PDA

View Full Version : Was 8th ed well received?



Malakai
19-07-2015, 03:48
I saw AoS, wasn't impressed, vowed never to play WFB or 40K again..well, put mo9ney into the game. Still when eighth came out I bought all of this stuff for the game and I never got to play it. Same with Dark Vengeance. Life happens, priorities change, noone is really playing anything. I've been looking into X-Wing for goodness sake. Was 8th really that bad? I know AoS isn't my cup of tea and I still will just play with the stuff I have, but baring upkeep on paints I'm good till rapture. So is eighth bad? Should I look to 7th? I have that too, never got to play that either. basically I've sat the bench since 4th or 5th. I have no idea what editions are good. I always bought the books and updated models just couldn't find time to play. I have a HE, Empire and small O&G force that I was thinking of playing a game or two with my brother as he doesn't care what edition we play. So Is eighth bad? it's a nice looking book on my shelf.

Scribe of Khorne
19-07-2015, 03:54
8th, I believe, killed off a lot of players interest, however it was huge out here on the west coast of canada.

(Huge being, you could find games, and I've heard the Vancouver area had a great scene for it)

Malakai
19-07-2015, 04:00
Do you know why? I mean, I noticed, from afar, that surface changes like models and kits getting larger were being made but I never bought them. Do you know why some people felt 7th or other previous editions were better? AoS is not another edition, it's another game. I wouldn't play it so I'm really looking to grab onto one edition and nail it down and play that.

itcamefromthedeep
19-07-2015, 04:21
A fair few people didn't like hordes or super-spells or random charge distances. Others didn't like that units got much harder to break by flanking. Others didn't like that terrain no longer slowed models down.

A bunch of players appear to have been driven off early by mysterious terrain and random numbers of terrain pieces on the table. The power scroll (irresistible on doubles) made for a lot of unfun games as well pre-errata.

Some metas countered deathstar units by using chaff to prevent the deathstar from ever hitting iimportant units. Other metas never picked up that tactic, and were dominated by deathstar units walking across the field and mindlessly smashing into each other for the entire duration of the edition.

some_scrub
19-07-2015, 04:36
A fair few people didn't like hordes or super-spells or random charge distances. Others didn't like that units got much harder to break by flanking. Others didn't like that terrain no longer slowed models down.

A bunch of players appear to have been driven off early by mysterious terrain and random numbers of terrain pieces on the table. The power scroll (irresistible on doubles) made for a lot of unfun games as well pre-errata.

Some metas countered deathstar units by using chaff to prevent the deathstar from ever hitting iimportant units. Other metas never picked up that tactic, and were dominated by deathstar units walking across the field and mindlessly smashing into each other for the entire duration of the edition.

Also, my feeling was that 8th edition became a much better game experience as books designed for the edition were released. Given that the core rules changed the relative value of different units so much, it was really awkward to play when it first came out, even after the Power Scroll errata. Later books introducing lots of high-save, high-damage monstrous cav that could chew up big infantry units really helped move the game away from a battle of huge hordes, redirecting and giant death spells.

When fully mature, it was a pretty good game.

The bearded one
19-07-2015, 04:51
It drove off some players who disliked particular changes compared to 7th (as mentioned above, things like random charge distances, massive units (at least compared to 7th), changes to terrain and massive spells).

On the other hand it was like a new lease on life for players who disliked the particular characteristics that defined 7th edition play (i.e. Primarily playing with a lot of cavalry, charging and usually deciding the combat in the first round, relatively little use for infantry). In 8th you could use big blocks of infantry - and expect them to actually kill enemies rather than a few knights charging in, killing the front rank, and not being able to strike back at them.


While 8th came with some of its own problems, the change to 8th eliminated a lot of kinks from the 7th environment. Not just things in the ruleset itself, but also the meta. 7th was essentially ruined by Daemons of Chaos, Dark Elves and Vampire Counts. Daemons were top dog to such a massive degree it was absurd. When 8th rolled in, the meta instantly levelled out a bit - purely due to combatchanges: the fact that units could now be steadfast, fight in 2 ranks and that casualties were removed from the back rather than the front.

During early 8th edition the community had to learn how to deal with some of these new elements. I remember how infantry was proclaimed the new master and cavalry judged to be 'dead'; people marched at each other with deathstars (50 elite infantry, 18 monstrous infantry, stuff like that) and countered each other's deathstar with the largest spells in their lores. After a while people learned to temper the excesses of hording up, and people developed ways to use chaff units to keep massive deathstars out of the game, placing fast cavalry and other small fast expendable units in front of the desth stars at an angle - meaning that if the deathstars charged the unit (and they'd have to, or the chaff would block their movement) they would only creep forward a few inches, or destroy the chaff and overrun at an angle (usually in the wrong direction). Once redirection with chaff became part of the average player's repetoire, the dependency on ridiculous deathstars began to abate and 8th became a pretty varied environment in terms of unittypes. At 8th's start people declared cavalry dead, but now I absolutely don't mind showing up with a unit of knights - either minimumsized or a couple ranks' worth.



From the editions I've played, or heard about in detail, I like 8th the most by far. To me 7th was too much "charge to win"

The Black Shield
19-07-2015, 07:34
8th killed Fantasy where I live. We have a large gaming community that is thriving. Most used to play fantasy before 8th. before AoS there were only about three people who would play a game maybe every other month.

Neckutter
19-07-2015, 08:52
Itcamefromthedeep is spot on.

8th was the edition of big bricks of infantry that didn't care if you flanked them. Super magic spells, combined with more "big monsters" made the game a joke.

I respectfully disagree with the bearded one, my chaos warriors on foot army did extremely well in 6th(extremely dominant) and in 7th still did better than average unless I played dwarves. Tzeentch or nurgle WoC both were good.

AoS isn't WHFB. It's a new game without the same strategy. The fact that WHFB had to die to birth AoS still upsets people. I'm interested in buying that chaos castle several times over for my 40k army

ShruikhanTK
19-07-2015, 09:10
The game was better balanced in 8th once certain army books got redone. In 7th edition I was getting like 3 attacks back from my saurus blocks via initiative 1....7th also had people dropping 10 chaos hounds and the rest of the army elite....yea that was real fun chasing a dragon around all game...not. The biggest problem people have with 8th is the amount of models needed to field a nice 3k point army which I agree was a lot...I had to add models to my blocks to fill them out for 8th but once I did it was really fun.

Over all 8th was awesome, 7th was fun too. AoS is so different I don't even think of it was warhammer to be honest. Like I can see Warhammer printed next to it but it just isn't any continuation of Warhammer at all.


8th didn't kill fantasy, GW did with their lack of support and price gouging when all they had to do was promote and sell the awesome product that they had.

Urgat
19-07-2015, 09:35
I respectfully disagree with the bearded one, my chaos warriors on foot army did extremely well in 6th

Yeah, chaos warriors, the most representative choice for infantry blocks.

Avian
19-07-2015, 09:39
I listened to the Heelanhammer podcast the other day, and they said that when 8th edition was released, their listenership dropped by half almost overnight. Over the course of 8th it had then grown back to approximately the level it was at the end of 7th.

DonkeyMan
19-07-2015, 10:00
8th edition killed pretty much WFB for me. But at it's release I didn't play much, so I wasn't much of a loss for GW.
Though in general I saw far less WFB games played after the release of 8th.

Groza
19-07-2015, 10:11
I listened to the Heelanhammer podcast the other day, and they said that when 8th edition was released, their listenership dropped by half almost overnight. Over the course of 8th it had then grown back to approximately the level it was at the end of 7th.
That's so odd.
Usually new releases generate a ton of interest that steadily dies off over time.

EagleWarrior
19-07-2015, 10:33
There were bits of 8th ed I really liked, shooting in two ranks made my Empire handgun lines look much more historically accurate and it was a rule change I've been wanting for a long time. Most of the rules tweaks I found accelerate.

Like many others the thing I didn't like about 8th ed was the magic system. I prefer the low fantasy aspects of Warhammer and 8th ed (and parts of 7th ed) started pushing up the high fantasy stuff. On the other hand, the high random element of 8th ed magic makes it easier to not take wizards at all and not be massively punished in your opponent's magic phase.

jet_palero
19-07-2015, 11:05
I saw AoS, wasn't impressed, vowed never to play WFB or 40K again..well, put mo9ney into the game. Still when eighth came out I bought all of this stuff for the game and I never got to play it. Same with Dark Vengeance. Life happens, priorities change, noone is really playing anything. I've been looking into X-Wing for goodness sake. Was 8th really that bad? I know AoS isn't my cup of tea and I still will just play with the stuff I have, but baring upkeep on paints I'm good till rapture. So is eighth bad? Should I look to 7th? I have that too, never got to play that either. basically I've sat the bench since 4th or 5th. I have no idea what editions are good. I always bought the books and updated models just couldn't find time to play. I have a HE, Empire and small O&G force that I was thinking of playing a game or two with my brother as he doesn't care what edition we play. So Is eighth bad? it's a nice looking book on my shelf.

