PDA

View Full Version : So, why isn't anyone just playing 8th edition?



Bingo the Fun Monkey
23-12-2016, 05:58
I want to play 8th edition. 9th Age is too comped, especially the 1.2 ruleset. I don't want to play Kings of War. I want to roll up with my Big Red Book, my hard cover army books and throw down. But it seems like nobody else is interested in doing this. Why?

lorelorn
23-12-2016, 07:35
I could say it's because 8th is not a very good game, but that's just opinion.

It's more accurate to say that 8th is a game with no compelling reason to play.

War Machine has a tighter ruleset
Kings of War does element-based fantasy play better
9th Age provides a balanced playing field for familiar armies
Age of Sigmar has official support and a stream of new releases

Against any of the above, it should not be surprising that carting around several kilos of expensive paper and some models is not so compelling to players. Also 8th never had much of an identity among the various editions of Warhammer. Oldhammer fans tend to go for the fiddliness of 3rd or the herohammer of 5th.

Itsacon
23-12-2016, 07:37
...or the balanced-ness of 6th edition with Ravening Hordes.

theJ
23-12-2016, 09:56
I'd like to play 8th.

but...

You're in 'merica. 'tis a bit far.

Sowwie :(

sedgey
23-12-2016, 11:12
I still play 8th. It's the edition I started WFB in, and it's always worked for me.

The 9th age looks to be where all the people who used to talk about "conga lines" migrated to. I wish them all the best with it, but the hyper-competitive environment and focus on "balance" don't appeal to me. Sure, I like a challenge in games, but I think the randomness of things like magic or O&G's Animosity add to the experience, and a game doesn't have to be balanced to be fun. I'll happily charge my Blood Dragon vampire lord into a Daemon Prince who'll probably slaughter him, because that's what he'd do in the Warhammer world, and because every so often I'll get to mount his head on my banner pole.

Age of Sigmar doesn't have ranked units or the Warhammer world, and the rules are over-simplified. Again, no appeal.

Neither Kings of War nor Warmachine are Warhammer, so hold no interest for me.

At the end of the day, the other systems are irrelevant to me. I've got friends who still play 8th, I enjoy the game, models and settings, so I see no reason to change. If no-one I knew still played, then I'd have to look to another game system; thankfully it hasn't come to that yet.

I think there are probably quite a lot of people still out there sticking with 8th, they're just not so vocal. When your game has been around for several years and is no longer supported with new rules / models, it's hard to motivate yourself to post much about it.

Galadrin
23-12-2016, 13:27
Because it's not as simple, fast and flavourful as 4th.

I mean, between Battle Magic, Arcane Magic, the Chaos box set and the Chronicles of War box set there are... 198 spells (across 19 schools of magic), 238 magic items, fistfuls of cool, colourful templates and counters, Chaos reward and gift cards and lots, lots more (great cardstock buildings, the best painting guides ever put out by GW ever, ever, tons of scenario packs, the coolest models they ever did in 'Eavy Metal!... the list goes on).

How exactly do you compare to that??

Bingo the Fun Monkey
24-12-2016, 01:23
Indeed, I do play Warmachine for it's tight rules and community engagement. I suppose Galadrin is right. My preferred edition would be Herohammer 5th edition, although I must confess I never tried 4th...and High Elves were quite overpowered in 5th edition.

Galadrin
24-12-2016, 19:24
Warhammer 4th Edition was great! It's essentially the same rules as 5th Edition (the changes were very minor, more editorial than anything else, and you could pretty much count them on one hand). The difference, however, were the army books... 4th Edition army books did not have the power creep of 5th Edition. High Elves, for example, played really nicely in 4th. They had very few special rules (unlike 5th Edition), which allowed you to really experience the core game engine purring under the hood of WFB 4e. There was no "Citizen Levy," no special attacks for White Lions, no heavy armour rules, no special Leadership test rerolls, no bodyguard rules, no anti-Dark Elf riles. They played as a core army type, with fragile but effective infantry, elite cavalry, powerful one-man chariots, superior High magic and the excellent repeater bolt-thrower. They were a finesse army that needed a really good general, but paid dividends if you knew how to use them.

In my mind, they played a little like a Classical Greek army in a historical wargame. "Outnumbered, outgunned... but never outclassed" to quote Bolt Thrower.

Captain Cortez
26-12-2016, 05:53
I still love 8th edition but 9th Age is very well written and the rules make sense and are clarified. AOS on the other hand, well is a beer and pretzels game. If you want to play a game that is supported by GW and fights in a Cluster-******* fight in the middle. Stay with AOS lol.

zoltan
26-12-2016, 12:51
I still love 8th edition but 9th Age is very well written and the rules make sense and are clarified. AOS on the other hand, well is a beer and pretzels game. If you want to play a game that is supported by GW and fights in a Cluster-******* fight in the middle. Stay with AOS lol.

If you want a beer and pretzels game you should try kings of war. Compared to AoS its more streamlines and balanced, all the rules are contained in a single book for the basics, with 2 optional expansion books. Its still rank and file and movement matters, even more than warhammer. You can also use any models even in official tournaments unlike AoS.

As for oldhammer (which 8th also is now really). I much prefer either the complexity and balance of 3rd, or simplified but still balanced 6th, especially if you use ravening horde lists.

Kakapo42
26-12-2016, 22:15
I think you also need to define exactly which '8th edition' you're talking about. For example, I would be totally down for a game of early 8th edition, with either pre-8th edition army books or just the first few 8th edition books, but because I love the 6th edition Wood Elf army book and hate the 8th edition one I wouldn't want a game of late 8th edition when the 8th edition Wood Elf book was a thing. ET supplements would also be right out for me (except maybe porting over the 50% on Lords thing because I like to lavish magic items on my characters).

Aside from that though I'd mostly stick to late 6th edition and early 7th edition (the important thing for me is using the 6th edition Wood Elf book you see), or some hybrid of 6th and 8th since I like elements of both.

Galadrin
26-12-2016, 23:53
I think you also need to define exactly which '8th edition' you're talking about. For example, I would be totally down for a game of early 8th edition, with either pre-8th edition army books or just the first few 8th edition books, but because I love the 6th edition Wood Elf army book and hate the 8th edition one I wouldn't want a game of late 8th edition when the 8th edition Wood Elf book was a thing. ET supplements would also be right out for me (except maybe porting over the 50% on Lords thing because I like to lavish magic items on my characters).

Aside from that though I'd mostly stick to late 6th edition and early 7th edition (the important thing for me is using the 6th edition Wood Elf book you see), or some hybrid of 6th and 8th since I like elements of both.

I think I've looked at the 6e Wood Elf book before... what did you find so compelling about it?

For me, the 4th Edition Wood Elf book will always be the first, last and only Wood Elf book. It has the much superior first version of the Wood Elf fluff, great artwork and it lets you build your army with whatever you please. I've built an army with just Treemen and Emperor White Dragons which was a lot of fun (kind of like a monster hunt for the opponent) and Hellenic-style armies with just chariots and big blocks of Glade Guard spearmen (yes, Glade Guard are spearmen in 4e). I found later editions way too restrictive in army composition rules...

Kakapo42
27-12-2016, 08:50
I think I've looked at the 6e Wood Elf book before... what did you find so compelling about it?

Well, the short answer is 'everything'.

Funnily enough the first two points you list for your fondness of the 4th edition Wood Elf book are exactly the same as mine for the 6th edition one - I think the background in it is amazing (I love all the faerie and pseudo-celtic elements in it), and the artwork is incredible. I love the various special rules the army list had, which worked together to make the army play wonderfully close to how it's portrayed in the background (especially Asrai Archery, which effectively means that no Wood Elf unit should ever be staying still unless they're in close combat or a really, really good position). I love the Lore of Athel Loren, having a special magic lore that no other faction can use, drawn from the very power of the forest. I love the unique magic items in it, especially the Amaranthine Brooch which I always put on my General as a reference to my favourite song (Amaranth by Nightwish).

But most of all, when I read the 6th edition Wood Elf book I get excited about building and using a Wood Elf army in Warhammer. The 8th one doesn't do that (indeed, reading the 8th one makes me feel angry, hurt, apathetic and reluctant all at the same time). Incidentally, the 6th edition Bretonnian book has the same effect, and I still remember when I first looked through it at a GW store and it honestly took all my strength not to start a Bretonnian army then and there.

Mark G
01-01-2017, 10:45
I think that the problem with trying to play Warhammer/Oldhammer is that there are so many different editions and editions of army books. People prefer different army books due to the background or power level and different rules depending on the mechanics they prefer. Unfortunately GW never tried to perfect the game, just kept making it different. There is no one edition that a majority consider 'best' for people to rally around. People's preferences were less important when there was a current 'official' edition; despite any niggles you'd play the current rules. Now, why not go back and play the edition you prefer with the least niggles.

It's difficult to get people into 8th as they may prefer a different version. If they have problems with 8th or feel their army has flaws, they probably want to play a different edition. There is no hope of a fresh army book or rules update to fix their complaints. There isn't the attraction of a huge player bases to push these concerns aside.

If I wanted to play 8th, I would look to host the game. Provide both armies, that I'd balanced roughly against each other, with a crib sheet for both forces. That way you would only have to find someone that was interested in a game, not someone who'd sunk hours and hundreds of pounds into building an army.

Malagor
04-01-2017, 11:56
I still play 8e as do many here.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
05-01-2017, 21:02
6th Edition was definitely the best time I had as a WFB player. I agree that the Bretonnian and Wood Elf books were excellent, as was the Beasts of Chaos book. Orcs and Goblins were my mainstay at the time, but I would have loved to play High Elves without the Intrigue at Court rules. I've been playing Total War: Warhammer, and so I've been nostalgic for the so-called "World that Was."

I guess I posted the original question because 8th edition was the last supported edition of fantasy...although I guess 6th was the last complete edition. And by 8th, I meant everything before End Times. I'm still miffed that they were two books away from finishing the edition before they tanked the whole world.

@Galadrin, I hope I can stumble upon a group of Oldhammer players someday soon. Your description of 4th was a good sell. That being said, everything you pointed out that was clunky about the High Elves were things that I also liked.

Horace35
06-01-2017, 16:41
I still play 8th & I also like my complete collection of hard backed books. I could be tempted to play a game of 4th/5th if I hadn't lost all my magic cards in a fire. I expect I will be playing 8th forever now unless an epic U-turn occurs :)

Spiney Norman
07-01-2017, 09:11
I want to play 8th edition. 9th Age is too comped, especially the 1.2 ruleset. I don't want to play Kings of War. I want to roll up with my Big Red Book, my hard cover army books and throw down. But it seems like nobody else is interested in doing this. Why?

Too bad you don't live down our way, we have an 8th edition narrative campaign starting in Feb with ten players, it's going well to be epic. The community around here as suffered, no doubt, it's much harder to set up a game than it used to be (hence why we went the effort of setting up a campaign).

On the other hand the 'warhammer alternatives' like KoW and 9th Age are nowhere to be seen locally. 40k is played a little and LotR SBG has enjoyed a revival since the new FW book came out but hordes & warmachine, malifaux and quite a few newbies playing AoS have taken the 'fantasy' crown.

Spell_of_Destruction
10-01-2017, 00:20
I didn't play 8th very much but for me it moved too far away from the Warhammer that I had known and loved since 5th edition. The horde rules seemed a good idea on paper but it really ought to have been a feature for large, weak massed infantry not elite units. Steadfast seemed to ruin the game for me.

6th/7th was a great system ruined by self indulgent army book authors. Ravening hordes is fairly balanced in that the lists are pretty vanilla and no one faction is particularly strong - the only issue is that many options that were introduced early in 6th were not listed, never mind newer units.

If you want to play with army books, I would suggest using those released up to Deamons and Vampire Counts. High Elves 7th made a lot of necessary changes to the underwhelming 6th ed book. Remove ASF and apply a small points reduction across the board to compensate and it's actually a very nice book. Dark Elves 7th also made some much needed improvements over their 6th ed book but went more overboard than the HE book. You really need to fix the Hydra (50% point increase?), Cauldron and ban several magic items (that ridiculous ward and the ASF banner) to bring it in line with the 6th ed power level.

