous amount of time between books, but that you were upset that an army that never existed never existed.

I should say that I've seen at least one REALLY well done Cathay army over the years using the Empire (the obvious choice) with it's ranked troops, halberds, black powder machines and (at the time) Ogre Mercenaries from the original Ogre Kingdoms book and (I'm pretty sure) the Cursed Company as TerraCotta Warriors.

Ayin,

Was just playing around (kind of). Perfectly happy with my Lizzies. Still lamenting a bit though. They eventually did release an Araby Warmaster army. And both a Warmaster and WH Kislev army. Even Warmaster treatment for Cathay would have made my day.

I think I saw that army in one of the White Dwarfs. Got me really excited. Converted by Dave Taylor?

Ayin
16-07-2015, 08:03
Ayin,

Was just playing around (kind of). Perfectly happy with my Lizzies. Still lamenting a bit though. They eventually did release an Araby Warmaster army. And both a Warmaster and WH Kislev army. Even Warmaster treatment for Cathay would have made my day.

I think I saw that army in one of the White Dwarfs. Got me really excited. Converted by Dave Taylor?

I do remember one in White Dwarf as well, pretty sure it had infantry carrying a Jade Dragon statue? Maybe the same one, it's been a long time now. I've also seen a pretty awesome Nippon army done with Bret rules, which isn't actually that far off, using hordes of poorly or un-armoured peasant spearmen/naginata troops (Bret Peasant Halberds) and archers supported by elite and heavily armoured cavalry with Priestesses.

Araby I've never seen a conversion for, nor Ind. The Kislev list was awesome, especially as it was an add-on to the Empire forces, and the Middenheim army/White Wolf force was equally great (again, 6th ed, really the high water mark for hobby support and enthusiasm by the GW team, and sadly also pretty much the last time that ws the case).

Griefbringer
16-07-2015, 08:50
I started collecting WHFB in 5th and it certainly had its charms. That said, rank and file infantry were more or less there for heroes and monsters to kill. It wasn't unusual to max out on characters and monsters as you only needed to invest 25% of your points in rank and file units.

One of the ironies of the current situation with WHFB squatted and 40k as the goose that lays the golden eggs, the 5th to 6th ed WHFB transition was generally considered a lot more successful than the 2nd to 3rd ed 40k transition even though it similarly rendered all pre-existing army books and many armies obsolete. Both editions were a 'reset button' for the gaming system.

Regarding the 25 % rank and file requirement in 4th/5th edition, it is worth keeping in mind that a lot of stuff qualified as rank and file in those days. For example, Empire army could fill that quota with halflings, dwarfs, ogres or Kislevite cavalry (actually not a bad thing if you wanted to field a small Kislev army, though for ice magic you would need to pick the Ice Queen special character). Greenskins could fill their quota with ogres, trolls or even giants (!), while undead could get done with wraiths (4th edition book) or banshees (5th edition VC book). Other armies tended to have quite a lot of freedom in filling the rank and file quota, too.

As for comparing edition transitions between the systems, I think the 2nd->3rd edition 40K transfer is a lot closer to 3rd->4th WHFB transition than the 5th->6th transition, though in both cases there are differences. Both 3rd edition 40K and 4th edition WHFB were seriously simplified/streamlined versions of their predecessors, with a lot of gritty detail removed from the game. 6th edition WHFB on the other did not really streamline the basic system - instead it actually added some new detail to the game (like stubborn psychology, killing blow special rule, hand weapon + shield bonus, cannon grapeshot etc.) and tried to address internal balance issues within the army lists.



Araby I've never seen a conversion for, nor Ind.

You could probably do a passable count-as list for Araby using 6th edition DoW list. Characters have some freedom of equipment, and there were even a few special characters released back in the 5th edition days that could work as models: Mydas the Mean (DoW paymaster) and Suleiman le Saracen (Bretonnian special characters). As for core units, duellists could be used as skirmishing swordsmen with scimitar and shield. Light cavalry armed with bows or spear and shield should fit the theme well. However, option for infantry with spears and bows is not present. From the Regiments of Reknown, Al Muktar's Desert Dogs are an obvious choice. while archers mounted on flying carpets could count as Birdmen of Catrazza. That's still a bit limited selection overall, though.