8th edition kick started my interest back into the game. I didn't play much in 7th, although not because I didn't like 7th. But I really liked a lot of the combat changes in 8th edition. The only thing I didn't like was the way magic was handled. Too random, too strong. but it wasn't game breaking for me. My area had a lot of players until our GW closed for no apparent reason, but that was right after I myself moved.

Tokamak
19-07-2015, 11:28
7th edition was all about cheese lists and cavalry deathstars. 8th edition put an end to that and made the games bigger, with more narrative, the excellent kits released during that time made the whole thing more cinematic as well.

Avian
19-07-2015, 11:36
... with more narrative...

[citation needed]
:eyebrows:

Tokamak
19-07-2015, 11:38
8th edition has hammers (elite/monster nasty) and anvils (oceans of infantry), 7th edition was just hammers without hammers. That's what made 8th edition games considerably more interesting in the battle situations they created.

Spiney Norman
19-07-2015, 14:33
Do you know why? I mean, I noticed, from afar, that surface changes like models and kits getting larger were being made but I never bought them. Do you know why some people felt 7th or other previous editions were better? AoS is not another edition, it's another game. I wouldn't play it so I'm really looking to grab onto one edition and nail it down and play that.

7th was manifestly not better than 8th, well the core mechanics might have been better in theory, but the 7th edition army books were so dreadfully unbalanced in practice that 8th edition was sorely needed to rebalance the game (which is did relatively well). 7th was essentially a fine tuning of 6th, which IMHO is the best Wfb edition since I've been playing (5th-8th), so it should have been a massive success, sadly the army books screwed it up to the point that 8th was actually very welcome.

Tokamak
19-07-2015, 16:14
I think the biggest mistake was to not have cheaper core kits to supplement the reasonably priced giant centrepiece kits. Core units could've been one or two piece snapfit static miniatures, come in bulk sprues and nobody would really mind if it meant they could get more models for the same price. Instead we saw all infantry kits getting smaller and increase in price. It's almost as if GW was actively discouraging people to buy core units while the rulebook on the other side was recommending it. Really strange.

And this isn't really a price rant perse. Regardless of where you stand on whether the hobby is expensive or not, the pricing of the relative units and the way the scarce sprue contents got allocated was problematic to say the least.

I think that was the weakest link in 8th edition. It was delicious butter with overpriced bread.

Avian
19-07-2015, 16:30
8th edition has hammers (elite/monster nasty) and anvils (oceans of infantry), 7th edition was just hammers without hammers. That's what made 8th edition games considerably more interesting in the battle situations they created.

Aha, I see what you mean, though I think that's stretching the definition of "narrative" rather too far.

The bearded one
19-07-2015, 16:31
I never understand why 8th generated so much hate. I entered warhammer as a player right at the start of 7th. Through the years you could usually see the manner in which one player's army would steamroll through his opponent about 3-4 turns in advance. "Oh these knights charge that unit and overrun into that unit, then that unit gets flanked, then that unit countercharged, and then that unit overruns into his opponent's hill with missiletroops". Spectators of a game often discussed it amongst themselves and were usually right. I had a bunch of high-end tournament players in the local store who played very regularly (I haven't seen them around the store the past few years as they've been gaming at other venues and at home, but I do know they've been on the ETC team a couple times) so I saw boatloads of VC, DE and DoC sweeping their enemies off the board (including each other) - with the likely victor pretty clear at the end of turn 2 or 3, as you could see which unit was going to butcher through which unit.

Though 8th allowed all units to be more killy, it actually allowed for a more stable combat environment because combats would last a couple turns (anvil and hammer units, like Tokamak said), allowing for battlelines to clash without immediately evaporating. My most recent 8th edition battle (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?287545-The-bearded-one-s-lizardmen&p=7495196&viewfull=1#post7495196) was a tense battle right up to the bottom of turn 6, and I experienced that all the time, but rarely so in 7th. Like I said, 7th was too much "charge to win" for my tastes. And I like infantry. But that's my particular tastes. I know some people liked the chess-like nature of 7th edition play (I strike your knight, you strike my bisshop, I strike your queen), and almostguaranteed charges

Avian
19-07-2015, 16:41
Stuff people disliked:
- Measure anything anytime
- Random charge ranges
- Too much steadfast
- No difficult terrain
- Too much Ld 10 with re-rolls
- Too much reforming
- Too powerful spells
- Next to no charge bonus
- No line of sight rules

I'm probably forgetting a few.

Harwammer
19-07-2015, 16:46
8th was very badly received. I believe I remember Heelanhammer saying their listener numbers halved overnight on release (and they only recently got back to their previous numbers).

I'm not saying it was unpopular, but there was an awful lot of ragequit at the start, especially amongst Australians.

HelloKitty
19-07-2015, 16:48
When 8th was released, there was an internet firestorm. Pretty similar to AoS actually. 8th was supposedly for kids, devoid of tactics, ranDUMB etc.

Locally, 1/3 of our fantasy community rage quit and sold their stuff on ebay and went full blown WM/H. 1/3 put it down for a while and waited to see what happened and 1/3 of us kept playing.

After a few months a lot of the 1/3 that waited to see came back and played with us. After a couple of years some of the 1/3 that rage quit came back and played with us.

I expect this to be similar with AoS. About 1/3 of our local community has rage quit, 1/3 are waiting and seeing, and 1/3 of us are continuing on and playing. We also have had a good number of players that never wanted to look at fantasy buy boxes or fantasy models now. Whether it continues into summer of 2016, time will tell.

Voss
19-07-2015, 16:48
I never understand why 8th generated so much hate.

Really? Its pretty easy. The surviving 7th edition players were largely very cheese oriented, and 8th smashed a lot of their gouda by allowing standard infantry to fight back.

Then you've got the super spell and terrain nonsense, which hacked off people who wanted normal games. Add in eliminating even more of psychology and tossing in virtual immunity to flanking, and you've got some of the traditional concepts of what makes wargames tactical tossed out.

Plus, the player base randomly decided to make the games even bigger pretty much immediately, which put off a lot of people who didn't want to add a couple hundred more currencies to already expensive fantasy armies.

So it managed to push people away for a variety of different reasons, and didn't make much effort to bring people back, at least not without dramatically rebuilding armies, and all the costs that entailed.

Tokamak
19-07-2015, 16:54
I remember constantly defending the 8th edition on here before the release. 7th edition the measuring was everything. Declare a charge correctly and you could have half the opponent army flee off the board by the next turn. People couldn't possibly conceive an actual game without estimating distances.

8th edition proved that there's more to strategy that constructing a swiss fondue of units and guessing distances right (and I'm a freak at guessing distances accurately). However, because for 7th edition there never was much beyond that phase we never really saw that side of warhammer.

End Games is a great testament to the robustness of 8th edition. They could ease the army list rules, enter in really extreme rules and units and the game never broke underneath it.

I guess the obvious retort right now would be 'well aren't you being equally preconceived about playing without rules as people used to be about guessing distances?'. Maybe! But army building used to be a hobby in and of itself. Without opponents you could still spend a good amount of time theorising about armies and working them out on paper.

The bearded one
19-07-2015, 17:05
If only 8th had gotten it's own follow-up "tweak edition". Tweaks like disruption cancelling steadfast, and forests slowing people down again (but not to the absurd amount they did in 7th, where if you got in, you never got out), and toning down the most extreme of the spells a bit.


But now that GW washed its hands off 8th, we might as well houserule stuff :)

Avian
19-07-2015, 17:08
I remember constantly defending the 8th edition on here before the release. 7th edition the measuring was everything. Declare a charge correctly and you could have half the opponent army flee off the board by the next turn. People couldn't possibly conceive an actual game without estimating distances.

You are going to have to explain how estimating charges instead of rolling for them can cause more enemy units to flee.

SuperHappyTime
19-07-2015, 17:38
Stuff people disliked:
- Measure anything anytime
- Random charge ranges
- Too much steadfast
- No difficult terrain
- Too much Ld 10 with re-rolls
- Too much reforming
- Too powerful spells
- Next to no charge bonus
- No line of sight rules

I'm probably forgetting a few.

9 months with no army book after release.

2009-10 were years GW didn't look at Fantasy. Four book releases in two years (Lizzies, Skaven, Beastmen, and 8th). In comparison, there were five book releases in 2008, and six in 2011.

AFnord
19-07-2015, 17:41
How was 8th edition received: Not that well at launch. A lot of people quit, some came back after a while, many other stayed away.

8th edition pretty much killed my interest in WHFB. The terrain thing was dropped quickly in my group, we just stopped playing with all the terrain special rules as they not only slowed down the game, but it became a bit exessive. Sometimes we would have one or two special terrain pieces on the board for some extra flavour, but we did not go all out on the terrain like the rules said you should.