Astraeos
11-01-2017, 18:00
By self indulgent army book authors did you mean Matt Ward's Daemons book?

Last year one of the clubs I go to had a 5th edition revival because the guy who runs it was missing ranked battles but couldn't afford a full 8th edition army. After some discussion we settled on 5th edition, and it's nice to just play that. However the downside is that each time I play it, I ask myself why did GW scrap this game (by that I mean WHFB as it was, not just 5th) in the first place? Nostalgia can sting sometimes!

Spell_of_Destruction
11-01-2017, 23:59
Mat Ward's Daemons army book was certainly the worst offender but 7th ed VC's weren't far off. HEs and DEs were comparable aside from some truly broken choices in the DE book. Army wide ASF for HEs was just annoying for the most part and their units received some big buffs but this was matched by appropriate points hikes across the board (as awesome as Swordmasters were, you were still paying 15pts for a model with T3 and a 5+ save). Lizardmen and Skaven were pretty OP too but arguably they needed to be to match the benchmark set by Daemons, VC and DE.

5th was the edition I started with and it was certainly a lot of fun. As with 2nd edition 40k, it required some degree of restraint or 'mutual consent' between the players. My first experiences as a Wood Elf player were up against a Skaven player who ran a Grey Seer on a Manticore with the fell blade and an Undead player who ran a Vampire Lord on a Zombie Dragon with the frostblade, carstein ring and black amulet. These guys completely outclassed any characters that I could field and could wipe out entire armies on their own. I started to enjoy the game a lot more when we applied a standard limit of 50pts per magic item (which I seem to remember was recommended by the WD team for standard games). There were actually articles in WD which discussed the use of more powerful magic items and which recommended that they were omitted aside from very large games or special scenarios. I remember the classic line "the forbidden rod should be" :D.

Magic was also more powerful than 6th/7th and felt like a bit of a lottery - I didn't like the fact that my undead opponent could conceivably draw irresistable force on the first turn and wipe out half of my army with wind of death. It seemed pointless to have even put my models on the table.

6th kept a lot of the core game of 5th intact and was probably GW's best ever attempt to make a tight and balanced ruleset. The main changes were to introduce greater composition restrictions, reduce the power and influence of heroes and big monsters and to tone down magic. These changes were all pretty successful in my view. The composition system was more elegant and scaled far better than 40k's FOC (don't understand why they didn't port it over in subsequent editions of 40k). The magic system wasn't perfect - some accused it of being bland and certain aspects (such as spells which gave the caster combat buffs) were not as well implemented as they could have been. However, for the most part I thought that magic worked well - potentially game changing rather than game winning. The toning down of characters and monsters was very well implemented as it gave rank and file troops at least a fighting chance against even the most powerful units.

5th is still a lot of fun for the sheer diversity of options. 6th/7th is better suited to balanced/competitive play.

Lorcryst
12-01-2017, 09:39
I still love 8th edition but 9th Age is very well written and the rules make sense and are clarified. AOS on the other hand, well is a beer and pretzels game. If you want to play a game that is supported by GW and fights in a Cluster-******* fight in the middle. Stay with AOS lol.

Noooooope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

If all your games of AoS devolve into a big melee in the middle of the board, you're not playing AoS.

As for me, I started collecting minis in 4th ed, but only really started playing games with 6th ed ...

6th ed : overpowered Heroes, useless O&G army, ubercombos for Chaos ... not very fun getting rolled over by the "must have, soooo good" armies.

7th ed : ubermagic armies (Daemons, VC), half-inch shuffle, charge with fear causing outnumbering unit = win the game. Again, not fun when you're trying to play a thematic army, alone in a crowd of WAACers ...

8th ed : the more models you have, the more you win. Even with my Night Goblins. A couple of units of 100 NGs and lots of shamans = win. Don't need an opponent, I-WIN-BUTTON can play alone. Still not really fun.

And now I play AoS, and I actually enjoy it tremendously, it takes me back to my roots as a roleplayer, it's simple in appearance but surprisingly complex once you figure out the finer points of unit shapes and movement, you can play with everything you like, set yourself hard restrictions and STILL have a chance of winning, etc.

I really don't understand the hate for this game, for me it's the best thing that happened in wargaming in the last three decades.

To each their own I guess ...

Now, flame away WhineSeerites !

AFnord
12-01-2017, 23:16
The horde rules seemed a good idea on paper but it really ought to have been a feature for large, weak massed infantry not elite units. Steadfast seemed to ruin the game for me.


Indeed. It felt like they were trying to fix a rather big issue that WHFB had had for a long time: Cavalry being better than infantry. Basically most infantry was ballpark balanced compared to other infantry, and most cavalry was ballpark balanced compared to other cavalry, but when you put infantry against cavalry, cavalry would generally do much better. I think GW was trying to move the focus to infantry, but the rules were not very well thought out, and combat could often just end up in a slow boring grind. Magic felt like it was made really really strong to counterbalance infantry, but they went overboard there as well. 8th edition was the edition that killed WHFB for me, for this reason. AoS was the edition that then went on and burnt the corpse and salted the ground around it.

Galadrin
13-01-2017, 02:36
Noooooope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

If all your games of AoS devolve into a big melee in the middle of the board, you're not playing AoS.

As for me, I started collecting minis in 4th ed, but only really started playing games with 6th ed ...

6th ed : overpowered Heroes, useless O&G army, ubercombos for Chaos ... not very fun getting rolled over by the "must have, soooo good" armies.

7th ed : ubermagic armies (Daemons, VC), half-inch shuffle, charge with fear causing outnumbering unit = win the game. Again, not fun when you're trying to play a thematic army, alone in a crowd of WAACers ...

8th ed : the more models you have, the more you win. Even with my Night Goblins. A couple of units of 100 NGs and lots of shamans = win. Don't need an opponent, I-WIN-BUTTON can play alone. Still not really fun.

And now I play AoS, and I actually enjoy it tremendously, it takes me back to my roots as a roleplayer, it's simple in appearance but surprisingly complex once you figure out the finer points of unit shapes and movement, you can play with everything you like, set yourself hard restrictions and STILL have a chance of winning, etc.

I really don't understand the hate for this game, for me it's the best thing that happened in wargaming in the last three decades.

To each their own I guess ...

Now, flame away WhineSeerites !

Dude, you should reaaaaally try 4th Edition.

Spell_of_Destruction
13-01-2017, 03:54
Yes, I'm sure he'll find it a blast considering he found heroes to be OP in 6th! :D

Lorcryst
13-01-2017, 06:35
Dude, you should reaaaaally try 4th Edition.

While I never had the chance to actually play, I had all the books and read them carefully ... and it didn't "click" with my wants and needs.

Sorry, a bit too complex for my poor befuddled brain, and I was 14 years old at that moment, I just wanted to put my "RPG characters" on the table and roll some dice.

And that's one of the reasons I like AoS so much, I finally can use a couple of minis, devise a scenario/battleplan, roll dice and avoid overloading my brain :biggrin:

Galadrin
15-01-2017, 02:11
While I never had the chance to actually play, I had all the books and read them carefully ... and it didn't "click" with my wants and needs.

Sorry, a bit too complex for my poor befuddled brain, and I was 14 years old at that moment, I just wanted to put my "RPG characters" on the table and roll some dice.

And that's one of the reasons I like AoS so much, I finally can use a couple of minis, devise a scenario/battleplan, roll dice and avoid overloading my brain :biggrin:

Rick Priestley has said that 4th Edition was always his favorite edition of Warhammer. If that's not a ringing endorsement, I don't know what is! You should give it another look!

Lorcryst
15-01-2017, 06:11
Rick Priestley has said that 4th Edition was always his favorite edition of Warhammer. If that's not a ringing endorsement, I don't know what is! You should give it another look!

You're a bit of a fanboi aren't you ? :angel:

The only problem with that is finding other people to play ... most of the gaming clubs here in Belgium play either AoS/40K with the latest rules or "misc other" games ... and my own gaming group has made the transition to AoS without looking back.

zoltan
15-01-2017, 11:09
In 1st and 2nd edition it was finding its legs. In 3rd edition it was a good game but complicated. 4th and 5th simplified things and were good except heroes were too overpowered. 6th was the pinnacle with much of 4th the same or better and heroes brought into line. After 6th with ravening hordes the slow descent to train wreck began. There were some good additions later, but they were far out weighed by the bad.

3rd and 6th are the best 2 editions depending on how complex or streamlined you want things imo.

Galadrin
15-01-2017, 11:53
You're a bit of a fanboi aren't you ? :angel:

That, sir, is an understatement.

You'd be surprised at how many people still have their 4th and 5th army book on the bookshelf at home... just ask around! I noticed they just did a big 5th edition tournament in Poland (https://gameoftravel.com/category/herohammer/), so it might be easier than you think!

Lorcryst
15-01-2017, 13:58
Oh, I have all my old books myself ... but I'm the only one in a 150 kms radius around my town ... and well, Poland is roughly 2500 kms from Belgium, a bit too far to go to a tournament (not even talking about the fact that I visceraly hate tournaments and competitive play).

Malagor
16-01-2017, 02:08
Indeed. It felt like they were trying to fix a rather big issue that WHFB had had for a long time: Cavalry being better than infantry. Basically most infantry was ballpark balanced compared to other infantry, and most cavalry was ballpark balanced compared to other cavalry, but when you put infantry against cavalry, cavalry would generally do much better. I think GW was trying to move the focus to infantry, but the rules were not very well thought out, and combat could often just end up in a slow boring grind. Magic felt like it was made really really strong to counterbalance infantry, but they went overboard there as well. 8th edition was the edition that killed WHFB for me, for this reason. AoS was the edition that then went on and burnt the corpse and salted the ground around it.
I think it's more that GW tried to be more realistic(funny I know) about it. Horde formation isn't an issue unless you are facing high elves with their stupid banner but that's the fault of the army book and not the rule itself which in turns enhances several armies like beastmen for which the rule seem to have been written for and the only ones that I have seen use it, everyone else focus on ranks.
Steadfast however is the clear answer to making infantry good enough and it does just that.
Now I have had a few matches where everything just ended up in a big fight in the middle of the board where all units were fighting each other and it became a grind but it was actually funny.

Most of the time however I never see that. From what I have noticed with talking to friends that live in other cities and on this forum is that people play 8e very differently depending on where you are. Some areas, just one 2500pts match can take like 5-6 hours where in my area we play 3000pts matches in 2-3 hours. Some play very abusivly, picking the absolute best in their book and abusing every rule as much as they can and this is usually where the most complaints come from but where I play and others, we play it more casual, not as hardcore with the rules, picking fun units over the competitive ones and here the rules work alot better.
We got centers and we got flanks and the main fight will usually be at the center in which the units on the flank will exploit and one goal is usually to clear the flanks so you can do a nice pincer move and crush the opponent, that's usually how our matches go so we rarely get this slow grind(except in the center but that's where steadfast comes in and it does so nicely.) but a more fluid game where the fighting usually only lasts maybe 1-2 rounds of fighting before one wins that fight and the unit that won is free to usually support the ones in the center.

In most historical battles, the main fighting was usually done in the center, maybe not the most important part of a battle but in general, if your center falls, you are doomed. We do the same, this isn't intentional but it's just instinct so you were to see us play you will usually see the big infantry blocks in the middle, usually the core choices so not the elite and usually around 50 models big but rarely in horde formation since going for steadfast here. They are sent forward like paws in a chess game and encounters the other guy's center and then the what you can call grind begins but it's suppose to do so. They will just hold but if you are lucky, you might win the fight and the opponent roll badly causing them to run away and there you go, you broke his center.
Some might do more fancy tricks like having his troops in a C-like position and it can work but still, the center is for the grind as it should be and it up to the flanks to ensure that the center is protected but also to flank the opponent's center.
Like the Battle of Gaugamela, Alexander knew his center would hold so it important for the flanks to hold more so since if they failed, then the Persians would just roll up the center and win.
So for this, Steadfast is a very good rule and while I understand that not everyone has had experiences like the ones I have every week, I wouldn't blame the rules, I would blame the players.
Strange thing to do since everyone has different tastes and wants to play the game differently and that's fine but when I read about players having nothing but grinds in 8e, I feel sorry for them since from my perspective, they are missing out on what feels like the true spirit of the game.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
17-01-2017, 07:35
I still have my 4th/5th, 6th, 7th and some 8th ed army books. They are...my preciousssss. No, seriously, the short stories contained therein are still easily my favorite from any game system I've played since.