In case somebody is looking for miniatures to use for their Araby conversions, may I mention the Gripping Beast historical Arab plastic infantry and cavalry sets:

http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/Plastic_Figures--category--32.html

Neckutter
16-07-2015, 11:57
8th has tons of problems, when you think of the streamlined 7th edition. 6/7th had the best FAQs as well with those compendiums.

Steadfast is dumb, rolling 6 dice on your purple sun of xeris is dumb, horde formations are 'meh' at best.

Ayin
16-07-2015, 20:11
8th has tons of problems, when you think of the streamlined 7th edition. 6/7th had the best FAQs as well with those compendiums.

Steadfast is dumb, rolling 6 dice on your purple sun of xeris is dumb, horde formations are 'meh' at best.

So far no one has been able to come up with any advantages 7th actually had over 6th, on any level. I'd love to hear yours.

6th had the most hobby support, WILDLY more rules support, change and updates, the introduction of trial rules (re-writing three of the less used Winds of Magic and putting them out for player testing, for example), original writing in army books (7th had some of the worst copy-pasting ever seen in GW books), ect.

If you can perhaps point out some major rule changes in the 7th edition rulebook that you feel improved the game from 6th, I'd love to hear them, but aside from changing rank size (which I'm honestly a fan of for aesthetic reasons, but then I'm a bigger fan of the further changes and the meaning behind them that came with 8th), removing the ability to wrap around other units after won combats and crushing the usefullness of swarms, I'm not seeing it.

Ayin
16-07-2015, 20:13
You could probably do a passable count-as list for Araby using 6th edition DoW list.

Huh. I typed out a response to this last night, but it seems my computer ate it as it's not here today.

Shortened, I actually meant I had never seen an Araby army on the table, and DoW do great to stand in for a lot of choices, with a few extra units that I also think would fit in an Araby army.

Also, having to take the Ice Queen in the 6th ed list as the only way to get Ice Magic sucked.

Okuto
17-07-2015, 05:47
And 6th was small units, cavalry forces, and ignorable magic with auto-include universal builds.

I actually loved 6th, saw it as a huge improvement from 5th and think it was one of GW's high points. Just the secondary gaming material alone, the Warhammer Chronicles, optional army lists in the army books AND in the White Dwarfs, General's Compendium (how awesome was that?!)., ect made it amazing, but people sometimes view it as this 'glory day' of Fantasy where things were better in every way.


6th was undoubtedly the era of cav but the amount of support 6th had was amazing as you pointed out already. All the rulebooks during 6th edition were more of less playable, most of them had fun alternative lists in the back(empire crusader army/blood dragon force comes to mind), you also had to awesome SoC lists(loved the Cult of Slaanesh force and errantry warhost in particular), white dwarf were actually worth looking at, core box sets came with more models(16-20 models a box) so you could actually build an army, DoW had a usable army list.

6th was plain but ironclad, magic was a nice side fish, rules were pretty solid, army support was sufficient, your blocks rarely grew bigger than 30 guys unless you played orcs/undead/skaven and movement and placement won the day. Also Storm of Chaos was a great time to be a fantasy player, Fantasy's never been able to recapture that spark ever since

Ayin
17-07-2015, 06:40
Well, to be fair, Storm of Chaos was a massive failure for GW, and more than a few of the armies they released for it were horrendous (I even played Sea Guard, and kept a similar list running into 7th with the new Lion Chariot as the Merwyrm, and that army list was terrible), and DoW are still playable in 8th, and that should say something. They are not as good as they were in 6th, but way, WAY better off than they were in 7th.

To start with Command cost upgrades in 8th came back in line to what DoW armies pay (10/10/10 instead of Dark Elves paying ludicrously low points for their, well, everything in 7th...) as did many unit costs (Empire Infantry, though likely 1pt overcosted in 8th, is comparable to DoW, and DoW Marauders fit in just under the Chaos 8th ones, a far cry from the costs of 7th). Percentages for army selection really helped them with their inexpensive Rare choices, and rulebook magic lores being, first of all, viable compared to Army Book presented ones and also providing real game changing power, as well as true versatility, helped a lot. Variable unit formation let them interact in the game in more ways (deep Pike units were worth something for Steadfast, Horde Paymaster's Guard made use of the S4 and let you better hide the Paymaster out on the sides) and changes to Skirmishers and Fast cav didn't hurt them as both were cheap and/or good enough for those selections still to be worth it (though changes to pistols helped and hurt Duelist skirmishers). As for being left out of the new model type game, several armies didn't get Monstrous Cav, and DoW already got two variations of Ogres, normal giants, RoR giant units, and Dragon riding Rare choices, though really their answer to those things was cannons (and Hot Pots got wildly better as well with no partials, and again, being able to have two of each with points left over in a 2400pt game really helped).