I never played a "big block" army, and I had experience with charge re-directing from before, so while I found the überblocks to be boring to play against, they were not overpowered. Magic though turned out to be incredibly powerful and far too many games devolved into "hunt the level 4". I'm not saying that 7th edition was without its problems, the "staredown" that could happen due to two units having the same charge range and neither player wanting to risk getting charged was just silly, and certain armies were so game breaking that we forced our players to follow the Swedish comp rules if they wanted to play any of the unholy trinity, putting a limit on how "cheese" the army was allowed to be. Both editions had solid core rules, but there were things on the side that was causing issues, and I found the issues I had with 8th edition to be harder to "fix" without breaking the game for someone else.
Now that I've actually tried Age of Sigmar, I can safely say that I like it even less :( (And here I was hoping that it would be an excuse to get back into the hobby).

SuperHappyTime
19-07-2015, 17:45
Stuff people disliked:
- Measure anything anytime
- Random charge ranges
- Too much steadfast
- No difficult terrain
- Too much Ld 10 with re-rolls
- Too much reforming
- Too powerful spells
- Next to no charge bonus
- No line of sight rules

I'm probably forgetting a few.

9 months with no army book after release.

2009-10 were years GW didn't look at Fantasy. Four book releases in two years (Lizzies, Skaven, Beastmen, and 8th). In comparison, there were five book releases in 2008, and six in 2011.

theunwantedbeing
19-07-2015, 18:29
I'm probably forgetting a few.

-cannons
-general crummy quality of the rules
-the almost total lack of rules support
-pointless legal deathstar armies that didn't allow for tactics against them

7th could be boiled down to checkers/draughts.
You throw some stuff at the other guy so he'll take it and then you can take his units.
Or naught's and crosses, you block the other guy while setting up your own move.
If you play somebody who fails to grasp those concepts you get some easy wins, and likely they whine at you for being too good or not letting them win once in a while.

8th doesn't really have that, it's more like rock/paper/scissors.

Tokamak
19-07-2015, 21:03
You are going to have to explain how estimating charges instead of rolling for them can cause more enemy units to flee.

The two aren't directly related. Charging had more weight in 7th edition in general due to the volatile psychology and the speedy death-stars.

Shandor
19-07-2015, 21:15
-pointless legal deathstar armies that didn't allow for tactics against them

.

Can you explain that? I know the deathstarts from the 7th edition. Like Darkelf Assasins in a circle.

Avian
19-07-2015, 21:23
The two aren't directly related. Charging had more weight in 7th edition in general due to the volatile psychology and the speedy death-stars.
So mid-way during your anti-range guessing rant you throw in a comment about charges, which have nothing to do with range guessing whatsoever. Got it. :p

Sanguinary Guardsmen
19-07-2015, 22:30
Stuff people disliked:

- Too much steadfast
- Too much Ld 10 with re-rolls
- Too much reforming
- Next to no charge bonus


THIS for me. I shouldn't slam into a Skavenslave block with 30 Gors and hit their flank with a unit of Minotaurs only to have them not break. It was and is idiotic.

Groza
19-07-2015, 23:07
Skaven are idiotic overall. They have this stupid rule (strength in numbers) that is meant to turn them into semi-reliable troops from the cowards they are but what it really does is turn them into the most courageous army in the game. And it is made all the worse by the rules of 8th edition.

Kahadras
19-07-2015, 23:33
A lot of people, IMHO, tend to forget that Warhammer was in real trouble before 8th dropped. Army book creep in 7th had really gotten out of control culminating in the abomination that was DoC. I feel that 8th ed was orginaly intended as an attempt to restore a sense of balance to the game. Blocks of infantry were going to be at the core of the game but would be ultimatly inhibited by the potency of the really big spells. IMHO this approach failed.

The big spells were too good. Leadership tests were too easy to pass (steadfast, leadership 10, with a reroll, type of stuff). Monsterous Infantry, on the most part, were too good (big blocks of Ironguts, Trolls, Minotaurs etc). Monsterous cavalry was made too good once the new army books started comming out (after GW realised that cavalry couldn't break infantry on the charge they just decided to go for cavalry ++ that could just munch though enemy infantry at a massive rate of knots). Cannons were still pin-point accurate weapons which GW decided needed to be even better by adding stuff like Ironblasters and Skullcannon (making them mobile and harder for small flanking units to deal with). I'm sure I can go on.

Basicaly GW should have used 8th ed as an oppertunity to fix it's army books with one eye firmly set on 9th ed. As it was 8th decended into a very GW-esqe money grab. Infantry now came in hordes (buy more models), new OP units came out with each book (pay to win), year on year price rises across the board etc. Then GW wondered why Warhammer wasn't doing very well.

AFnord
19-07-2015, 23:53
A lot of people, IMHO, tend to forget that Warhammer was in real trouble before 8th dropped. Army book creep in 7th had really gotten out of control culminating in the abomination that was DoC. I feel that 8th ed was orginaly intended as an attempt to restore a sense of balance to the game. Blocks of infantry were going to be at the core of the game but would be ultimatly inhibited by the potency of the really big spells. IMHO this approach failed.

I remember people theorizing that 8th edition was rushed out the door in order to salvage Warhammer (as you mentioned, DoC was out of control, but the rest of the unholy trinity were quite damaging to the game as well). 7th edition only lasted 4 years, as opposed to the 6 years that 6th edition lasted (previous editions had a shorter lifespan though), and that was, according to people at the time, a big part of the reason why there were so many things that did not work well. If the theory holds any ground, well that's up for debate, the ~4 year life cycle seem to have been the norm in 40k, so the big gap between 6th and 7th edition fantasy might just have been an anomaly.

Bloodknight
20-07-2015, 00:08
the ~4 year life cycle seem to have been the norm in 40k, so the big gap between 6th and 7th edition fantasy might just have been an anomaly.

40K: RT 6 years, 2nd edition 5, 3rd 6, 4th and 5th 4 years, 6th 2 years. So no, 40K doesn't have a 4 year life cycle :). That said, RT wasn't a proper game and 3rd edition started creaking at the seams badly towards the end. If you put all the errata and FAQs for that system together, you had quite the pile of paper. They even basically replaced the close combat phase with a different (and superior) system late in the edition that they sold as experimental rules, but all the players I know who played 3rd edition adopted, tournaments usually, too. A very similar version of that then made it into 4th edition. I think that was when they still had outside playtesting and asked for player feedback....

As to WFB's 7th edition: it got entirely broken by the army books. Personally, I think that 7th edition with the army books of 6th edition is actually a quite decent game.
8th edition has a lot of gameplay problems in the main rules in comparison. There was quite the dying off of player groups here after its release.
8th took too much agency away from the players and outsourced it into random rolls, which, particularly for the more competitive-minded section of the playerbase, made it less fun.

Maoriboy007
20-07-2015, 01:46
As to WFB's 7th edition: it got entirely broken by the army books. Personally, I think that 7th edition with the army books of 6th edition is actually a quite decent game. I'd largely agree about the books thing, never mind the so called unholy trinity, power creep hit hard after the VC book with only BoC really missing out and DoC pretty much head and shoulders above everybody, although there were some changes in the main rules that really needed to be made (fear comes to mind).


8th edition has a lot of gameplay problems in the main rules in comparison. Again I'd agree. It was a real shame too, as there were some really good ideas in the 8th edition ruleset but almost immediately you could pick out the ones that were going to be the real problems, and they pretty much remained so until the end of the game, I mean steadfast & disruption seemed perfectly written to work together, but didn't. Every reference that said "the model is removed with no save of any kind allowed" just made me wince, Line of sight seemed terrible off the bat and I straight out hated that initiative got to strike before chargers, if it wasn't for that I'd probably be fine with random charging.
I believe the best reference to 8th at the time was that it was an attempt to fix 7th with a sledgehammer when a chisel could have sufficed.
Our group kind of played on with 8th but our heart was never in it like it was even during the lows of 7th and Magic the Gathering pretty much replaced it, I'd even noticed the lull in the forums that even 7th never managed to cause.

As far as how 8th was recived , the best answer would be mixed , many left at the outset, some came back as with pretty much every edition as far as I could tell.

Lordcypress
20-07-2015, 02:33
I started playing Warhammer at the end of 5th edition. I literally only played two games of 5th edition (but I did do a challenge against another player in mid air while we where both performing our "Fly High Manoeuvers", don't know if this was legal but we did it).

Anyways back on track 8th wasn't totally well received. But it did gain back its core players after time. I for one wasn't a huge fan of Steadfast and the Hordes Rule at the beginning. But looking back and into the future to come 8th will remain in my opinion the best edition of Warhammer Fantasy. 7th edition was a close 2nd. The only draw back in my opinion was that the Dark Elf's, Vampire Counts and Deamons of Chaos Army books just dominated the other armies.

I remember first reading the miscast table of 8th edition and thinking "F#$*" that's nasty. But thinking back now, it isn't so bad after all.

I know what the original poster is hinting at though with this post. And I hate to bring up Age of Sigmar here but the differences between the 6th all the way through to 8th edition were more or less tweaks to the rules. I think the OP is looking to see if the community will rebound back to this latest installment. In the end only time will tell.

Dosiere
20-07-2015, 05:24
8th edition got me back into warhammer. I played 6th a lot, but 7th was essentially the same thing, and the imbalance of the armies pushed me out. I really loved 8th edition but it had some rough points that could have been fixed with tweaks to the rules. I particularly enjoyed that my models actually had a chance to fight, the step up rule alone made me love it. They never should have introduced hordes though, a way to break steadfast was needed, some of the rules needed to be streamlined to enable faster play, and magic needed an overhaul.

It would have been nice if they at least had capped WFB off with a 9th edition before sidelining it. Not all the production of a full release, but a rulebook at least.

Tidings
20-07-2015, 08:37
Yeah, chaos warriors, the most representative choice for infantry blocks.

I lold quite a bit there. Had the same thought haha.

-Tidings

Griefbringer
20-07-2015, 08:54
7th edition only lasted 4 years, as opposed to the 6 years that 6th edition lasted (previous editions had a shorter lifespan though), and that was, according to people at the time, a big part of the reason why there were so many things that did not work well. If the theory holds any ground, well that's up for debate, the ~4 year life cycle seem to have been the norm in 40k, so the big gap between 6th and 7th edition fantasy might just have been an anomaly.

As for WHFB, 4th and 5th editions had four year spans each.

As for the 6th edition anomaly, that might be partially due to those years coinciding with the LotR bubble, when GW was releasing new starter sets and other products for that setting quite regularly. So there may have been less of a commercial interest to crank out a new edition and starter set for WHFB. And in the meantime they tried to put out other products to maintain interest, like the Storm of Chaos, Lustria and Ogre Kingdoms books. Not to mention keeping the Wood Elf players patiently waiting for their book for five years.

Tokamak
20-07-2015, 11:04
Basicaly GW should have used 8th ed as an oppertunity to fix it's army books with one eye firmly set on 9th ed. As it was 8th decended into a very GW-esqe money grab. Infantry now came in hordes (buy more models), new OP units came out with each book (pay to win), year on year price rises across the board etc. Then GW wondered why Warhammer wasn't doing very well.

The money grab were the over-priced core kits. If you take pricing out of the equation you got a spectacular game where OP monsters and ridiculous spells blast into a sea of steadfast infantry (balancing the whole thing out). However, as the infantry itself was not affordable to most you ended up with OP monsters and ridiculous spells wiping out tiny units of expensive miniatures.

I honestly believe that large static infantry kits would've solved the whole thing.

Kahadras
20-07-2015, 11:46
The money grab were the over-priced core kits. If you take pricing out of the equation you got a spectacular game where OP monsters and ridiculous spells blast into a sea of steadfast infantry (balancing the whole thing out). However, as the infantry itself was not affordable to most you ended up with OP monsters and ridiculous spells wiping out tiny units of expensive miniatures.

I honestly believe that large static infantry kits would've solved the whole thing.

IMHO don't think that a cheap core infantry sets would have fixed everything (it would have made the game more accessable to new starters though). MI were too good (especialy after the Ogre army book dropped). MC were to good (especialy after the Ogre army book dropped). Magic could boil down to 'hope I get 6th spell in whichever lore I take then hurl six dice at it every turn in the hopes of IF'. Leaderships was too easy to stack (also making psychology pretty pointless). There were still issues with the army books that were being produced (Banner of the World Dragon). Cannons were too accurate. Ect. Etc.

EcceNoHomo
20-07-2015, 13:54
Apart from magic I much preferred 8th to 7th. I was by far the best of my (albeit small) group at guessing ranges for charges, but the charge stand off thing was really boring and I never liked that 5 cavalrymen could slaughter a unit of twenty five clanrats or state troopers without so much as taking a wound. Then the daemon book hit. I remember one game where I didn't lose a single model and I eradicated close to everything my opponent was using (poor player using orcs). Did miss guessing ranges for cannons though. Used to find that very satisfying and it gave you the sense of really being the artillery officer. But yeah, 8th > 7th for me.

Okuto
20-07-2015, 15:31
8th was kinda a band aid anywho....to fix the mess of he who shall not be named.

I did note that during 8th, my local store stopped getting new players, only old players who dusted off their collections returning(me included). Not surprising as the newer edition pushed you to take bigger units, so the barrier to entry was high. It's a hard sell to tell someone to buy four boxes just to get one unit when they could easily spent the same and get a usable force in a different game. Thus warmahordes exploded during 8th in my local area

Personally, I didn't like it initially. The board literally couldn't support the size of armies 8th was pushing you to make and I wasn't about to make big blocks of elite infantry. I sucked it up, played it, had some fun and left when my local shop's fantasy players all switched to warmahordes. Read end's time but had no intention of coming back to fantasy, we had all moved on.

8th was most def the decline, but I think we can trace it all the way to 7th and the repackaging of the core sets. I knew when the core box sets when from 16-20 to ten that I wasn't ever going to build an army the size I did in 6th. Nor even start another army

ShruikhanTK
20-07-2015, 15:51
8th was kinda a band aid anywho....to fix the mess of he who shall not be named.

I did note that during 8th, my local store stopped getting new players, only old players who dusted off their collections returning(me included). Not surprising as the newer edition pushed you to take bigger units, so the barrier to entry was high. It's a hard sell to tell someone to buy four boxes just to get one unit when they could easily spent the same and get a usable force in a different game. Thus warmahordes exploded during 8th in my local area

Personally, I didn't like it initially. The board literally couldn't support the size of armies 8th was pushing you to make and I wasn't about to make big blocks of elite infantry. I sucked it up, played it, had some fun and left when my local shop's fantasy players all switched to warmahordes. Read end's time but had no intention of coming back to fantasy, we had all moved on.

8th was most def the decline, but I think we can trace it all the way to 7th and the repackaging of the core sets. I knew when the core box sets when from 16-20 to ten that I wasn't ever going to build an army the size I did in 6th. Nor even start another army


Exactly! 8th was in decline but that had more to do with GWs market scheme rather than the game itself, it was way too hard to bring in new players with the prices they charged for core sets. I used to just splurge on models before, 18-20 bucks was cool...when it started hitting 25 with tax and you wanted more core it got kinda wierd. I remember dropping 6 bucks for a goblin for my brother, that same kit is now 15 USD, and this is only 5 years ago. I mean if I couldn't really splurge spend then you know the entry cost to the game has people rethinking if the money was worth it.

Twido
20-07-2015, 16:10
To answer the OP, 8th edition had a mixed reception. It is really hard to gauge how popular something is from internet forums though.

Personally I thought it was one step forwards and half a step backwards. I particularly liked how core troops were more useful and combat had more attrition than before. The random charges I think could have been ok but were implemented badly; they were just a bit too random which could lead to some pretty frustrating situations. This could have easily been fixed but I guess the developer wanted to keep it as simple as they could.

The main problem as several others have said was in the army books that existed before the 8th edition hit, I still can't understand how professional games developers can balance something so poorly. It is like they switched between two methods of balancing within one codex; a points system and a limit per army. The Hell pit abomination being a prime example of this. Deliberately undercosted in points, its balancing factor was that you were only allowed a certain number of them. The obvious problem being that you should always take as many as you could to make a stronger army. The obvious solution would have been to more accurately assess the points value in the first place.

The magic expansion that was heralded as apocalypse for fantasy was a missed opportunity. In the end it was a random mess of dice rolling that took away all semblance of strategy. It could have been an excuse for many players to expand their collections.

So 8th edition did have its problems, but most of them were not in the core rules.

Avian
20-07-2015, 16:55
7th edition O&G book comes out
"Hey, my Orc Boyz are finally decent!"

Other 7th edition books come out
"Crap, all this super-powered cavalry is demolishing my poor Boyz!"

8th edition rulebook comes out
"Hey, a boost for my Orc Boyz!"

8th edition O&G book comes out
"Crap, Orc Boyz just got more expensive!"

Other 8th edition books come out
"Double-crap, more super-powered cavalry that demolish my poor Boyz. Wait, wasn't this the problem that 8th was meant to solve!?!"

*sigh*
:p

Kahadras
20-07-2015, 19:38
Double-crap, more super-powered cavalry that demolish my poor Boyz. Wait, wasn't this the problem that 8th was meant to solve!?!"

Yeah but it's been a problem with GW for a long time that they fix something and then, a few monthes down the line, seem to forget what it was they were trying to fix. In 8th they made infantry better so that cavalry couldn't break them on the charge. They then seem to have forgotten this basic concept and introduced Monsterous Cavalry. I believe that when 6th/7th ed of Warhammer came out GW said that all army books would be balanced against each other. They started off well but once we got to HE, DE, VC, Skaven and DoC it was clear that they'd lost sight of that objective as well.

Tidings
20-07-2015, 20:42
Yeah but it's been a problem with GW for a long time that they fix something and then, a few monthes down the line, seem to forget what it was they were trying to fix. In 8th they made infantry better so that cavalry couldn't break them on the charge. They then seem to have forgotten this basic concept and introduced Monsterous Cavalry. I believe that when 6th/7th ed of Warhammer came out GW said that all army books would be balanced against each other. They started off well but once we got to HE, DE, VC, Skaven and DoC it was clear that they'd lost sight of that objective as well.

Yeah I think VC were more closely balanced to a nuclear missile than any of the other codexes. 8th was great up until then. I think my fondest memories of Warhammer come from playing 7th, but at my local store other players and I all received 8th pretty well.

EDIT: VC were sorta balanced against DoC too. In the same way Fat Man and Little Boy could be compared to a farmer in Kentucky.

-Tidings

sephiroth87
20-07-2015, 20:57
7th edition O&G book comes out
"Hey, my Orc Boyz are finally decent!"

Other 7th edition books come out
"Crap, all this super-powered cavalry is demolishing my poor Boyz!"

8th edition rulebook comes out
"Hey, a boost for my Orc Boyz!"

8th edition O&G book comes out
"Crap, Orc Boyz just got more expensive!"

Other 8th edition books come out
"Double-crap, more super-powered cavalry that demolish my poor Boyz. Wait, wasn't this the problem that 8th was meant to solve!?!"

*sigh*
:p

Yup. O&G were nearly always first out the gate for a new edition. So GW would begin the edition by upping the cost of problem unit types like cavalry. Then they would back up on it and not follow through with future army books. So units like boar boys would have been balanced if GW had upped the cost of other cavalry. But they didn't. And then our units would be left in the lurch, being externally and internally too expensive. 8th made our army serviceable, then they downpowered it with the current book.

Avian
20-07-2015, 22:22
That reminds me (again) of the people who were in favour of a wholesale reboot of all army lists, because that would allegedly let GW properly balance them all against each other.

Did not turn out quite as they had hoped.

Shandor
20-07-2015, 22:29
7th edition O&G book comes out
"Hey, my Orc Boyz are finally decent!"

Other 7th edition books come out
"Crap, all this super-powered cavalry is demolishing my poor Boyz!"

8th edition rulebook comes out
"Hey, a boost for my Orc Boyz!"

8th edition O&G book comes out
"Crap, Orc Boyz just got more expensive!"

Other 8th edition books come out
"Double-crap, more super-powered cavalry that demolish my poor Boyz. Wait, wasn't this the problem that 8th was meant to solve!?!"

*sigh*
:p

Ive played alot different Cavalary lists in the 8th edition. I really think they are a bit to hard. Charge and instand kill a Steam tank with a fast cavalary can move like they want and could be on the enemys deploy zone the first turn.. Oo

Phazael
20-07-2015, 22:43
Speaking as a West Coast player who travels to GTs, 8th was a mixed bag. Some older guys who remember magic being dominant or owned lots of infantry came out of retirement. Some netlisters who's optimized 7th armies were rendered unfixable by 8th bailed. New growth did slow down for a while, but that had more to do with GW ignoring fantasy for three years while milking the LOTR bubble for all they were worth. People also forget that GW pulled out of supporting the GT scene shortly after 8th hit (ending on the dubious note of the last season of Hard Boyz and the Throne of Skulls), leaving everyone to fend for themselves. Eventually, the game did manage to grow, at least the Tourney scene. In fact in this year, the year of WHF's supposed demise, there are more 50 person+ GTs than there have been in a decade in the North American area. I credit that to the efforts of some strong social media and good organization by community leaders. The issue for GW is that since they pulled support, no one required their models anymore and we know what that led to.

As for 7th, there were things I liked about it but I find 8th far superior. While people love to complain about DoC (and it was really bad when the book hit), the window of domination really only lasted about 8 months before DE, VC, Lizards, and even High Elves pushed them out in the results column. In fact, though I am mostly known for playing DoC, the bulk of my trophies came from other armies and very few actual overalls or best generals were taken by DoC outside that narrow window before the DE and VC books hit. While DE remain the clear front runner book in 8th, the power gaps that existed in 7th went away almost instantly when 8th came out. For a year in 7th we had DoC > VC > DE > DoC trinity, then it shifted and lizards more or less replaced DoC in that chain. At no point in 8th has any one army been completely dominant, though DE have always been top dog. The trinity period of 7th lasted all of three years, which was actually shorter than the two way WE and Brett domination that plagued 6th edition. And unlike 7th, you can find most armies placing well, save perhaps Beasts and TK, but even those two perpetual kickdogs have some feathers in their cap lately. For all of its supposed merits, 7th had way less parity between the armies than 8th, even before they cycled out the Matt Ward army books during 8ths early days.

jet_palero
20-07-2015, 23:30
8th was kinda a band aid anywho....to fix the mess of he who shall not be named.

I did note that during 8th, my local store stopped getting new players, only old players who dusted off their collections returning(me included). Not surprising as the newer edition pushed you to take bigger units, so the barrier to entry was high. It's a hard sell to tell someone to buy four boxes just to get one unit when they could easily spent the same and get a usable force in a different game. Thus warmahordes exploded during 8th in my local area

Personally, I didn't like it initially. The board literally couldn't support the size of armies 8th was pushing you to make and I wasn't about to make big blocks of elite infantry. I sucked it up, played it, had some fun and left when my local shop's fantasy players all switched to warmahordes. Read end's time but had no intention of coming back to fantasy, we had all moved on.

8th was most def the decline, but I think we can trace it all the way to 7th and the repackaging of the core sets. I knew when the core box sets when from 16-20 to ten that I wasn't ever going to build an army the size I did in 6th. Nor even start another army

Not getting new players I think comes mostly down to GW's complete failure to market their product to anyone outside their existing customer base. I don't think the game is "out there" enough to judge its growth based on the game's quality.

GW is in a weird place. It's like all their customers are at a party, and GW stopped inviting new people to the party. Occasionally someone calls up a friend to tell them about the party, or someone walks by, but for the most part the people that are there are the people that are going to be there. And then GW hands around some poorly cooked food, and a bunch of people leave. So the party just keeps shrinking for the most part.

GrandmasterWang
21-07-2015, 03:51
7th edition O&G book comes out
"Hey, my Orc Boyz are finally decent!"

Other 7th edition books come out
"Crap, all this super-powered cavalry is demolishing my poor Boyz!"

8th edition rulebook comes out
"Hey, a boost for my Orc Boyz!"

8th edition O&G book comes out
"Crap, Orc Boyz just got more expensive!"

Other 8th edition books come out
"Double-crap, more super-powered cavalry that demolish my poor Boyz. Wait, wasn't this the problem that 8th was meant to solve!?!"

*sigh*
:p

The big difference is that in 8th my O & g's had a decent shot vs any other book even WOC & DE which were considered OP. In 7th with terror bombing, no stepup, powerdice generation bs, fixed charges, auto break etc it was nothing but pain vs the power books with player skill making little to no difference. In 8th I always had a real chance so long as I played well.

Also 8th made my Stollaz melee dwarfs playable! Impossible in all other editions due to fixed charges/charger always go first and no stepup.

I love that 8th made real hammer and anvil strategies viable

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Okuto
21-07-2015, 06:26
Exactly! 8th was in decline but that had more to do with GWs market scheme rather than the game itself, it was way too hard to bring in new players with the prices they charged for core sets. I used to just splurge on models before, 18-20 bucks was cool...when it started hitting 25 with tax and you wanted more core it got kinda wierd. I remember dropping 6 bucks for a goblin for my brother, that same kit is now 15 USD, and this is only 5 years ago. I mean if I couldn't really splurge spend then you know the entry cost to the game has people rethinking if the money was worth it.

I did the same thing during 6th too, I bought a hordes of chaos and beasts of chaos army on a whim:) completely dumb idea though but not something I could repeat in 7th and 8th. In 6th and 7th (depending on the army you played) you could get by with just 1-2 boxes to fill out a core unit, I use to complain even then that it was pricey!:eek:

Damn I still still remember dismounted metal characters being 8-10 US dollars and complaining bitterly that I had paid 15 US dollars for two metal wizards.




Not getting new players I think comes mostly down to GW's complete failure to market their product to anyone outside their existing customer base. I don't think the game is "out there" enough to judge its growth based on the game's quality.

GW is in a weird place. It's like all their customers are at a party, and GW stopped inviting new people to the party. Occasionally someone calls up a friend to tell them about the party, or someone walks by, but for the most part the people that are there are the people that are going to be there. And then GW hands around some poorly cooked food, and a bunch of people leave. So the party just keeps shrinking for the most part.

Yeah....pretty much, all the while you look out the window and see all these other parties down the street. You don't know who they are but they look like they're having alot of fun. Then you awkwardly walk over there and notice they aren't as fancy or have that bloated sense of self importance your previous host had, the food tastes better than it looks, and the host actually listens and keeps in touch after the party and the next day it gets bigger and you end up meeting all sorts of people.

At least its how I felt wen I took the dive into other games, the competition had finally caught up and it was liberating





While people love to complain about DoC (and it was really bad when the book hit), the window of domination really only lasted about 8 months before DE, VC, Lizards, and even High Elves pushed them out in the results column.

Which was great if you played those armies.....where's I as an Empire and orc player did not have this luxury and had a completely different experience in 7th.

Avian
21-07-2015, 10:23
The big difference is that in 8th my O & g's had a decent shot vs any other book even WOC & DE which were considered OP. In 7th with terror bombing, no stepup, powerdice generation bs, fixed charges, auto break etc it was nothing but pain vs the power books with player skill making little to no difference. In 8th I always had a real chance so long as I played well.
But did you field any Orc Boyz? ;)

GrandmasterWang
21-07-2015, 11:23
But did you field any Orc Boyz? ;)

Haha I did indeed!!

Almost without fail I would bring my unit of 20 hw/shield boyz! Toughness 4 with a parry save meant they occasionally punched well above their weight!

I still remember when they were charged by a unit of 4 mournfang cavalry..... but due to their raucous bellowing the Mournfang got nervous and didn't make the charge.....

Next turn with a whooping and a hollering my Boyz ran in and gave them a right crumping! Clearly unnerved by all their now dented armor the Ogres lost their nerve and Da Boyz feasted on Ogre stew with a side of braised Mournfang leg!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

cailil
21-07-2015, 12:44
As somebody who stopped playing when 8th came out. What killed it for me was horde units and the change of ethos at GW.

The sink of time & money into buying and building huge units that were very tricky to rank-up (older metal warhammer models were not designed for 30+ sized units) was off-putting. Bigger units meant longer games too. I usually spent at least 4-5 hours in game at 2,000 points anyway so 3,000 point games were killing my social life. But the big problem for me was the "go large or go home" ethos of 8th and all its supplements. There was no alternative to day long games with huge units that were hard to transport. Even getting to a game wasn't fun.

Don't get me wrong I can see the logic and the potential but OMG the cost, and frankly I'm the kind of person who likes Warhammer skirmish and Mordheim. I like small characterful units with personality - 8th was about mass produced game breakers and it wasn't fun. Plus in my area it attracted a lot of WAAC players who had no interest in painting/converting/hobby and who talked like tournament players but had never played in a tournament themselves and never would.

I've been playing since the late 1990s and I have a huge collection but 8th edition was simply no fun for me from either the gaming or army building POV. In fairness though the rot had set in during the 7th edition (which I quite enjoyed as a game and felt was an overall improvement from 6th) because it basically coincided with GW's elimination of everything that I loved about their website and their armies (things like Dogs of War units/armies and the hobby/DIY terrain advice on the website). 8th also heralded a return to some of the cheesier side of things from 4th and 5th edition (herohammer) which wasn't appealing for somebody who was glad to see those elements go in 2000 (6th edition).

So as you can see it really was a combination of issues: the hordes issue (which was a big deal but I would have overcome it but for), the emergence of so many WAAC players in my area, and most significantly GW's elimination of any semblance of support for DIy terrain building. It was a combination of factors. Plus I missed small narrative based games which was a personal choice of mine.

HereComesTomorrow
21-07-2015, 13:40
Its kind of funny that people are saying that 8th's focus on big units killed it, because I've been playing 8th since release and in the last two years I and my opponents are drifting back to units of about 20-30.

HelloKitty
21-07-2015, 14:01
I played 8th the entire time and my chaffe capped out at 30-40 models a unit. Most of my units were about 25.

The only time I really ever saw mega horde units were goblin or skaven players. I don't think 8th focused on these massive mega units, its just that people could do it now and it not just get blown off the table in one turn like in 6th/7th.

Groza
21-07-2015, 14:18
I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to use units of 40 state troops with empire, rather than 20 like I used to.
Back in 6th/7th, a block of 20 state troops was still decent because of its SCR. Especially with a detachment or two.
Now that the game is so bloated and most units hit like a truck, 20 empire state troops is 2 rounds of combat at best. And if I use a detachment I'm just feeding more CR and kills to my opponent unless he's a goblin or skaven.

sephiroth87
21-07-2015, 14:27
Its kind of funny that people are saying that 8th's focus on big units killed it, because I've been playing 8th since release and in the last two years I and my opponents are drifting back to units of about 20-30.


I think that's more of an evolution of the metagame rather than people being tired of taking big units. The later 8th books really put the power in elite infantry, monstrous infantry, and monstrous cavalry. For many of the early 8th edition books, units of 20 are just going to die.

In my goblin army, a unit of 25 night goblins is a chaff unit.

Tokamak
21-07-2015, 14:56
7th edition O&G book comes out
"Hey, my Orc Boyz are finally decent!"

Other 7th edition books come out
"Crap, all this super-powered cavalry is demolishing my poor Boyz!"

8th edition rulebook comes out
"Hey, a boost for my Orc Boyz!"

8th edition O&G book comes out
"Crap, Orc Boyz just got more expensive!"

Other 8th edition books come out
"Double-crap, more super-powered cavalry that demolish my poor Boyz. Wait, wasn't this the problem that 8th was meant to solve!?!"

*sigh*
:p

That's EXACTLY how I felt. Except for the last part where I stocked up on such a huge amount of orcs before the huge price hike. Now I have multiple blocks of 60 orcs (along with large blocks of blorcs and big uns) and I don't mind it when all the big bad nasty plunges into them.

Really, the overpriced infantry is THE Achilles heel in 8th edition. Entirely the wrong format to sell the kits in. Large snap-fit static miniatures (GW has proven to still be able to make them look awesome) is where it needed to be at.

SuperHappyTime
21-07-2015, 20:11
In fact in this year, the year of WHF's supposed demise, there are more 50 person+ GTs than there have been in a decade in the North American area. I credit that to the efforts of some strong social media and good organization by community leaders. The issue for GW is that since they pulled support, no one required their models anymore and we know what that led to.

Going to point towards a common trend that during the last of something, attendance goes up. It's why the Rolling Stones have had so many farewell tours.

The bearded one
21-07-2015, 20:23
Really, the overpriced infantry is THE Achilles heel in 8th edition. Entirely the wrong format to sell the kits in. Large snap-fit static miniatures (GW has proven to still be able to make them look awesome) is where it needed to be at.

Yes, simple (but nice-looking) mini's like skaven clanrats (which thankfully do come in boxes of 20 - and were reasonably priced before their price got hiked half a dozen times) and the newest dark elf spearmen. A big block of statetroops will make you go a little mad with all the little details they have.

Thankfully I always liked blocks of infantry, even in 7th, so in order to go to 8th I didn't do much more than add 1 box worth of models to make them reasonably sized. Occasionally 2, if I wanted to go to a big 40+ horde. But I had the luxury of already having units decently built up before this time - though I wasn't a veteran of decades, I only started at 7th's inception - while if you started with 8th, building blocks of 30 infantry was a really daunting and expensive prospect.

ColShaw
21-07-2015, 20:55
I feel strange every time I enter a conversation like this, because my own experience seems so very different from that of most other posters.

The main army I used through 7th Ed was my Night Goblins; I built the core of the army out of 2 BFSP starter boxes. I used no heavy cavalry at all, had 3 units of Spider Riders for flanking protection (such as it was), and fielded big infantry units all through 7th. Usually I had 35 Night Goblins per close combat regiment, with 20-strong bow regiments in support. Lone Trolls for cheap redirection or for throwing in alongside a regiment for what was effectively an extra Hero's worth of attacks. A couple of Level 2 Shamen with a Dispel Scroll, Sneaky Stealin' Staff, and a Mushroom or two, together with Mork's War Banner gave me impressive dispel dice without buying big wizards (I'd have 8 Dispel Dice, taking one from my opponent's Power pool; plenty to stop 2-3 spells a turn).

I fought against cavalry armies, foot armies, Daemons, VC, DE, and always felt like I had a decent chance. Yes, Daemons were right nasty, but they were never unbeatable, even with my bizarre cave-dwellers.

I dunno. As a guy who likes infantry in large numbers, I should've loved 8th Ed, but I didn't, for reasons primarily enumerated by Avian earlier in the thread. Steadfast really tore it for me; I LIKED psychology being a factor... and I was playing Goblins, for goodness' sake! Psychology was almost never my friend. But being able to set up flank charges and have them MATTER, fighting through larger enemies with my plucky little gits... it was the most fun I ever had playing Warhammer.

So I'm a 7th Ed disciple, and remain so.

Kegslayer
22-07-2015, 00:01
No. It killed fantasy round my way and it was never that interesting to begin with. A lot of hate for AoS is due to it replacing old fantasy which folk have loved for years. When people can move past that and see AoS as the new game it is they may be interested, if not so be it. Its a new direction and its about time gw made that choice. Hopefully in time the naysayers will come round. If not AoS will continue on regardless. Its attracting interest in old and new players and with any luck will continue to grow

Shandor
22-07-2015, 00:19
Well i think besides Zombies and Slaves it was really dumb to field units bigger then 30. There are just so many ways get rid of such a huge unit very easy. Its much harder to get rid of many smaller units.

The biggest unis ive seen around was my 30 Witch elves and against several players i had huge problems with a block of this size. Slaanesh alone had 2 spells make this unit absolut useless. Or just send an Chaos General in alone.. they cant kill him and he holds this expensive unit in place the whole game.

@ Kegslayer: You just dont get it.. The hate towards AoS isnt that it replaced WHF(maybe part of it).. its simply because the game isnt good in any way. After 15 games i dont even hate AoS anymore.. i think its just risible.
If it would be a good game there still would be hate im sure. Just because its new and different. But it would not be that owerhelming negative since it would be something new to have fun with for many peoples.

I dont mind changes. I liked the End times too very much. But i refuse changes that repalce something good with something unusable.
I get a new cellphone here and there and i like the new stuff on the new mobiles.. but if i would trade my working good cellphone against one without an battery and without an operating programm i would just give it back. Even if someone would tell me "Oh you only hate it because its new! Its here to stay! live with that!" :)

The bearded one
22-07-2015, 00:21
Its kind of funny that people are saying that 8th's focus on big units killed it, because I've been playing 8th since release and in the last two years I and my opponents are drifting back to units of about 20-30.

I have most of my infantry units around 25-30 these days (often 5-6 wide) and I'd say it makes for an enjoyable battle to have these kinds of units slogging it out against opposing units of similar size. Dumping everything into a giant blobhorde of 40 chaos warriors means shoving everything into the middle of the table and everything in that combat dying in 2 rounds. A bit like playing Age of Sigmar, from my experience thusfar.

A mild measure of restraint made 8th plenty of fun - and leaves you with enough units to execute hammer and anvil tactics. And once you abandon the armsrace you can use pretty much anything. I use units of 5 knights or 20 infantry without regret. Just the other day I was thinking of trying out a tiny block of 10 saurus with spears or 8 skinks w/kroxigor, 3-wide and 4-wide respectively, tucked in between elements of my battleline.

In 7th I couldn't expect my unit of 20 shield-longbeards with thane with runic axe to stand up to 5 nurgle knights. That blasted unit kept wiping me off the table.

Shandor
22-07-2015, 00:32
I have most of my infantry units around 25-30 these days (often 5-6 wide) and I'd say it makes for an enjoyable battle to have these kinds of units slogging it out against opposing units of similar size. Dumping everything into a giant blobhorde of 40 chaos warriors means shoving everything into the middle of the table and everything in that combat dying in 2 rounds. A bit like playing Age of Sigmar, from my experience thusfar.

A mild measure of restraint made 8th plenty of fun - and leaves you with enough units to execute hammer and anvil tactics. And once you abandon the armsrace you can use pretty much anything. I use units of 5 knights or 20 infantry without regret. Just the other day I was thinking of trying out a tiny block of 10 saurus with spears or 8 skinks w/kroxigor, 3-wide and 4-wide respectively, tucked in between elements of my battleline.

In 7th I couldn't expect my unit of 20 shield-longbeards with thane with runic axe to stand up to 5 nurgle knights. That blasted unit kept wiping me off the table.

Really.. 40 Chaos warriors in one big block.. that would be such an easy win for the other guy. Preferable woodelves. They could do what they want with them.
Or Vampires.. or Darkelves..

Ayin
22-07-2015, 00:44
Chaos Warriors got little play in their own book because of the greater effectiveness of single model units like Chariots in Core. The Warriors themselves are in no way bad. Everyone thinks they've got a solution to a horde of CW's until it shows up on the table. If nothing else, those CW's don't bleed points easily and characters bunkered in them are very safe (especially to cast magic from).

rob451
22-07-2015, 01:15
Really.. 40 Chaos warriors in one big block.. that would be such an easy win for the other guy. Preferable woodelves. They could do what they want with them.
Or Vampires.. or Darkelves..

Even other Chaos armies can just feed that unit 5 warhounds a turn to tie it up for the game. Honestly there are so many solutions to big expensive hordes that they aren't an issue for me anymore. Between redirecting and screening units you don't even need magic to nullify their effect on the battle because they take up so much room.

if all you ever did was try to kill the othe guys horde with your own bigger horde I can understand why you'd have no fun.

Ayin
22-07-2015, 02:19
Hordes serve two possible purposes.

1-Get points. These are the easiest hordes generally to deal with as they can be chaffed and re-directed, but often they're not expensive units themselves (Empire Halberdiers).

2-Conserve points. These are the hordes that are often the hardest to deal with. They don't care about your chaff because their purpose is to just be unassailable by your forces, you don't want to fight them, and they're very willing to only engage in a single combat in the game, usually because the characters they're carrying are the important part. Units like this tend to be very expensive (classic White Lions with Loremaster and BoTWD).


Hordes served multiple roles.

The bearded one
22-07-2015, 02:20
Not necessarily chaos warriors specificaly but a big pointsink deathstar. I think everyone at one point or another at the start of 8th saw stuff like a 50-man horde or a monstrous infantry horde like 18 ogres? Back when we switched from 7th to 8th there was initially a period of time where people were using 7th-style armies, and then people started trying out 8th edition's new toys, like hordes. Over time people learned to easily take horde deathstars out of the game, so people stopped doing things like that and the meta shifted. But from reading this thread apparently use of massively oversized units and deathstars didn't go out of style to the same degree everywhere. And if you play hordehammer, then yes it was rather dull and expensive.

Ayin
22-07-2015, 03:11
Hordes really went away because of the later introduction of just flat out better combat units in many cases. For Chaos, for example, Hordes of Marauders dropped because of their points increase, and hordes of Warriors never saw a lot of play because Skullcrushers, Chimera's and chariots did a better job and were more mobile. For Empire, although single buffed hordes of Halberdiers didn't go away completely, they weren't as efficient as Demi's as a main combat unit.

The bearded one
22-07-2015, 03:18
It was also because they were very cumbersome to manoeuvre and easy to block.

But - looping back to the original point - 8th is a whole lot more fun with a little bit of moderation. I play units between 20 and 30 and I love it. I haven't used more than 4 monstrous cavalry models on the table at the same time either. In such an environment units that aren't considered wholly optimal (eg. 5 knights) easily become very useful and enjoyable to play. Just a lill' bit of moderation, below flat-out min-maxing.

I wouldn't mind playing a game with 15 to 20-man infantry units and 5-man cavalry units. Seems like fun, and due to the larger number of individual units you get to attempt a lot of hammer&anvil.

Ayin
22-07-2015, 04:19
I was and am a huge fan of Horde (and Steadfast buses) not because it forces your army to be used a certain way, but because it opens up options for units. If you have a lot of goblins and want to field a lot of goblins, there are additional ways to place them to give you some advantage for your numbers. If you want to field smaller units, those are also very viable (Chaos Warriors were generally deployed 6 wide for maximum effect, for example, and Empire Swordsmen 5 wide to minimize return attacks).

isthatnew?
22-07-2015, 13:14
I've rarely played against hordes in 8th apart from the occasional shaven slave army, but I do recall a battle report from one of the big tournaments just before end times dropped on us being won by an MSU Ogre army taking a lot of 3 ogre blocks instead of Gutstar. I spoke to people that tried that style of list and it required a lot of skill and finesse to pull off but it could be effective. I guess it depends on the local meta and the occasional left field build wrong footing people's list building. Sadly this will no longer be a thing in AoS :/

Phazael
23-07-2015, 19:43
Going to point towards a common trend that during the last of something, attendance goes up. It's why the Rolling Stones have had so many farewell tours.

Except during the whole run up to Rage of Smegmar, no one thought anything was ending. It has been a focused effort at community building. Once the leaks started coming out six months ago, yeah this last half year of Masters circuit is going to be one long lie in state Irish wake funeral for Fantasy. No one but a few people had an inkling that they were going to do this and many who heard couldn't believe they would be that ridiculous. But this is what happens when you brag about how your lack of customer outreach.