Late 8th edition was rather unpleasant, although I would have been thrilled if they could have at least completed the editions. The End Times really turned me off to Fantasy. Had I known they were going to nuke the whole place, I would have played more games while I still could.

After much thinking, I have to say that 6th edition was the best edition in my humble opinion. While I hated that the army books were subjectively written, they now stand out from all the other later books which just copy and pasted elements of the 4th/5th edition books and threw in some hyperbolic and contrived drivel.

Horace35
17-01-2017, 10:11
The end times didn't happen for me, I just put my fingers in my ears and ignored it :)

I am with Malagor and have a similar experience with 8th, except I doubt I could ever get a 3000 point game done inside 3 hours. Including setup & tidy away I reckon a 2500 point game would take me around 4-5 hours. This would be sped up a touch if I played more regularly.

I never understood the magic criticism of 8th, I find it no more powerful than any other edition. Miscasts always seem incredibly punishing to me.

I have also never seen anybody put down multiple units of 100+ Night Goblins & shamans, but I guess that is down to who you play with.

Lorcryst
17-01-2017, 11:08
I have also never seen anybody put down multiple units of 100+ Night Goblins & shamans, but I guess that is down to who you play with.

That was me :angel:

And it was mostly due to the fact that the only three other players in my town at that time were ultracompetitive WAACers that played Vampire Counts, Tzeentch WoC or Tzeentch Daemons ... after a couple of turns my big blocks of 10x10 gobboes were down to 40 or so, so I was able to stand a charge and still keep Steadfast and Horde rules ...

I did try, honestly and for a long time, to play a MSU style army in that particular "meta", but after being roflstomped several times I was totally fed up ... I even started my Nurgle Daemons army to have a slight chance of not losing in the second turn of the game.

And then, Glory Be, AoS came and did away with the "win with your wallet" mindset ... most of those rule-abusing WAACers quit right then, and the new generation of players is much more relaxed and friendly.

BTW, I think I have an army shot with that huge unit somewhere in PLOG here on WarSeer ...

Malagor
17-01-2017, 12:03
I have also never seen anybody put down multiple units of 100+ Night Goblins & shamans, but I guess that is down to who you play with.
I have, infact seen someone put down 2 units with 100 night goblins in each with lords, heroes and shamans in each of them.
Needless to say, it doesn't do well and generally lose.
All it takes is one of those bigs spells and those big units are reduced to nothing which is the point of the powerful spells, to remove deathstars and it did just that until High Elves showed up and brought it back.
Remember during the days when 9th Age was good enough and one of the threads on their forums was that deathstars are back and it was due to them nerfing those big spells.

Lorcryst
17-01-2017, 16:52
In my case, I faced *three* Terrorgheist or a lot of bolt spells at 2000 points, so I didn't need to worry about the Nuke Spells ... but you're right, winning or even drawing back then with a thematic Night Goblin force was a myth ...

Malagor
17-01-2017, 17:28
You can win with a night goblin army but not with the huge blob but rather the smaller units with fanatics, doomdivers, pump wagons and squigs.
Those types of armies can do suprisingly well, I know, I have lost to them on more then 1 occasion.
I wouldn't say MSU style but decent sized units.

Also you can't face 3 terrorgheists in a 2000pts match, you can squeeze in 2 of them but no more since you can only have 500pts in rare at that point limit and they are almost half that in points.
So if you faced 3 then your opponent cheated.

Lorcryst
17-01-2017, 19:07
Also you can't face 3 terrorgheists in a 2000pts match, you can squeeze in 2 of them but no more since you can only have 500pts in rare at that point limit and they are almost half that in points.
So if you faced 3 then your opponent cheated.

You forgot the one under the General ... I know it's beardy as hell, but it's legal : one as a mount under a naked Ghoul King is just under the 25% limit at 2K, two in Rare, and hordes of zombies to fill the Core req ... a real pain to face.

Yes, I know that a "MMU" NG army is effective, mostly due to the Doom Divers, Pump Wagons and Fanatics, but I wanted to stick to my theme, so no Wagons or Divers ... my own fault really.

That said, those three horrible humans beings are now playing Star Wars Armada, rocketting in the tournaments here in Belgium, and are STILL complete douchenozzles ... but they win, often, by a large margin, while losing friends and annoying everyone.

I'm soooooooooooooo glad they're not in the same hobby than me anymore ... they almost drove me to smash my minis, shave my head, move to Tibet and become a monk.

Yowzo
18-01-2017, 09:52
I have, infact seen someone put down 2 units with 100 night goblins in each with lords, heroes and shamans in each of them.
Needless to say, it doesn't do well and generally lose.
All it takes is one of those bigs spells and those big units are reduced to nothing which is the point of the powerful spells, to remove deathstars and it did just that until High Elves showed up and brought it back.
Remember during the days when 9th Age was good enough and one of the threads on their forums was that deathstars are back and it was due to them nerfing those big spells.

The one thing 9th age did right was put size limits and do away with stupid OP items.

No more 40 white lions, no more BotWD, etc.

While 1.2 was a couple steps under 1.1, 1.3 marginally improved on it, so over here we're sticking with 9th age.

Still better than 8th edition straight off the books.

Galadrin
18-01-2017, 16:37
Indeed. It felt like they were trying to fix a rather big issue that WHFB had had for a long time: Cavalry being better than infantry. Basically most infantry was ballpark balanced compared to other infantry, and most cavalry was ballpark balanced compared to other cavalry, but when you put infantry against cavalry, cavalry would generally do much better. I think GW was trying to move the focus to infantry, but the rules were not very well thought out, and combat could often just end up in a slow boring grind. Magic felt like it was made really really strong to counterbalance infantry, but they went overboard there as well. 8th edition was the edition that killed WHFB for me, for this reason. AoS was the edition that then went on and burnt the corpse and salted the ground around it.

Define "a long time." You may not be old enough to remember, but cavalry wasn't a problem in the 90's. It became a problem with 6th Edition and its ilk. Research the term "Cavalryhammer" and you will see what I mean... 6e slashed cavalry point values in half (Chaos Knight went from 66 pts to 33 pts, Empire Knight went from 39 pts to 23 pts and so on).

5th Edition perfectly balanced infantry, cavalry and magic. Infantry were much cheaper (8pts for a fully equipped human infantry vs 39 for a knight! That's 5 infantry for the price of one cavalry!) and had much more staying power vs missiles and artillery, cavalry were faster and could choose when and where to engage, magic was always the same whether you brought one wizard or ten... you could get one or maybe two spells off a turn, regardless of how many wizards you had. 6e also introduced Magichammer, come to think of it, since the more wizards you had, the more spells you could cast and more power you had to cast them. That was an awful idea. 5e gave you 2d6 magic cards, split between the two players! And about 40% of those cards were special cards that couldn't power spells (like Dispel, Mental Duel etc.) So on average you could hope for 3-4 magic cards a turn, only 2 or 3 of which could be used for casting (and spells cost between 1 and 3 power cards to cast). Even if you showed up with a Wizard Lord, a Master Wizard, two Wizard Champions and a gaggle of regular Wizards, you'd still only be pulling two or three power cards a turn. It made you really think about when it was smart to bring a wizard at all, and what wizard level was the most efficient use of your points.

Spell_of_Destruction
18-01-2017, 23:39
Sorry to nit-pick but fully equipped halberdiers were 10pts in 4th/5th, swordsmen and spearmen were 9pts. You're correct though that cavalry came down in price more relative to infantry. I'm not sure if that was a bad thing in terms of balance though as infantry became far more effective against the kind of large powerful monster characters that dominated 5th. I thought that cavalry were reasonable in 6th (then again, I played HE and Empire who had plenty of armour piercing ranged weapons that could deal with heavy cavalry) - it was 7th and the advent of 'super elite' cavalry when things started to get out of control.

I thought that the magic system in 6th/7th worked pretty well when not pushed to its limits. Some kind of upper limit on the number of magic levels or power dice based on the points value of the game would have prevented some of the abuses that were seen in competitive play.

toonboy78
19-01-2017, 07:09
Define "a long time." You may not be old enough to remember, but cavalry wasn't a problem in the 90's. It became a problem with 6th Edition and its ilk. Research the term "Cavalryhammer" and you will see what I mean... 6e slashed cavalry point values in half (Chaos Knight went from 66 pts to 33 pts, Empire Knight went from 39 pts to 23 pts and so on).

5th Edition perfectly balanced infantry, cavalry and magic. Infantry were much cheaper (8pts for a fully equipped human infantry vs 39 for a knight! That's 5 infantry for the price of one cavalry!) and had much more staying power vs missiles and artillery, cavalry were faster and could choose when and where to engage, magic was always the same whether you brought one wizard or ten... you could get one or maybe two spells off a turn, regardless of how many wizards you had. 6e also introduced Magichammer, come to think of it, since the more wizards you had, the more spells you could cast and more power you had to cast them. That was an awful idea. 5e gave you 2d6 magic cards, split between the two players! And about 40% of those cards were special cards that couldn't power spells (like Dispel, Mental Duel etc.) So on average you could hope for 3-4 magic cards a turn, only 2 or 3 of which could be used for casting (and spells cost between 1 and 3 power cards to cast). Even if you showed up with a Wizard Lord, a Master Wizard, two Wizard Champions and a gaggle of regular Wizards, you'd still only be pulling two or three power cards a turn. It made you really think about when it was smart to bring a wizard at all, and what wizard level was the most efficient use of your points.

that's the rules i would have for the psychic phase in 40k.

bring back cards! these 22 power dice daemon armies would be a thing of the past

Galadrin
19-01-2017, 12:24
that's the rules i would have for the psychic phase in 40k.

bring back cards! these 22 power dice daemon armies would be a thing of the past

Those WERE the rules for the psychic phase in 40k at the time (2nd Edition, the best set of rules GW ever wrote). And yes, it was glorious when you dropped a Daemonic Attack or Reflection card on an enemy psyker. Even the psychic duel was a fun little minigame.

Bergioyn
19-01-2017, 15:26
Mat Ward's Daemons army book was certainly the worst offender but 7th ed VC's weren't far off. HEs and DEs were comparable aside from some truly broken choices in the DE book. Army wide ASF for HEs was just annoying for the most part and their units received some big buffs but this was matched by appropriate points hikes across the board (as awesome as Swordmasters were, you were still paying 15pts for a model with T3 and a 5+ save). Lizardmen and Skaven were pretty OP too but arguably they needed to be to match the benchmark set by Daemons, VC and DE.

5th was the edition I started with and it was certainly a lot of fun. As with 2nd edition 40k, it required some degree of restraint or 'mutual consent' between the players. My first experiences as a Wood Elf player were up against a Skaven player who ran a Grey Seer on a Manticore with the fell blade and an Undead player who ran a Vampire Lord on a Zombie Dragon with the frostblade, carstein ring and black amulet. These guys completely outclassed any characters that I could field and could wipe out entire armies on their own. I started to enjoy the game a lot more when we applied a standard limit of 50pts per magic item (which I seem to remember was recommended by the WD team for standard games). There were actually articles in WD which discussed the use of more powerful magic items and which recommended that they were omitted aside from very large games or special scenarios. I remember the classic line "the forbidden rod should be" :D.

Magic was also more powerful than 6th/7th and felt like a bit of a lottery - I didn't like the fact that my undead opponent could conceivably draw irresistable force on the first turn and wipe out half of my army with wind of death. It seemed pointless to have even put my models on the table.

6th kept a lot of the core game of 5th intact and was probably GW's best ever attempt to make a tight and balanced ruleset. The main changes were to introduce greater composition restrictions, reduce the power and influence of heroes and big monsters and to tone down magic. These changes were all pretty successful in my view. The composition system was more elegant and scaled far better than 40k's FOC (don't understand why they didn't port it over in subsequent editions of 40k). The magic system wasn't perfect - some accused it of being bland and certain aspects (such as spells which gave the caster combat buffs) were not as well implemented as they could have been. However, for the most part I thought that magic worked well - potentially game changing rather than game winning. The toning down of characters and monsters was very well implemented as it gave rank and file troops at least a fighting chance against even the most powerful units.

5th is still a lot of fun for the sheer diversity of options. 6th/7th is better suited to balanced/competitive play.
How exactly were lizzies OP in 7th ed? :wtf:

Galadrin
19-01-2017, 16:07
5th was the edition I started with and it was certainly a lot of fun. As with 2nd edition 40k, it required some degree of restraint or 'mutual consent' between the players. My first experiences as a Wood Elf player were up against a Skaven player who ran a Grey Seer on a Manticore with the fell blade and an Undead player who ran a Vampire Lord on a Zombie Dragon with the frostblade, carstein ring and black amulet. These guys completely outclassed any characters that I could field and could wipe out entire armies on their own. I started to enjoy the game a lot more when we applied a standard limit of 50pts per magic item (which I seem to remember was recommended by the WD team for standard games).

I can agree with that. I also played Wood Elves throughout 5th (and about a year and change into 6th, before the blandness of 6th made me quit) and we were definitely outclassed in the characters department (like all Elf and human armies were, really). When we were young, we actually had a ton of fun playing 5th with all the options turned on, but we were all very young then... mid to early teens. Twenty years later and I definitely appreciate a sense of mutual restraint and maturity between players to keep the game more reasonable... I still like the powerful magic items and spells (being over the top is what 5e is all about), but I try to avoid the worst offenders when it comes to combos and cheesy loopholes. We haven't banned any magic item or spell in particular, but we don't abuse them either.


Magic was also more powerful than 6th/7th and felt like a bit of a lottery - I didn't like the fact that my undead opponent could conceivably draw irresistable force on the first turn and wipe out half of my army with wind of death. It seemed pointless to have even put my models on the table.

You know, the "lottery" aspect is something I really love in 5th Edition magic. It feels like your wizard can really do something... he might not, but it is possible. Your wizard might completely fry an enemy regiment one turn and then just go "pop" in a puff of smoke the next. Magic is definitely powerful in 5e, but it is also unpredictable. The problem I have is when magic is both powerful and predictable... nothing interesting happens (if you can get your wizard in position, you can be sure he will nuke X units) and it makes regular heroes and units seem unimportant. In contrast, I can't tell you how many times I've chased down a Wizard Lord in 5e with some regular infantry and pummelled him into the ground, just because his magic failed to help him. It's all a risk, a gamble, a roll of the dice... and something about that just feels, well... appropriately magical.

The Wind of Death was great, but you had to be lucky. It moved from one table edge in a straight line for an average of 11" each turn (where the heck did they expect us to get 10-sided dice?). That means it is easy to avoid, unless you deploy right near the side of the table or you don't move turn after turn (for example, a battery of warmachines on a hill). The template is also not that big, if I recall (I believe it was the same template as the Purple Sun of Xereus, but my Battle Magic box is in downstairs, so I'll take a peak later). It was definitely a great spell, though, and very thematic (which is helped by the gorgeously illustrated template).


5th is still a lot of fun for the sheer diversity of options.

I'll take 5th for everything, but you are right, this is definitely the selling point. It is crazy, over-the-top fun.

askaval30
20-01-2017, 20:44
hey I'd like to play 8th again... would be nice to march my armies of the battlefields of the old world again! Sadly no such like-minded people to be found in Baltimore. You guys with a group are lucky!

boli
26-01-2017, 10:55
I still prefer 8th as my favourite game; as it does not overly punish or reward any particular playstyle.

For every playstyle, unit or gambit you can use - there is a counter. I'm not saying ti is perfect - no system is but for every death-star, slave column "unstoppable magic" there is... you can always bring something to defend against or reduce its effectiveness.

The biggest complaints from people who hated, and hated with a passion 8th edition is from those not willing to adapt and change. I've seen battle reports from people who are swearing blur murder at steadfast but they don't have a single unit of more than 10. Others who throw abuse at cannons... but walk their hero on a monster up the middle of the field. Moan about deathstars - but then don't redirect, slow them down or simply avoid them.

I can understand why they hated things so much as the game forced them to consider the "little guy" the rank and file more to buy, more to paint and even more embarrassing those little guys can kill your general... but the best battle reports I've seen or games I've played was not one tactic or another - but a combined arms approach. Horde or bus here - hero here maybe some articlery mixed in and some magic to buff things up a bit.

Unfortunately due to circumstances I can;t play much right now but hope to in the future once i get my new placed kitted out :D

Commissar Vaughn
27-01-2017, 23:23
8th just didnt do it for me. Bought the big book, and liked it. It looked fun. But the army books ruined it for me. Every game just felt like a contest to see whose army could pack in the most gamey gimmicks. Back in 4th, and even early 5th ed "special Rules" were few and far between. 6th tried to hold back the tide a bit but was overwhelmed and by 8th there was hardly a unit in the game that wasn't special.

And when everyone is special, nobody is.

I suppose lookng back it must have been the Bretonnians that ruined it , all the way back in 5th. The first army lists were literally just lists of different units, and special rules tended to be army wide (like undead causing fear) with only a few special units. The first army books were the same, massively padded by fluff, painting guides, collecting guides and tactical ramblings. Then along came Bretonnians with all their fancy formations, virtues, blessings etc and suddenly the race was on! Maybe they were massively overcompensating for getting almost completely ignored through 4th...and by 8th we had armies that had access to at least 37 different versions of ASF.


Maybe I would have liked it more if it had actually had everything in one book- All the rules, magic, all the fluff, all the armies. One book. That would have been an incentive to keep the word count down by making better use of the stat line and a small number of universal special rules that are actually universal. They almost managed it in 6th IIRC correctly but missed by about a page...


disclaimer- this post may contain slight exaggerations for dramatic effect

scoutbike
28-01-2017, 18:58
I still prefer 8th as my favourite game; as it does not overly punish or reward any particular playstyle.

For every playstyle, unit or gambit you can use - there is a counter. I'm not saying ti is perfect - no system is but for every death-star, slave column "unstoppable magic" there is... you can always bring something to defend against or reduce its effectiveness.

The biggest complaints from people who hated, and hated with a passion 8th edition is from those not willing to adapt and change. I've seen battle reports from people who are swearing blur murder at steadfast but they don't have a single unit of more than 10. Others who throw abuse at cannons... but walk their hero on a monster up the middle of the field. Moan about deathstars - but then don't redirect, slow them down or simply avoid them.

I can understand why they hated things so much as the game forced them to consider the "little guy" the rank and file more to buy, more to paint and even more embarrassing those little guys can kill your general... but the best battle reports I've seen or games I've played was not one tactic or another - but a combined arms approach. Horde or bus here - hero here maybe some articlery mixed in and some magic to buff things up a bit.

Unfortunately due to circumstances I can;t play much right now but hope to in the future once i get my new placed kitted out :D

Sorry, I'm going to have to call nonsense here. I think you're looking at things with a little too much bias.
Whilst you're accurate in saying that some people simply don't know how to adapt, there are many problems with 8th.
Monsters aren't finding cannons a problem because of walking up the middle of the field in plain sight. They're finding cannons a problem because they have a range of most of the battlefield, are almost impossible to miss with (guess 10" from the back of the base or whatever it was), and monsters are reduced to hiding behind big scenery just to get past turn 1.
That's the only example I really want to go into detail on otherwise this post will become huge, but suffice to say there were so many problems with 8th edition that essentially invalidated many playstyles and in some cases, armies, and all because of a handful of easily exploitable mechanics.
8th edition ceased to be a game of warhammer anymore, and just a game of deathstar vs gunline vs ASF horde. Or of course you could abstain with dwarf castle.

I played 8th casually.
I played 8th competitively.
This thread asks why no-one is playing 8th.
It's because 8th sucked, and systems like AOS reminded us that games are meant to be fun.

Teurastaja
29-01-2017, 10:19
After trying T9A 1.1 I'm unable to play 8th anymore. I just can't. 1.1 is great for casual play.
On the other hand 1.2 and 1.3 aren't that fun, my group decided to ignore it completely.
I'm slowly discovering 5th ed. WFB at the moment (thanks Galadrin). Really, really interesting stuff in there.
I don't get what people see in AoS. Everytime I ask about it I read/hear something like "there are only 4 pages of rules" and "I can use what I want". I would like to read a decent, detailed article on what's good in this ruleset.

scoutbike
29-01-2017, 15:22
I don't get what people see in AoS. Everytime I ask about it I read/hear something like "there are only 4 pages of rules" and "I can use what I want". I would like to read a decent, detailed article on what's good in this ruleset.

You could just play the game. It would be more efficient than anything you could read on the subject.
The game is far more complex than 8th ever was. The real depth of the game is in the warscrolls.
The main difference I notice between 8th and AOS is that AOS feels under my control. The game gives the player a framework with which to build their tactics.
8th is a game that gives you limited options to choose from depending on the situation your opponent has left you in. With 8th you work within tight boundaries.

Ultimately, most people are playing AOS because it's good. They're not idiots, brainwashed or fanboys etc, it's simply just a good system.

I kept my 8th ed books originally just in case I wanted to play it again, but I've not given them a second look since starting AOS. Some of them have been binned now.

Teurastaja
29-01-2017, 17:55
You could just play the game. It would be more efficient than anything you could read on the subject.
The game is far more complex than 8th ever was. The real depth of the game is in the warscrolls.
The main difference I notice between 8th and AOS is that AOS feels under my control. The game gives the player a framework with which to build their tactics.
8th is a game that gives you limited options to choose from depending on the situation your opponent has left you in. With 8th you work within tight boundaries.

Ultimately, most people are playing AOS because it's good. They're not idiots, brainwashed or fanboys etc, it's simply just a good system.

I kept my 8th ed books originally just in case I wanted to play it again, but I've not given them a second look since starting AOS. Some of them have been binned now.

I've tried it when it came out. I won't do it again - even if I wanted to I wouldn't find anyone interested in my area.
I enjoy boundaries. I've never really been a fan of "take what you want" approach.

Naitsabes
29-01-2017, 19:38
8th is best for me. Too bad few still play it around here. It comes closest visually to a 'battle' while keeping wackiness in. I do understand that it's hard to collect and paint an army or three.

I really can't understand why anyone would be play a rule set with fixed charge ranges. As for the supposed popularity of AoS (not that I've seen it around here), shiny new models may have something to do with it?

Commissar Vaughn
29-01-2017, 20:33
I really can't understand why anyone would be play a rule set with fixed charge ranges.

What an odd thing to say. A fixed charge mechanic seems to work fine KOW, FOW, Frostgrave, WAB, BGK, AK47R, most versions of WH/40k, Saga, BA, GOA, DBA, Charge!, LOTR...I'm struggling to think of many sets where someone thought there was any merit in a random move. Even HC/BP/P+S dont have particularly random charge rates- the move is always a fixed distance, and it just varies how many you get.


I've never heard anyone say "I'm not playing this, its uses fixed charge distances." .

Vazalaar
29-01-2017, 20:42
Our group still plays 8th Edition. For me it was the best edition. I wanted to introduce 9th Age in our group, but the changes in 1.2 / 1.3 killed the interest my group had.. . On the otherhand AoS is looking more and more interesting. Sylvaneth and Tzeentch releases are real winners. I love the miniatures and warscrolls (rules wise). I am even warming up for the Stormcast Eternals.. if the next 2 AoS releases after those Stormcast are of the same quality as Sylvaneth and Tzeentch we will start with AoS as our main game.

Naitsabes
29-01-2017, 21:18
I've never heard anyone say "I'm not playing this, its uses fixed charge distances." .

there is a first time for everything.

what bothers me about it is even if there are two equally skilled carpenters playing and hence nobody gets shot in the foot before the run (or pre-measurement is allowed) the game is so much more predictable. I like the risk/reward decisions that come with random charges, closer to the chaos of battle. Yes, sometimes luck favors the ...reckless. but, I can live with that.