8th really didn't have anywhere near the hobby support (alright, it had NO hobby support, that boat had effectively sailed), but neither did 7th. When I have to make a judgement on which I like better though, 8th made my 6th edition force more fun and gave me more options, and 7th left me siting on the sidelines with Beastmen and Ogres waiting for DoC/DE/VC/Skaven to finish their games.

Griefbringer
17-07-2015, 08:54
As regards the 6th edition supplements, those Warhammer Annual/Chronicles books were very nice, especially the 2002 and 2004 onves. It is a pity that they got discontinued after the 2004 version, since WD still kept cranking out good content for two more years after that. General's Compendium has been already mentioned several times, and it was certainly full of interesting ideas. Another product they put out was the Lustria campaign book, though I am not sure how popular that was in practice.

As for the Storm of Chaos campaign, that got pretty impressive build-up - I think WD started dropping hints in fluff articles a long time before. Also the campaign book was quite impressive looking, though there may have been some balance issues with many of the lists. As for the campaign results and aftermath, I think quite a lot of people got a bit disappointed with those.

Looking at the old White Dwarf issues, it is surprising how fast the amount of hobby content started going down during the last year of 6th edition. Unfortunately the same continued with the Battle for Skull Pass boxed set. The mini-version of the rulebook included was fine as such, and whoever had designed the plastic sprues had managed to insert a good number of interesting bits that were really begging for scenarios built around them, like the tied-up slayer, pony cart and Idol of Mork. I was sort of expecting that the designers would have also included some sort of starter mini-campaign with scenarios, but that was not the case - the starter leaflet included in the boxed set was rather disappointing.

Shandor
17-07-2015, 15:34
8th has tons of problems, when you think of the streamlined 7th edition. 6/7th had the best FAQs as well with those compendiums.

Steadfast is dumb, rolling 6 dice on your purple sun of xeris is dumb, horde formations are 'meh' at best.

Like other Editions had no Problems.. like Dragon fear and Death stars.

Urgat
17-07-2015, 16:01
I don't know the name/number of the edition but there was one that had 2 boxes, one for armies and one for magic. There were magic cards in the box for each army. I think that was the edition we played the most so I remember it fondly. I do remember it being very hero heavy, but there were some really cool things you can do. I think I had a skaven lord on a manticore. lol There was also some craziness, and that is when Forge World first came into our group which totally unbalanced an already precarious balance. Still, very nostalgic. Before that games were a bloody mess as far as I remember. 8th is pretty darn good though, and probably the edition my friends may actually play again someday. Though in all honesty it's been at least 2 years since we've even considered a game.

That was 5th ed. Starter set had two books (Rules and Battle book), and there was a magic supplement with the spells, all the magic wind cards and the magic items.
And yes some stuff was really over the top back then. To stop some nasty powerplaying, I started running a (goblin on) white emperor dragon. It worked mighty fine too, the abuses stopped right away.

Just Tony
17-07-2015, 17:37
So far no one has been able to come up with any advantages 7th actually had over 6th, on any level. I'd love to hear yours.

6th had the most hobby support, WILDLY more rules support, change and updates, the introduction of trial rules (re-writing three of the less used Winds of Magic and putting them out for player testing, for example), original writing in army books (7th had some of the worst copy-pasting ever seen in GW books), ect.

If you can perhaps point out some major rule changes in the 7th edition rulebook that you feel improved the game from 6th, I'd love to hear them, but aside from changing rank size (which I'm honestly a fan of for aesthetic reasons, but then I'm a bigger fan of the further changes and the meaning behind them that came with 8th), removing the ability to wrap around other units after won combats and crushing the usefullness of swarms, I'm not seeing it.

Improvements as far as fairness and balance? The power dice being limited to the wiz that generated them and the Insane Courage rules come to mind. As far as murder-death-killing your opponents? That award goes to the ability to have a unit fight in two combats a close combat phase. Fear causing units on the flanks excelled at that, especially cav.