Phazael
23-07-2015, 19:46
Not necessarily chaos warriors specificaly but a big pointsink deathstar. I think everyone at one point or another at the start of 8th saw stuff like a 50-man horde or a monstrous infantry horde like 18 ogres? Back when we switched from 7th to 8th there was initially a period of time where people were using 7th-style armies, and then people started trying out 8th edition's new toys, like hordes. Over time people learned to easily take horde deathstars out of the game, so people stopped doing things like that and the meta shifted. But from reading this thread apparently use of massively oversized units and deathstars didn't go out of style to the same degree everywhere. And if you play hordehammer, then yes it was rather dull and expensive.


The horde fetish lasted all of two weeks in my area. But the LA area has always been chaff happy, so having 18 ogres parked by one or two eagles all game got old pretty fast for the power gamers. The focus changed from giant units to medium units exploiting character walls. Only when the new dwarf book hit did you start to see stubborn star hordes make a slight return, both to absorb shots and to complete the castle formation.

jet_palero
23-07-2015, 23:03
I was and am a huge fan of Horde (and Steadfast buses) not because it forces your army to be used a certain way, but because it opens up options for units. If you have a lot of goblins and want to field a lot of goblins, there are additional ways to place them to give you some advantage for your numbers. If you want to field smaller units, those are also very viable (Chaos Warriors were generally deployed 6 wide for maximum effect, for example, and Empire Swordsmen 5 wide to minimize return attacks).

Exactly. My orcs and goblins used a mix of horde and not horde, and so did my dwarves. A horde meant dwarves with 2h weapons were actually a threat. Or you could switch and go deep for steadfast. It opened up options.

The main thing I didn't like about 8th was that flank attacks didn't eliminate steadfast, something that should have been obvious.

The bearded one
24-07-2015, 01:28
This is what I was playing with this afternoon; a bit of every size, basically. I had a horde of warriors, hammerers 6 wide for the attacks as a killy elite, longbeards with shields 5-wide 5 deep as an anvil unit, 15 rangers deployed off-screen,mand 10 miners who didn't show up. And a gyrocopter, organ gun and grudge thrower. Choppy dwarfs, but no need to make every unit massive.

217613


The main thing I didn't like about 8th was that flank attacks didn't eliminate steadfast, something that should have been obvious.

There were a couple things in 8th that were so obvious, many people initially assumed they were inthe rules, like disruption cancelling steadfast.

Magic resistance working against the 'no save instant DEATH' megaspells would've been a nice touch too.

Ayin
24-07-2015, 04:36
This is what I was playing with this afternoon; a bit of every size, basically. I had a horde of warriors, hammerers 6 wide for the attacks as a killy elite, longbeards with shields 5-wide 5 deep as an anvil unit, 15 rangers deployed off-screen,mand 10 miners who didn't show up. And a gyrocopter, organ gun and grudge thrower. Choppy dwarfs, but no need to make every unit massive.

This is how many infantry heavy lists end up, ESPECIALLY at higher points levels (which actually also do a lot to balance out 'overpowered' magic as well, since the destructive limit on magic doesn't actually scale upwards and including more wizards doesn't drastically increase what can be cast, though it does increase the number of magic protection Arcane Items and such can be brought).

My DoW force (and my Empire force, pretty much) consists of one bus unit of infantry (who fight better in ranks), one horde unit of harder hitters, three wide units of fast cav, 4 wide units of Skirmishers, a 10x2 XBow unit and two 5x2 Xbow units (and a 4 wide unit of Ogres and some war machines).

My Chaos force usually has a 7 wide unit of Warriors (6 being the ideal size, with 5 guys in the first two ranks and a character on Daemonic Mount taking up the 6th and 7th space, allowing the entire front rank to fight against even a 5 wide 20mm unit), 5 wide Knights, dog chaff either 3 or 5 wide depending, and a horde of Marauders with an optional second 5 wide unit of marauders.

Additionally, both of these armies regularly see different deployment depending on opponent and situation. If I'm facing someone with larger frontages, my Khorne Warriors go to the max width to guarantee as many models in CC as possible, for example. Being tied down to one size, either during game or, as most seemed to be, during deployment, is a huge missed opportunity.




There were a couple things in 8th that were so obvious, many people initially assumed they were inthe rules, like disruption cancelling steadfast.

I was so on the fence with this. On one hand, I support the idea, but I don't want to go back to single models charging the side of a unit and negating the bonuses of it being ranked up (either the +3 or the Steadfast in 8th), though I fully support the +1CR for fighting in the flank regardless of unit size. If a unit is large enough to Disrupt the ranks (ie has a rank bonus of it's own) then I'm fine with the idea of cancelling Steadfast. If it's 5 goblin wolf riders into 40 Empire Spearmen, not so much.



Magic resistance working against the 'no save instant DEATH' megaspells would've been a nice touch too.

This certainly could have been neat, but I don't think a 5 or 6+ save for characters against these spells would have been a solution anyone would have been very happy with.

itcamefromthedeep
24-07-2015, 12:44
This is how many infantry heavy lists end up, ESPECIALLY at higher points levels (which actually also do a lot to balance out 'overpowered' magic as well, since the destructive limit on magic doesn't actually scale upwards and including more wizards doesn't drastically increase what can be cast, though it does increase the number of magic protection Arcane Items and such can be brought).
That was a big part of the barrier to entry problem. The game felt like it was missing a lot at the 1000-1500 points range.

The other part being the Goldswords phenomenon.

Jack Shrapnel
24-07-2015, 16:29
8th pretty much killed our local WHFB scene within a short period of time... before that we had more WHFB players at local tournies than the 40K crowd at at theirs!

AOS is actually bringing people back, and a vet last night commented that the game (with our own comp set for balance/listbuilding because that was important to local players here to have such a system) feels alot like early 7th edition. (you know, before daemons). This vet is a former grand champion GT winner, so obviously is competitive enough to care about things like balance and tactics and all that stuff.... and he you know, still had fun and stuff.

I think every edition you'll have some vocal players quit (and for some strange reason continue to complain loudly about a game they don't like and reportedly won't play weirdly enough), you'll have others start playing if the starter set seems like a good enough buy (and this starter set is a pretty good deal overall and nice minis - but with every starter if you don't like the armies in it, it'll be a no-go for you), and some people stick around and try to make a go of the new version of the game.

No matter what, you'll have internet forums rife with predictions of the end of the game, the company will go bankrupt (this time is different! this time for sure!), that this is evidence GW is the devil and hates customers, everyone's leaving in droves and nothing is selling, and that this is evidence that they never, ever test anything out or know a thing about game design.

After all the angst settles, people end up just playing games they like in a way that makes sense and is fun for them, regardless of what system they choose or what some forum post says.

Lordcypress
24-07-2015, 16:31
If you want good laugh go read some of your old Army Lists from 6th and 7th edition. I found an old note book I use to hand write all my lists. Lots of units of 20. Just some examples; 19 Tomb Guard led by Tomb King, 19 Black Orcs led by Grimgor, 14 Chosen Warriors, 19 Crypt Ghouls led by a Strigoi Vampire etc............ Also it appears I used a lot more "Chaff". 3 units of 5 Flesh Hounds, 3 unit of 5 Dire Wolves, 3 units of 5 Spider Riders etc.......

Sigh.....Just reading my Wight King BSB. I miss the Drakenhof Banner!!

Ayin
24-07-2015, 21:07
Lordcypress...Yeah... Some armies were still built like that in 8th. Chaos Warriors (and especially Chosen) performed best at minimal numbers with maximum efficiency. 18 was generally the best mix of the two, but even 12 wasn't an unreasonable group.

Armies in 6th tended to be vastly smaller than armies in 7th due to the ridiculous drop in points some armies (Dark Elves) saw in 7th. 8th in no way eliminated small effective units, it just gave less effective (and cheaper) units a chance to invest more for an actual effectiveness gain, something that they lacked throughout 6th and 7th.

Also, Chaff never stopped being important. In fact, with double fleeing it became important to have more if you wanted to go that route. Three units of 5 Dire Wolves/Chaos hounds, three units of various chaff/hunters in O&G or nearly any other army is not, in any way, unreasaonble to see in an army in 8th.

Tokamak
24-07-2015, 22:14
I use one block of 60 orcs, one of 30, another 30 with big uns and then another 36 black orcs before I think about any other toys. Especially with End Times these numbers start to matter.

Ayin
24-07-2015, 23:07
That sounds like a force I would love to see on the table.

I'm going to play some games this weekend with a few guys who are JUST getting back into Fantasy since 6th. I'm looking forward to some interesting builds.

The bearded one
25-07-2015, 01:16
Anyway I think the point is you can surely effectively use infantry in 8th in units significantly below 30 models, if you put your mind to it. It's just that even units of 20 or so are a significant investment for a new player - in contrast to 40k where 10 is the largest you'll usually see a unit at, with most being around 5.