Commissar Vaughn
29-01-2017, 22:50
there is a first time for everything.

what bothers me about it is even if there are two equally skilled carpenters playing and hence nobody gets shot in the foot before the run (or pre-measurement is allowed) the game is so much more predictable. I like the risk/reward decisions that come with random charges, closer to the chaos of battle. Yes, sometimes luck favors the ...reckless. but, I can live with that.



Well having played with it and without it in many games using many different rule sets I never found it to add anything to the game. It didnt take away anything either, but its hardly game changing.

scoutbike
30-01-2017, 00:21
8th is best for me. Too bad few still play it around here. It comes closest visually to a 'battle' while keeping wackiness in. I do understand that it's hard to collect and paint an army or three.


8th comes visually closest to napoleonic warfare, sure, with the square formations and ranks and army colours and a drummer etc.
But 8th restricts you to that also. I'm not actually keen on imitating that out of force. Why do zombies line up nicely? Or savage orcs for that matter.
In AOS you use whatever formations you want, and you tend to quickly start using what is tactically best. You can go rank and file if you want, but you aren't confined to it.

As for fixed charge....... I'm not sure what you mean by that at all? In AOS, charge moves are done by rolling two dice and adding the total. If your enemy is within the result rolled then you can charge. If not then you can't. Some units may get bonuses to charge moves, or even alter the mechanic slightly. But what I've described here is the standard way. Not really sure how it's fixed, since it's a random dice roll.....

scoutbike
30-01-2017, 00:28
I enjoy boundaries. I've never really been a fan of "take what you want" approach.

So play Matched Play.
Armies are chosen to a points total, you have restrictions on how much 'core', monsters and characters you can take etc. Plenty of restriction and 'balance' for those who want that.
Matched play only allows you to choose units from your chosen grand alliance (Chaos, Order, Destruction or Death), and after that, any further freedom comes with less benefits. The more you focus your force, the more bonuses you have to choose from. A more pick and mix force will have less bonuses but will get the benefit of diverse unit choices.

Weez
30-01-2017, 20:07
We're still playing 8th edition as we find it to be still very fun. That's why we play, right?

9th age 1.1 was great and fun too. Then 1.2 and 1.3 happened and there went that.

The reason to choose 8th over 9th 1.1 is fluff and fun scenarios. It's fun to tell a story and have named characters appear every now and then.

VMBTS
30-01-2017, 21:50
Would anyone bother tell me what are the big differences between 1.1 and 1.2/1.3 in the 9th age?

Didn't find any summary or page with a comparison (and I'm too lazy to check all the rules :p ). Seen quite a few people mentioning how 1.1 was nice but went downhill from there.

Commissar Vaughn
30-01-2017, 22:17
8th comes visually closest to napoleonic warfare, sure, with the square formations and ranks and army colours and a drummer etc.
But 8th restricts you to that also. I'm not actually keen on imitating that out of force. Why do zombies line up nicely? Or savage orcs for that matter.
In AOS you use whatever formations you want, and you tend to quickly start using what is tactically best. You can go rank and file if you want, but you aren't confined to it.

As for fixed charge....... I'm not sure what you mean by that at all? In AOS, charge moves are done by rolling two dice and adding the total. If your enemy is within the result rolled then you can charge. If not then you can't. Some units may get bonuses to charge moves, or even alter the mechanic slightly. But what I've described here is the standard way. Not really sure how it's fixed, since it's a random dice roll.....

Indeed, I don't think anyone was comparing Charge mechanics in AOS with the one in 8th; AOS and 8th both use a random roll to determine charge range. Previous versions of Warhammer used a fixed distance (usually tied to the Move value of the unit in question). There isn't really a difference, though I think fixed ranges tend to make you box a bit clevererer. Random ranges make it a bit more " Is it in, Is it out, Aw ******* it, lets shake it all about." I'ts not a huge difference though.

8th didn't have much in common with Napoleonics, like its predecessors it was a bit more Medieval/Rennaisance with a hint of Ancients.

HsojVvad
31-01-2017, 01:06
9th age 1.1 was great and fun too. Then 1.2 and 1.3 happened and there went that.

What happened in 1.2 and 1.3?

Folomo
31-01-2017, 18:36
What happened in 1.2 and 1.3?

The main changes from 1.1 to 1.2-1.3 are:
- Warmachines: more wounds, less toughness. More specialized and cheaper. They use BS instead of templates. Templates simplified as area attacks.
- Army composition: Lords and heroes merged into one slot. Rare is replaced by specific slots per army, like "gunpowder" and "Big monsters". all slots % change depending on army background.
- Magic: Magic was toned down and miscast made harsher.

sedgey
31-01-2017, 20:30
Monsters aren't finding cannons a problem because of walking up the middle of the field in plain sight. They're finding cannons a problem because they have a range of most of the battlefield, are almost impossible to miss with (guess 10" from the back of the base or whatever it was), and monsters are reduced to hiding behind big scenery just to get past turn 1.
I'm an 8th ed player who enjoys fielding monsters, and I totally get the frustration with cannons (I've always felt they should have an arc of fire, and if they want to pivot that should count as moving) -- but there are only a few armies that have them. They were annoying when you faced them, but there were ways of coping with them, and most armies you'd face wouldn't have any at all.



That's the only example I really want to go into detail on otherwise this post will become huge, but suffice to say there were so many problems with 8th edition that essentially invalidated many playstyles and in some cases, armies, and all because of a handful of easily exploitable mechanics.
8th edition ceased to be a game of warhammer anymore, and just a game of deathstar vs gunline vs ASF horde. Or of course you could abstain with dwarf castle.
I'm not going to doubt that this was your experience with 8th, but I feel a lot of this is based on the way the people you game with approach things. Of the playstyles you've listed, I've only ever faced the dwarf castle, and that was just the once. I imagine if my opponents had only ever used deathstars etc., then I never would have got the enjoyment from 8th that I do.

HsojVvad
31-01-2017, 22:11
The main changes from 1.1 to 1.2-1.3 are:
- Warmachines: more wounds, less toughness. More specialized and cheaper. They use BS instead of templates. Templates simplified as area attacks.
- Army composition: Lords and heroes merged into one slot. Rare is replaced by specific slots per army, like "gunpowder" and "Big monsters". all slots % change depending on army background.
- Magic: Magic was toned down and miscast made harsher.

Thank you for reply.

Vazalaar
31-01-2017, 22:31
Thank you for reply.

Army specific magic lores were removed... . I am not a fan of 1.2 / 1.3, BUT now I have said that, you still should give 9th Age 1.2 / 1.3 a try and see if you like it or not. The changes from 1.1 to 1.2 / 1.3 were mainly caused for IP reasons... .

Naitsabes
01-02-2017, 05:07
I'm not going to doubt that this was your experience with 8th, but I feel a lot of this is based on the way the people you game with approach things. Of the playstyles you've listed, I've only ever faced the dwarf castle, and that was just the once. I imagine if my opponents had only ever used deathstars etc., then I never would have got the enjoyment from 8th that I do.

This! 8th had some rough edges but, I have no doubt that the people with the "right" (read: wrong) attitude will find a way to ruin a game with any of the other rule sets mentioned in this thread.

Weez
02-02-2017, 23:45
This! 8th had some rough edges but, I have no doubt that the people with the "right" (read: wrong) attitude will find a way to ruin a game with any of the other rule sets mentioned in this thread.
Agreed! As with anything, who you play with will give you a very different experience. I had a group that played to win, but to have fun. So you never saw massive deathstars or blender lords, etc. Armies were tough and obviously trying to exploit a weakness of the other army, but never trying to exploit to win.

Or even, I remember once a friend told me in advance "hey, I'm going to bring a cheesy list because I've always wanted to try it, don't hate me - just this once." And I said "sure". He destroyed me, but it was fun anyway! In case you're curious it was a DE hellebron and hag list with witch elves.

StygianBeach
07-02-2017, 10:41
Aside from that though I'd mostly stick to late 6th edition and early 7th edition (the important thing for me is using the 6th edition Wood Elf book you see), or some hybrid of 6th and 8th since I like elements of both.

The 6th ed Wood Elf book was brilliant for encouraging the Wood Elf army to play skirmish style. I was disappointed they they rolled Asrai Archery into the arrow upgrades in the 8th ed book.
TMARichards had some great battle reports with his 6th ed Wood Elves in 8th ed, Sadly all his videos have been removed from youtube. He played MSU like crazy and every unit could be given redirection duty and be sacrificed on a whim.

I was similarly disappointed with the 8th ed Dark Elves book, I was fed-up with the excessive re-rolls of the 7th ed book. Then the 8th ed book dropped and the number of re-rolls was doubled.

I would happily have a game of 8th ed, but I would also be equally happy playing 5th or 7th. I think (as has already been pointed out) therein lies the rub.
There are things that I like about all editions of Warhammer, so I would actually prefer some sort of hybrid of the editions. Of course my hybrid preference would be different to any other persons hybrid edition which creates gaming inertia that is easier to just avoid.

I tried getting on board the 9th age train, but there were too many things I did not agree with (including certain name changes).

Oogie boogie boss
07-02-2017, 11:07
Me and my friends ONLY play 8th. No AoS, no Kings of War. We loved 8th, loved the Old World and all have full armies, so why stop? Still pissed they decided to scrap the in-depth, interesting world they'd spent decades creating in favour of a badly thought out 40k feeder game......but I digress. I don't see any reason to stop playing 8th; most of the models are still readily available (sorry Brets players).

I imagine when they do they same with 40k and blow everything up End Times-style, we'll just keep playing that too.

Wulfhund
08-02-2017, 18:53
Would love to play 8th edition. While some of the models for Age of Sigmar are cool, the rules and game system in general don't spark my love for the hobby.

I don't know anyone around here that does miniature wargaming though. The closest shoppes are too far for me to go to. :(

Gen.Steiner
17-02-2017, 09:43
I play 6th, when I play Warhammer. I have an Oldhammer game in April lined up at WHW - my opponent is bringing 3rd Edition and 3rd Edition era figures to face off against my 6th Edition vintage Empire army. I never liked 7th, hated 8th, and find 6th to be the pinnacle of WFB.

On the other hand, I'm yet to have even a single game of AoS... I keep putting it off. Must try it one of these days.

GrandmasterWang
20-02-2017, 03:23
Me and my friends ONLY play 8th. No AoS, no Kings of War. We loved 8th, loved the Old World and all have full armies, so why stop? Still pissed they decided to scrap the in-depth, interesting world they'd spent decades creating in favour of a badly thought out 40k feeder game......but I digress. I don't see any reason to stop playing 8th; most of the models are still readily available (sorry Brets players).

I imagine when they do they same with 40k and blow everything up End Times-style, we'll just keep playing that too.
I still play eighth edition.

There is a cool little 8th edition Warhammer Fantasy forum called reflect (eighth edition for life) which is worth checking out.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Commissar von Toussaint
03-03-2017, 23:16
I play 6th, when I play Warhammer. I have an Oldhammer game in April lined up at WHW - my opponent is bringing 3rd Edition and 3rd Edition era figures to face off against my 6th Edition vintage Empire army. I never liked 7th, hated 8th, and find 6th to be the pinnacle of WFB.

After the nightmare of Herohammer (5th ed.) 6th was absolutely wonderful. GW embraced many of the changes players had been clamoring for, and for the first few years I was quite content and obsessively collected both books and armies.

Alas, instead of building on that success, GW did what it always does and jacked it up.

As soon as I got wind of the impending new edition, I dumped all my books on ebay (recouping most of their cost) and decided to try my hand at making up my own rules. I think they're excellent, but the biggest weakness is that I don't have cool artwork and proprietary fluff to go with them. GW was always good at that and I think it was one reason why they're still dominant and I'm pretty much invisible. (Okay, their marketing dept is also considerably larger than mine.)

So, it's kind of a mixed bag: the edition I liked went away, but I was spurred to finally write a rule book and that led to me writing other books as well. Big win! :)

As far as I'm concerned, play whatever edition you like. If it's a good system, people will stay with it. 2nd ed. 40k's been dead for almost 20 years, and yet there's still a fan base for it. Maybe 8th will go the same way.

Yowzo
07-03-2017, 13:25
As far as I'm concerned, play whatever edition you like. If it's a good system, people will stay with it. 2nd ed. 40k's been dead for almost 20 years, and yet there's still a fan base for it. Maybe 8th will go the same way.

Most of the hardcore fans of 8th have moved on to 9th age, which is still 8th edition for most intents and purposes (drifting away, though)

Cèsar de Quart
07-03-2017, 14:37
Most people tend to roll back to whatever edition they started with, if it was one of the good ones. The oldest ones play 3rd, the 20-lates to 30-somethings play 5th or 6th (I play 6th myself when I'm not playing 40k). Probably those who started the game few years ago, well into the 2000's, will play 7th.

8th is just not a very fun or balanced ruleset in my opinion.

Gen.Steiner
07-03-2017, 18:21
Most people tend to roll back to whatever edition they started with, if it was one of the good ones. The oldest ones play 3rd, the 20-lates to 30-somethings play 5th or 6th (I play 6th myself when I'm not playing 40k). Probably those who started the game few years ago, well into the 2000's, will play 7th.

8th is just not a very fun or balanced ruleset in my opinion.

Yeh, pretty much. I started Warhammer seriously with 6th after my poor old Dwarves got clobbered by the Von Carsteins one too many times in 5th ("What do you mean, I can't even wound you!") and I'm 30... I was, what, 13 or so when 6th came out?

Yowzo
08-03-2017, 10:39
Most people tend to roll back to whatever edition they started with, if it was one of the good ones. The oldest ones play 3rd, the 20-lates to 30-somethings play 5th or 6th (I play 6th myself when I'm not playing 40k). Probably those who started the game few years ago, well into the 2000's, will play 7th.

8th is just not a very fun or balanced ruleset in my opinion.

I started with 4th (just turned 40), 6th was probably my peak of game and tournament activity and to me 8th was the best warhammer edition all things considered. Every edition had its share of wtf-rules, but other than magic being too random but still a no-brainer 8th wins hands down.

Horace35
08-03-2017, 12:03
Similar, I started in 4th but my peaks were probably 5th and early 8th. I find 8th a fun ruleset and think it is just as balanced (if not more so) than any other edition GW has put out

Commissar von Toussaint
16-03-2017, 23:46
Most people tend to roll back to whatever edition they started with, if it was one of the good ones. The oldest ones play 3rd, the 20-lates to 30-somethings play 5th or 6th (I play 6th myself when I'm not playing 40k). Probably those who started the game few years ago, well into the 2000's, will play 7th.

8th is just not a very fun or balanced ruleset in my opinion.

Well, I started on 5th and I have zero interest in going back there. If not for Conqueror, I'd be playing 6th. Of course, I never saw 7th and 8th because I burned out on the constant revisions.

I figured 6th was as good as it was going to get. As soon as I heard it was going away, I dumped my books on ebay while they were still current so I could recoup some of their cost and decided to make the game I always talked about making but never bothered to produce. I got to have some great debates in the rules development forum, so even if I never retire on the proceeds, it was fun taking the next step from free shared thread-based rules to an actual printed copy.

Ironically, I still have the 5th ed books (yes, the edition I hate is the only one I still own), which help me to come up with unit options. They are pretty books, it was just the rules that were terrible...

jamesvalentine
18-03-2017, 11:50
after 22yrs wargaming I find the simple solutions are always the ones that cause the most controversy and arguments. I must say especially among GW gamers as a whole.
going back editions
changing rules
adding rules
taking rules
anything at all that alters the game mechanics in the slightest is met with (I have to say) mind boggling violence and rhetoric.
it really is a strange breed of gamer the GW'er
yet I can't think of a single Historical gamer or group of who always change things around and nobody bats an eyelid

Angelwing
18-03-2017, 14:48
anything at all that alters the game mechanics in the slightest is met with (I have to say) mind boggling violence and rhetoric.


I do get where you're coming from, I've seen plenty of it. But on the other side of the coin there are quite a few examples of the general community using some widely accepted house rules, so I can't agree with 'anything at all'.

Commissar von Toussaint
18-03-2017, 15:35
yet I can't think of a single Historical gamer or group of who always change things around and nobody bats an eyelid

Historical gamers have very different values and assumptions.

First and foremost they want the game to be realistic. They want to be able to re-create history or change it as the need arises.

Every rule, every mechanic, every stat is challenged from a historical standpoint.

For that reason they get very touchy about bad mechanics and try to create a "definitive" rules set on the first try. They will offer revisions as necessary, but their goal is to create a stable platform with minimal change.

This makes sense because their product releases are already designed. No one is going to release Napoleon's Old Guard - now with Winchester Rifles!!! or come with with airpower rules for the later Roman Empire.

The forces are defined up front and the challenge is to accurately reflect them.

In that sense, they have an easier job because they know up front how they need to balance the game.

But in a larger sense it's harder because they have real-world benchmarks that they have to meet for the game to be a success.

(Also, let's face it: "success" in the historical world means a lot less money than it does in the fantasy/sci-fi one.)

This is why you see historical rules that are decades old and still going strong. Each revision has to explain in detail what they are adding to the game and why. I recently dipped my toe back into that genre and noticed that the systems haven't changed much over the last 25 years. Oh, the scenarios got broader, the graphics are better and some of the mechanics have been refined, but it's still essentially the same system.

And in almost every instance, the rules are better. They've taken feedback to heart and it is a rare thing for a historical gamer to say "Nah, I liked the old version better."

Fantasy (and sci-fi) is different because it's largely imaginary. Yes, the mechanics of melee combat are well-known, but the mechanics of orcs, elves and dragons are whatever we choose to make them. Magic has the potential to trump everything else in the game (and often does). :mad:

One thing that most fantasy/sci-fi games leave out is command and control because its very difficult and constrains players. (They always leave out logistics, which is funny because that matters more than anything.)

If the goal for a historical gamer is realism, the goal for the fantasy/sci-fi is fun. :D

The problem is that there is no objective benchmark for that, and this is why everyone has their own favorite version.

GW also has an obsessive need to sell product and has long valued sales over game design. Each new edition gives them opportunities to compel people to retool their armies at modest to considerable expense.

This makes people angry and it also causes them to question why design decisions were made. For example, why do units need to be five models wide to get a rank bonus when four was the standard for many years? Obviously, it was to sell more models.

If the goal was to make formations larger, the game system itself would reward broader frontages.

That's very different from a historical gamer's approach, who would look at history and determine what the tradeoff is. Depth gives better mobility and impact at the point of attack, but width gives you more troops engaged at the point of attack, so if a four-wide unit attacks a six-wide one, the narrower one is outnumbered 3 to 2 (bad) but may have the mass to break the thinner line (good). The dice and stats then resolve the resulting impact.

Getting back to my original theme, Warhammer 5th ed. is so different from what came after that it really is a different game. If you play it as written, it's a tactical exercise where tiny units serve as escorts to powerful characters who use magic items and spells to destroy each other.

I don't know about the later edition, but 6th really toned down characters (both in number and in power) so it felt more like a mass-combat system. I liked the outnumbering rule because it gave an incentive to have a bigger unit (which made sense from a realism perspective) but didn't force players to do anything. In fact, small units flourished despite that rule.

No historical gamer would tolerate a system that veered from making tanks unbeatable to nearly useless, but - as you correctly say - GW players are a strange bunch. :p

jamesvalentine
20-03-2017, 11:54
No historical gamer would tolerate a system that veered from making tanks unbeatable to nearly useless, but - as you correctly say - GW players are a strange bunch. :p
indeed they are :p

Zenithfleet
20-03-2017, 15:07
Warhammer 5th ed. is so different from what came after that it really is a different game. If you play it as written, it's a tactical exercise where tiny units serve as escorts to powerful characters who use magic items and spells to destroy each other.


Commissar, if it's not veering too far off topic: I'm curious as to why you dislike 5th ed WFB but enjoy 2nd ed 40K. Given that they were largely developed by the same designer/s (Rick Priestley and mates) and share many underlying mechanics, I would have thought you'd like or dislike them both equally.

Not having a go, just curious. I've heard many people make the same criticisms of 2nd ed 40K that you make of 5th ed WFB (e.g. dominated by powerful characters and magic/psychic phase; a shared pool of items/wargear that allows for abusive combos). Both systems seem to rely on gentlemen's agreements not to be silly, in order to allow flexible scenario creation and the like. Of course asking this of thirteen-year-olds may be a little risky...

If anything, because 5th ed WFB was a tidy-up edition, in theory it ought to have the advantage of spit and polish that 2nd ed 40K never received. (Though I've heard the 5th ed army books feature a fair bit of power creep.)

It could also be argued that 4th/5th's smaller model count and aforementioned superpowered characters made it cheaper for a new player (especially a young one relying on pocket money) to build a viable army. Both 6th ed WFB and 3rd ed 40K were infamous for increasing the number of models you had to buy for a standard army. A common complaint about 8th seems to be that the mass battle aspect was simply unaffordable in monetary terms. Really, 10mm Warmaster seems like a better scale for mass battles... and that system does feature command-and-control.

I've also heard it said that using the campaign rules in the back of the 5th ed Battle Book go a long way to limiting abuse of the powerful characters and magic system. It's also a fun way to invent background for your army, as I discovered recently. (Hmm, apparently my hypothetical Chaos army with its two Level 1 sorcerers controls a wizard's tower, a forest and a village... I sense a backstory coming on!)

Please note that I have no skin in this game. I've never played any edition of WFB (I did play some 2nd ed 40K), but I recently collected the 4th, 5th and 6th ed books for the background. I can't judge them on their rules basis, but generally I much prefer the 4th/5th army books fluffwise. Not surprised you hung onto them! I do have to admit that the 5th ed books, while featuring plenty that I love (Lustria!), do start to retcon the fluff in various wonky ways. The 4th ed books, on the other hand, generally fit together well fluffwise and have a pleasing 'fitting all the pieces of the history puzzle together' aspect to them when read all in one gulp.

Regarding GW's strange playerbase: I suspect this has a lot to do with catching 'em young. Either kids and teenagers (big generalisation incoming) prefer a different style of game to adults, or GW 'trains' them into preferring a certain type of game.

More generally, your points about realism vs fun are well taken--as a 3rd ed Epic player I've read many a rant from Jervis Johnson on this very topic, which may well be a factor in the Age of Sigmar design ethos too. (Assuming he worked on the AoS rules, which I haven't seen confirmed.) However, I think there's a third aspect to consider: competition.

Playing to win is a different kind of fun, and can clash with narrative/scenario-style games as well as with the urge to realism. All three are perfectly valid, but there's a certain three-way tension between them. For instance, it seems 6th ed WFB is generally regarded as the most balanced (at least with the Ravening Hordes pamphlet). Alessio Cavatore's influence is often cited as a reason behind this. Yet I've heard other people mutter that Cavatore sucked all the fun and flavour out of the game with his emphasis on competitive balance, along with GW's support of the tournament scene at the time.

In WFB, anecdotal evidence (the best kind of evidence! :shifty:) tells me most players apparently preferred to default to Pitched Battle despite all the other available scenarios in both 5th and 6th. The same happened to me in my teen years playing 3rd ed 40K. My own logic was that this kind of line-up-and-fight game was the most 'fair and balanced'. After all, if you're playing some crazy flank attack or whatever, how can you be sure you're the best general? Likewise, playing with an underdog army can feel unfair--but what if that army is intentionally underpowered for realism, or adherence to fluff in sf/fantasy games? In the original release of Battlefleet Gothic, Orks were underpowered and Space Marines were much better at planetary-attack scenarios than fleet actions, but both of those things were clearly intended to match the 40K background.

I sometimes get the impression that players who prefer competitive and tournament gaming--not the demonised WAAC types, but just people who find the battle of wits to be their favourite part of a wargame--can slowly drag a system toward a chess-like world where the forces on both sides are more or less symmetrical and even the terrain is mirrored. That's an extreme caricature, but it seems to have happened with Epic (Armageddon is notably tournament-focused compared to the DIY ethos of the maligned preceding edition) and LotR SBG (which over the years moved more and more from scenario-based historical refights to 'line up and have at it' context-less clashes, even in official supplements). With rumours of a new Battlefleet Gothic on the horizon, set during the Horus Heresy, many players are excited precisely because both sides will presumably use the same ship classes and therefore the game will be more balanced.

As an aside, LotR SBG (in its pre-Hobbit incarnation) is an interesting case because while it's a fantasy game, its emphasis on refights and 'what if?' scenarios leans in a historical-wargame direction. Not to mention both Rick Priestley and Alessio Cavatore worked on the rules. The holy trinity of fun, realism and balance? I haven't played it enough to be sure :p

...Oh God, another wall of text. It must be after midnight again... :angel:

Commissar von Toussaint
20-03-2017, 18:30
Commissar, if it's not veering too far off topic: I'm curious as to why you dislike 5th ed WFB but enjoy 2nd ed 40K. Given that they were largely developed by the same designer/s (Rick Priestley and mates) and share many underlying mechanics, I would have thought you'd like or dislike them both equally.

I will preface my remarks by noting that much (not all, but a significant amount) of criticism directed against 2nd ed. 40k is simply incorrect. People either got the rules plain wrong or heard someone tell them sometime that it was totally lame.

Yes, they did share mechanics, but because of the different genres, game play was very different. Both had balance issues, but they were less severe in 40k because the weapons and units were deadlier. The only real way to kill a hero in Fantasy is with another hero or some crazy war machine. Basic troopers can't get it done.

In 40k, the ways to kill were numberless. Every army could rain hideous kinds of death on the battlefield. Go stick that bloodthirster/avatar/demolisher/carnifex/doomlord out in the middle of the table and see how fast it gets cut in half by a dozen different weapons. The basic lascannon - something almost every army list has in its inventory - can kill just about everything in the game.

With all that firepower, good tactics were critical. Before I started playing, I watched a guy boldly (and foolishly) advance a terminator squad over open ground was a safe play. They had a captain leading them and some storm shields, so the player probably figured that they were tough enough to take anything on the board.

None survived the shooting phase because his opponent knew and employed the concept of inter-locking fields of fire. :evilgrin:

In Herohammer (aka 5th ed WHFB) you used your super-powers to negate tactics. Oh, so you turned your opponents flank and have a superior tactical position? Too bad, Wind of Death just killed all those guys. Or the unit you charged happens to have a character with an insane amount of attacks because he's frenzied and carries a sword that allows another attack for every hit (I think it was the Hydra Sword).

It was a rude awakening. I took the basic rules at face value and then watched as my small but (allegedly) solid units were overrun without so much as a blow being struck.

Part of the problem was that the army books had serious codex creep. The Empire book was really showing its age by the time Bretonnians came out, but there were game concepts that made no sense anyway.

Greatswords, for example, always swung last, even if they charged.

Also, there was no fill-in, so if you killed the model in the front rank before it could attack, that was that.

Who in their right mind would use these things? Oh, the high elf guys got a special rule (because all high elf units got special rules :rolleyes: ) so they did, but unless a unit had very high WS, T or a big armor save, it was pointless.

Magic and Psykers were similar systems, but you didn't really need them in 40k. You had to have it in WHFB because some armies didn't work without it.

And don't get me started on Chaos. I remember a game where my hellblaster was killed and my winged lancers reduced to half movement before the game even started. :wtf:

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

I think it is a telling difference that 2nd ed 40k still has devoted followers while the older warhammer versions really don't. Just do a price check on ebay - 2nd ed. books are selling well above their original price while the 5th ed fantasy books are worth much less (and I assume that much of their value has to do with collectors and relative rarity rather than people actually playing with it).

I think 5th could have been a better game, and with house rules and some restrictions, the game worked. 6th ed fixed the hero problem, but added in some others.

(Of course my game rules fixed everything :D ).

I've said before that I think people should play what they enjoy and one advantage of GW abandoning a game is that the players can actually take control and make consensus fixes that GW resisted. This is basically the way things were with 2nd 40k. Hopefully fantasy will see the same thing happen.

toonboy78
21-03-2017, 11:11
I remember a game where my hellblaster was killed and my winged lancers reduced to half movement before the game even started. :wtf:



i remember when my mates orks were reduced to 50% by virus outbreak.... before the game started

Buddy Bear
21-03-2017, 20:30
i remember when my mates orks were reduced to 50% by virus outbreak.... before the game started

Or the Tyranid special rules killed a couple of my guys and made my Land Speeder crash and burn before the game started. But anyway...


In 40k, the ways to kill were numberless. Every army could rain hideous kinds of death on the battlefield. Go stick that bloodthirster/avatar/demolisher/carnifex/doomlord out in the middle of the table and see how fast it gets cut in half by a dozen different weapons. The basic lascannon - something almost every army list has in its inventory - can kill just about everything in the game.

This is true. More than once I blew away a friends Bloodthirster with my Space Marine Scouts toting a Lascannon.

Commissar von Toussaint
21-03-2017, 23:17
Or the Tyranid special rules killed a couple of my guys and made my Land Speeder crash and burn before the game started. But anyway...


Those weren't Tyranid special rules per se, those were their equivalent to Strategy Cards. Sirus Outbreak was also a Strategy Card.

I always thought Strategy Cards were stupid, but they were also optional - so optional, in fact, that the rules in Dark Millennium explicitly stated that players were free to set aside a result they didn't like.

The Chaos gifts were an integral part of the Chaos army book. There was nothing in there where the opponent got to claim a mulligan if the card draw was unbalancing.

I never used Strategy Cards because they were so unbalancing that the game wasn't fun. Ultimately, I also opted against 5th ed. fantasy as whole for the same reason.

jamesvalentine
22-03-2017, 13:12
*hugs LotR* I remember the perfection

The_Real_Chris
23-03-2017, 09:42
I played 2nd ed with the GT rules - so 25% limit on characters, no top level powers (for my 'Stealer cult that meant no Catalyst giving the 'stealers 5+ armour saves on 2D6...) and a default VP system if not using specific scenario conditions which was 1 VP for every 100 points or part thereof for each unit and character (so a unit costing 150 points is worth 2VP if wiped out or below 50% and broken at the end of the game). Though we normally had either objectives giving extra or a specific victory condition for each side with normally a secret side plot.

I post this to enquire if 5th ed Fantasy had a similar GT system?

I believe oldhammer players go for 3rd ed?

dalezzz
23-03-2017, 14:06
3rd and 6th are both popular i believe , personally i like 8th :)

But yeah "old hammer" normally refers to 3rd

toonboy78
23-03-2017, 14:52
I post this to enquire if 5th ed Fantasy had a similar GT system?



200pts
no allies
no unridden monsters
no lvl4 wizards
no magic power 3 spells
no items more than 50pts

this was for tournaments in around 1996ish

Yowzo
24-03-2017, 12:23
In Herohammer (aka 5th ed WHFB) you used your super-powers to negate tactics. Oh, so you turned your opponents flank and have a superior tactical position? Too bad, Wind of Death just killed all those guys. Or the unit you charged happens to have a character with an insane amount of attacks because he's frenzied and carries a sword that allows another attack for every hit (I think it was the Hydra Sword).

And fly high. It was the ultimate get out of jail card.

Admittedly I loved fly high when 14yr old me started with 4th edition but it removed the most important part of WHFB = movement and positioning.

Commissar von Toussaint
25-03-2017, 16:30
And fly high. It was the ultimate get out of jail card.

I forgot about that. What an absolute pain - and how annoying for a table-top miniatures game to require and off-board area for combat and movement! :wtf:

Runesight
27-03-2017, 01:19
I am not sure what is the best for WHF or even if it is much played by fans of the earlier editions.

For 40k there are a few dedicated fans that play RT rules. A good deal more play 2nd edition (almost 20 years old), I bet no one plays 3rd or 4th edition. I hear a few enjoy 5th edition for a rare game. 6th edition? 10 years from now will anyone play 7th edition? So the results from the fans say 2nd edition 40k is the hot money. What is the hot money for WFB or isn't there any?

The designers should look at the versions of gameplay that have managed to survive years and years for inspirations for the newer rules!

wes

Commissar von Toussaint
27-03-2017, 02:02
I am not sure what is the best for WHF or even if it is much played by fans of the earlier editions.

GW never managed to create a "definitive" edition of WHFB. That's why 8th isn't the default - people knew it had issues and wanted them fixed. They didn't want the setting nuked from orbit.

Fantasy was in decline for years, which also makes it hard for disgruntled players to rally around a definitive edition.

That's the advantage 2nd ed 40k enjoys. There was a sharp break between 2nd and 3rd and (I believe) 2nd was good enough that it could have been made great with a few minor revisions.

Probably the best version of fantasy I played was 6th, but the army books were all over the place. Yes, we all know that elf players whine about everything, but the Dark Elves book was so bad even GW admitted it. The whole edition was like that - good and balanced books clashing with hastily-written crap that was either overpowered or useless. All that the next two editions did was scramble the problems - it fixed some stuff but broke other things that worked fine.

It's interesting to me to see the effort in our design forum to make the definitive edition. I try not to be too much of a shameless self-promoter, but I did the same thing back in 2006 (same forum, too). You can probably guess the name. ;)

And guess what? GW's probably pulped more unsold rulebooks than I've ever sold. That's their market power and influence. Maybe a fan version will gain some traction, but I doubt it.

Yowzo
28-03-2017, 11:28
And guess what? GW's probably pulped more unsold rulebooks than I've ever sold. That's their market power and influence. Maybe a fan version will gain some traction, but I doubt it.

Have you checked 9th age? It has worldwide following, dozens of 50+ and a few 100+ player events, sends 30-something teams to the ETC.

Over here it's the only fantasy game in town (and I'm counting AoS as fantasy).

Commissar von Toussaint
01-04-2017, 16:45
I've heard about it. The only thing that would convince me to play a new system would be a combination of superior game play and more opponents.

Given that I'm content with the game I designed (and 2nd ed. 40k), the former isn't likely to happen and I rarely have time to play with the opponents I already have.

I do like reading about it, though. :)

Ewigleben
12-05-2017, 16:17
I want to play 8th edition. 9th Age is too comped, especially the 1.2 ruleset. I don't want to play Kings of War. I want to roll up with my Big Red Book, my hard cover army books and throw down. But it seems like nobody else is interested in doing this. Why?

Without having WHFB officially backed anymore people are choosing to play their favorite edition. I have found that players that liked 8th the best are happy with 9th age or 9th edition. The majority play AoS or one of those. People like me that only played 8th because it was the current edition but were not too keen on it, went back to the edition they liked best or gave up. For me it's a mix of 5th and 6th. I feel the way you do about 9th Age, with 8th edition. I have found its easier to introduce new players (if you have a few different armies) to the hobby with the edition you like best, rather than argue with long time players what edition to play. Most of the time newbs end up having fun no matter what edition and don't care/know about all of the past BS. I just stop the story progression at Storm of Chaos for 6th. My friends don't need to know about retconned stuff and blah blah blah. Its a brand new game to them. If you make it fun you will have people to play with.

CIRO
12-05-2017, 18:13
I want to play 8th edition. 9th Age is too comped, especially the 1.2 ruleset. I don't want to play Kings of War. I want to roll up with my Big Red Book, my hard cover army books and throw down. But it seems like nobody else is interested in doing this. Why?
Because without an army to expand, unless you ahve ebay money, or the like, it's jsut a bit boring.

Gen.Steiner
19-05-2017, 14:55
Well if you really want to play 8th Edition, why not ensure you have multiple armies and army books? That way you roll up with your BRB, all the relevant figures and books, and just need an opponent. :)

tenpole
19-05-2017, 23:53
I never moved off from 6th edition WFB. If anyone is interested there is a facebook group to support the 6th edition wfb. Could do with some members.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/101449027096731/

Gen.Steiner
24-05-2017, 10:47
I sent a join request to that group this morning before I left for work.

Feefait
24-05-2017, 18:17
I ahven't been around for months and months, but here is my take: We were bred and brainwashed by GW for years to abandon all old editions and rules, and even models and units with each edition. For some reason GW fans always bought into that and we spent thousands to keep up. Then Age Of Sigmar. Maybe that's 9th, I'm not sure. I lost track of editions. This was the first time my friends and I, who had played since 1992 or so finally said "Nope." Nothing against rules or anything, but more that the pricing was out of control and our game was gone as we knew it. We weren't buying new stuff. Now, here's the problem: Because we had been trained so well we also stopped playing 7th or 8th. Whatever it was. It was not the "current rules" so my friends won't touch it. So, I have thousands of painted minis in cases in the attic that I will break out to play with my kids, but other than that the game is dead (for us).

tenpole
24-05-2017, 23:13
Now, here's the problem: Because we had been trained so well we also stopped playing 7th or 8th. Whatever it was. It was not the "current rules" so my friends won't touch it. So, I have thousands of painted minis in cases in the attic that I will break out to play with my kids, but other than that the game is dead (for us). You sound like a perfect candidate for our group to see there are other souls like you flying the flag of older editions.

Gen.Steiner
25-05-2017, 10:49
I ahven't been around for months and months, but here is my take: We were bred and brainwashed by GW for years to abandon all old editions and rules, and even models and units with each edition. For some reason GW fans always bought into that and we spent thousands to keep up. Then Age Of Sigmar. Maybe that's 9th, I'm not sure. I lost track of editions. This was the first time my friends and I, who had played since 1992 or so finally said "Nope." Nothing against rules or anything, but more that the pricing was out of control and our game was gone as we knew it. We weren't buying new stuff. Now, here's the problem: Because we had been trained so well we also stopped playing 7th or 8th. Whatever it was. It was not the "current rules" so my friends won't touch it. So, I have thousands of painted minis in cases in the attic that I will break out to play with my kids, but other than that the game is dead (for us).

...why not just... you know... start playing games with your gaming group... using Warhammer 8th...?

Ultimate Life Form
29-05-2017, 12:19
We are still playing 8th Edition, and it's fun, especially the End Times. Since the End Times gives you lots of scenarios with crazy special rules and alternative victory conditions, it's a nice change. It removes the "win at all cost" mindset that can be a bit of a problem (after all there is already a 'canonical' winner established) and forces you to think out of the box, giving units a look that you would never consider in a standard situation. Also we have begun taking a more "fluffy" approach to army building without necessarily ignoring the competitive aspect of the game. It's possible to do both.

We are honestly thinking that "8th Edition is the best Warhammer ever", and this opinion is based on very solid and objective facts, not just some ideology-laden drivel. After all we all started in earlier Editions so it is not natural for us to embrace the final outing as the best. Is it the best game ever? Hell no. But it's fun and reasonably balanced. That's what counts. As for T9A? I have opted not to go down that road but my partner has and is very positive about it. So it is easily possible for WHFB and T9A to coexist. Again, it's possible to do both. Since GW's iron grip is finally broken there's no more need for trench warfare.

tenpole
29-05-2017, 20:35
6th here. Happy with it.

Yowzo
31-05-2017, 12:09
? Hell no. But it's fun and reasonably balanced. That's what counts. As for T9A? I have opted not to go down that road but my partner has and is very positive about it. So it is easily possible for WHFB and T9A to coexist. Again, it's possible to do both. Since GW's iron grip is finally broken there's no more need for trench warfare.

It's not only possible, it makes T9A much better by filing all the copyright and balance mandated blanks with the rich fluff and bonkers scenarios of the end times.

There's a nifty special character generation system down at the T9A forum, we have adapted most of the old special characters and we are running a narrative campaign with them. End-times-ish but with the good guys having a fighting chance.

WLBjork
19-06-2017, 04:44
What an odd thing to say. A fixed charge mechanic seems to work fine KOW, FOW, Frostgrave, WAB, BGK, AK47R, most versions of WH/40k, Saga, BA, GOA, DBA, Charge!, LOTR...I'm struggling to think of many sets where someone thought there was any merit in a random move. Even HC/BP/P+S dont have particularly random charge rates- the move is always a fixed distance, and it just varies how many you get.


I've never heard anyone say "I'm not playing this, its uses fixed charge distances." .

I didn't think much of the change when it was announced.

That changed when I started being able to be able to charge with my Dwarfs, as my opponents could no longer sit outside my charge range. Oh, they could sit outside my likely charge range (10"), but the RNG could put paid to that, either by favouring me or working against them.

Now I consider a variable charge range to be a useful balancing act in such cases.

Ultimate Life Form
19-06-2017, 08:33
Well, Warhammer is one big pile of random. The Terrain is random, the Magic Dice are random, your Spells are random, the Miscast is random, the Miscast table is random, Artillery is random, misfiring is random, the Misfire chart is random, hitting and wounding is random (think of the infamous Rubber Lance syndrome), saving throws are random, break tests are random, flight and pursuit are random, and then you have books that take it to the extreme like Skaven where even their Magic Items and Movement is random or Daemons of Chaos where the army itself is random. All you can do is tip the scales in your favor, but success is never guaranteed. In a game like that it makes little sense that the charge distances, of all things, should be set in stone and precise to the millimeter. There's an average charge range for every unit that gives you a good idea how far they will probably charge, but sometimes the dice will throw a wrench in your works. A canny player will still know how to play it safe, and it offers the happy-go-lucky type of player the opportunity to attempt the occasional foolhardy double-six charge, which is a huge gamble but may well win them the game.

Horace35
21-06-2017, 13:34
If there was a like button I would have pressed it for the above 2 posts

toco
18-04-2018, 14:29
I want to play 8th edition. 9th Age is too comped, especially the 1.2 ruleset. I don't want to play Kings of War. I want to roll up with my Big Red Book, my hard cover army books and throw down. But it seems like nobody else is interested in doing this. Why?

I wanted to keep playing with my 28mm Warhammer 5th ed. miniatures. But never got into the following editions because that would have cost me a fortune on books. I also lack time to play. So that's why I play 28mm fantast tabletop games with GW's Warmaster rules now. The look and feel of WHFB with the speed of Warmaster. Works perfectly. Have a look at http://www.tocoking.be/warmaster for my battle reports and modifications.

Commissar von Toussaint
19-04-2018, 00:48
Well, Warhammer is one big pile of random. The Terrain is random, the Magic Dice are random, your Spells are random, the Miscast is random, the Miscast table is random, Artillery is random, misfiring is random, the Misfire chart is random, hitting and wounding is random (think of the infamous Rubber Lance syndrome), saving throws are random, break tests are random, flight and pursuit are random, and then you have books that take it to the extreme like Skaven where even their Magic Items and Movement is random or Daemons of Chaos where the army itself is random. All you can do is tip the scales in your favor, but success is never guaranteed. In a game like that it makes little sense that the charge distances, of all things, should be set in stone and precise to the millimeter. There's an average charge range for every unit that gives you a good idea how far they will probably charge, but sometimes the dice will throw a wrench in your works. A canny player will still know how to play it safe, and it offers the happy-go-lucky type of player the opportunity to attempt the occasional foolhardy double-six charge, which is a huge gamble but may well win them the game.

Yeah, that's why I gave up on GW.

There comes a point where you're just throwing dice at each other. I guess there's a segment of the population that likes the whole "Wow, you rolled awesome! Congrats on your superior dice-rolling!" but I find it tedious. I think it has to do with limited free time. If I'm going to take the time to game, I want to at least be able to credit my loss to my opponents' skill rather than random chance.

I'm curious as to how the WFHB community will shake out as time passes. Which editions will people coalesce around? Which ones will disappear into obscurity?

It will be interesting to watch.

Arnizipal
25-04-2018, 12:20
I still play 8th. It's the edition I started WFB in, and it's always worked for me.

The 9th age looks to be where all the people who used to talk about "conga lines" migrated to. I wish them all the best with it, but the hyper-competitive environment and focus on "balance" don't appeal to me. Sure, I like a challenge in games, but I think the randomness of things like magic or O&G's Animosity add to the experience, and a game doesn't have to be balanced to be fun. I'll happily charge my Blood Dragon vampire lord into a Daemon Prince who'll probably slaughter him, because that's what he'd do in the Warhammer world, and because every so often I'll get to mount his head on my banner pole.

Age of Sigmar doesn't have ranked units or the Warhammer world, and the rules are over-simplified. Again, no appeal.

Neither Kings of War nor Warmachine are Warhammer, so hold no interest for me.

At the end of the day, the other systems are irrelevant to me. I've got friends who still play 8th, I enjoy the game, models and settings, so I see no reason to change. If no-one I knew still played, then I'd have to look to another game system; thankfully it hasn't come to that yet.

I think there are probably quite a lot of people still out there sticking with 8th, they're just not so vocal. When your game has been around for several years and is no longer supported with new rules / models, it's hard to motivate yourself to post much about it.
My feelings on the matter exactly, except I started playing during the late days of 5th edition in 1998.
6th edition is the one I love best, but 8th edition is the latest set of rules so that's what me and my buddy play.
Between us we have 6 armies (Orcs & Goblins, Vampire Counts, Dark Elves, Lizardmen, Skaven and Beastmen) so there's enough variety :)

logan054
04-05-2018, 14:08
My feelings on the matter exactly, except I started playing during the late days of 5th edition in 1998.
6th edition is the one I love best, but 8th edition is the latest set of rules so that's what me and my buddy play.
Between us we have 6 armies (Orcs & Goblins, Vampire Counts, Dark Elves, Lizardmen, Skaven and Beastmen) so there's enough variety :)

Same here, I gave it a bash but it's biggest problem is it's trying its hardest not to be warhammer, while being heavily influenced. Thankfully all the tournament players have migrated to it.

Few people locally still play 8th so I'll probably end up playing that.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
08-09-2018, 20:21
/cast threadomancy

Stumbled on this thread during a Google search looking for people playing 4/5th edition Warhammer. Turns out I was the op.

Got peer pressured into age of sigmar, but the setting still lacks any reason for me to care. :/

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Arnizipal
10-09-2018, 09:13
Some of the recent model releases were pretty good through (if quite pricy but what else is new).

Lars Porsenna
10-09-2018, 15:29
In our local community there's a growing 7th ed movement. I've thought about joining, but the time they do it doesn't work well for me (I have to work and/or go to kids soccer practice).

Damon.

Ultimate Life Form
11-09-2018, 06:21
7th Edition? The one where Daemons dominated it all? Where you either brought Vampires or Dark Elves or lost automatically? Where Beastmen and Ogres were left in a practically unplayable state? :eyebrows:

Can't really say I understand this. This gem was probably the reason WHFB died out.

Arnizipal
11-09-2018, 07:47
7th edition fixed some problems from 6th while breaking other stuff.
The core rules are ok mostly. Guess it all depends on which armies are in your group.

Retrogamer
11-09-2018, 08:09
7th Edition? The one where Daemons dominated it all? Where you either brought Vampires or Dark Elves or lost automatically? Where Beastmen and Ogres were left in a practically unplayable state? :eyebrows:

Can't really say I understand this. This gem was probably the reason WHFB died out.

While there are some issues I have with a couple of core rules in 7th, it's very playable if you use the Ravening Hordes lists from 6th.




The nature of a dead system brings up divisions. People make the decision to not play Age of Sigmar and are left with analyzing what they want from the game. If 8th wasn't really satisfactory, then they'd have no real reason to stick with 8th. Even 8th edition players couldn't come to a consensus as far as what they wanted. T9A is a testament to that.

When it came time for me to decide exactly which edition fit best with what I wanted from a gaming system, 6th was the only answer. Others may have a different idea, and that is where you get things like Oldhammer, Classichammer, T9A, even people leaving to play Kings of War or any other system that may cater to the type of game they want.

Commissar von Toussaint
30-09-2018, 13:29
While there are some issues I have with a couple of core rules in 7th, it's very playable if you use the Ravening Hordes lists from 6th.




The nature of a dead system brings up divisions. People make the decision to not play Age of Sigmar and are left with analyzing what they want from the game. If 8th wasn't really satisfactory, then they'd have no real reason to stick with 8th. Even 8th edition players couldn't come to a consensus as far as what they wanted. T9A is a testament to that.

When it came time for me to decide exactly which edition fit best with what I wanted from a gaming system, 6th was the only answer. Others may have a different idea, and that is where you get things like Oldhammer, Classichammer, T9A, even people leaving to play Kings of War or any other system that may cater to the type of game they want.

I think it was a huge mistake for GW to move past 6th. They could have refined the books, ironed out various issues, but I really liked that version. While some armies weren't very good, the RH lists combined with 6th was probably the most balanced version GW ever produced.