Ayin
17-07-2015, 21:46
Interesting. Most people I have spoken to who are fans of the strategic and streamlined/balanced 6th vision of Warhammer are not fans of Insane Courage, as it's more of a 8th ed fun, thematic 'no matter if you play everything correctly you can still fail because of a single random dice role' rule.



As regards the 6th edition supplements, those Warhammer Annual/Chronicles books were very nice, especially the 2002 and 2004 onves. It is a pity that they got discontinued after the 2004 version, since WD still kept cranking out good content for two more years after that.



Looking at the old White Dwarf issues, it is surprising how fast the amount of hobby content started going down during the last year of 6th edition.

I was always very dissapointed that they discontinued the Warhammer Chronicles collections. I understand there was no need for them after GW stopped including hobby material in White Dwarf, but as you said, there were two or three years there where there was still some good material.

AFnord
17-07-2015, 21:53
Core rules: 7th edition. The unholy trinity of Daemons, Dark Elves and Vampire Counts were a huge issue though
Army books: 6th edition
Flavour: probably 5th edition.

mdauben
18-07-2015, 01:27
Best balanced: 6:th edition with Ravening hordes by a mile.

This.

Looking at 4th through 8th, without a doubt 6th was my favorite and the one I'd choose for "oldhammer" if it was up to me. It all depends on your local gaming community, though. You will need to reach a mutually agreeable consensus, no matter which version or combination of versions you use if you want to keep WFB alive in your area.

Chicago Slim
18-07-2015, 01:47
I have an intuition that tells me 6th was awesome, but I'd want to go back and look at it before actually committing to that.

I'm hoping to see a bunch of 8.1x variants in the next two years, as local groups of die-hards suggest patches to 8th ed. Now that GW isn't supporting it, there's no such thing as "house rules." There's the OOP codification of 8th ed, but it has no greater "authority" than anything else we choose to create.

Chain
18-07-2015, 03:22
Most balanced is probably 6'th ed, though bretonia and wood elves and possibly others might be a bit stronger than the tohers.

An alternative is going with the army rules from the post 5'th ed and pree 6'th ed.
I got the magazine somewhere with goblins on the front page(i think it's the one people call "Ravening hordes"), it contain most if not all the armies in 1 book, so i'd expect this to be the most balanced army lists.

Personaly my favorite edition was 7'th ed though 8'th ed made many improvements to the game it also ruined other areas(MAgic and charge distance along true line of sight are some of the stuff i dislike in 8'th)

Pacman
18-07-2015, 07:03
I got the magazine somewhere with goblins on the front page(i think it's the one people call "Ravening hordes"), it contain most if not all the armies in 1 book, so i'd expect this to be the most balanced army lists.


Ravening Hordes was a quick-and-dirty supplement designed to carry people over from the gap between when 6th was launched and their new army books were published. 6th was such a big change in how your army was structured from 5th that people couldn't use the 5th Ed books at all. Ravening Hordes wasn't supposed to be complete or well playtested and balanced. It was just a stopgap.

Ayin
18-07-2015, 10:36
It's simplicity and the fact that every army was ported into the newer system (and points value scale!) at once led to Ravening Hordes actually BEING very balanced.

Tokamak
18-07-2015, 10:44
8th edition + End Times is the best system though I would add a few changes to the formation for the few races that GW was less generous towards (Orcs, Ogres, Dwarves mainly)

zoggin-eck
19-07-2015, 05:49
Same answers I usually give:

Balance and White Dwarf content - 6th.
Most nostalgic for - 4th.
Favourite edition I've never played, but want to - 2nd.
Favourite studio armies, artwork and big rulebook - 3rd.
Favourite background is a mix of 3rd, 4th/5th and 6th.
Favourite models - all of them!

8th gets a nod for such a good update to the Skaven miniatures range.

Favourite overall, however - 5th! Clean up of 4th, kept most of what I liked and had some great extras like the campaign sets. Over the top fun*

*Which may or may not be just the nostalgia talking. Rather than guess, and lament the "death" of WHFB I'm putting it to the test and arranged a game for this afternoon...

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s187/zoggin-eck/5th_books_zpspmlw9sua.jpg

Wish me luck!

Kisanis
19-07-2015, 17:54
I would love to get my hands on those old army books, just so I have the option to play 5th skaven etc..

I have the brets, orcs, and rules (maybe even the templates).
And friends should still have the magic and chaos boxes... so many options... so many broken hilarious options...

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk