8th Edition Reprise - opinions, impressions, ideas

[Sexiest_hero]

People love 8th, and gw has been pushing it with WH forge and storm of magic. It's not hero hammer because you are one bad miscast or step up attack away from being hacked down. deathstars get ruined by big spells. It takes new skills. learn how to assassinate mages, bsb and Generals. don't worry about steadfast, if they are taking steadfast tests they are losing, and you are safe from vortex spells while you grind them down. To say the game is just shoving models, no tactics, and forcing you to paint more "ugly models" is just bias. It's not 7th. And belive it or not it's thriving.

[Corvus Corone]

Speaking from my area, while 7th had a good following it was always only about a third of gamers who played it. The rest of us followed it (and most of us had a great understanding of the game), because it was great to watch and clearly a good game, but we never felt compelled to get involved.

With 8th, especially recently, we noticed a whole lot more people getting involved with fantasy and now me and my group of die-hard 40k players are all painting skaven, zombies, high elves etc.

Now, I can't point to any one reason that explains this; it's a bunch of factors and we each have our own particular reasons for making the jump. Certainly the more obvious support with excellent new models and armybooks has helped, and probably the utter stagnation of 40k has too, but it's more than that. In addition, we're not the most competitive bunch; we like to win, sure, and we prefer decent game design, but we're not afraid to use units that aren't 'top tier' (e.g. rat ogres, repeater bolt throwers and stuff) - what I'm saying is, it probably doesn't bother us that some aspects of 8th aren't perfectly set up to be balanced (e.g some aspects of magic phase). We just like the game. And so does everyone else around here =).

[Scythe]

Speaking for myself, and in less degree small group of gamers around me, 8th edition pulled me back to fantasy. 7th edition quickly became a mess, with some horrible army books, and a bad general direction. Halfway, I stopped bothering and quit fantasy.

8th edition felt like a breath of fresh air. More balanced army books, a great new model direction, and a more cinematic feel to the game, which rewards the use of large units and impressive monsters. It also encourages a more flexible mindset in case something goes wrong and the dice don't work your way, and encourages you to have 'backup plans' for such occasions. Also, it feels like more is happening. Units actually stick around and cause a lot of kills on each other, instead of breaking after 3 casualties, which feels a lot more satisfying.

8th edition is not perfect by any means, but I like it a lot more than 7th edition so far.

[Askari]

Without 8th Edition I wouldn't be frequenting this section of the forum at all...

I didn't get the attraction of 7th where you painted entire regiments of troops who never even got to strike for games on end. Where an Empire army had a real chance of running off the table to panic, even at nearly full strength. A game where the magic phase consisted of "Add as many Power Dice as you can, and Gateway every turn". Nope, really don't see why anyone played it, never mind myself.

8th let everyone strike, due to step-up, let large well-led troops stand and fight, due to steadfast, and made magic more random and risky, as it should be.

Indeed, I like 8th so much I've sold off one of my 40k armies to fund a third Fantasy army. Something inconcievable a few years back.

[tmarichards]

I'd have to agree, whatever else you may say about it 7th edition ruined more hobbies and stopped more people playing that 8th edition has, which has instead brought a lot more people back into the game.

[Ghremdal]

I started playing WH in 7th edition and I am was very happy to see it go, and that 8th took its place. There are still some issues of course, but they are minor and limited to old army books.

[ashe]

I think it is to early to say 8th edition is bad after all only a handful of armies got their 8th edition books and new units. I believe that games workshop will rebalance the game with the new army books. I hope that the wood elves get a new book soon, and i hope that the new empire book include Valten and the teutogen guard, its a damn shame that probably the best looking army in warhammer is forced to fight uphill battles because of the broken special rules and the slightly overpriced unit cost. Compared to 6th edition the 8th edition rules are more fun and easy to learn, not to mention the new army building system makes more sence. I still like some of the elements of the 7th edition especially when it comes for skirmisher and warband games, which need some major adjustments to work for 8th edition.

[dragonbreath]

It's amazing the divergence of opinions. I hate to think what would happen if we were talking politics. I remember when GW changed the assault rules in 40K a few years back, 40k dwindled and WH came to the fore. After 8th came out warhammer really took off among this same group when previously only a few of liked to play. There was carping about the new charge rules, the nerfing of fear and cavalry, the erratic destructiveness of magic, and the other things mentioned above but my buddies really got into it. I have to admit I like steadfast and hated the units fleeing after a few casualties in 7th, but I do dislike the way a lot of units have been left behind in the new game and the way tactics seem to have given way to army builds. Still, no game system is perfect, and I am grateful for the many useful comments. Like I said, while I miss my Khorne horde, I still like my Chaos... The only question that hasn't been fully addressed is what are the alternatives to GW? I'm not even sure we are allowed to discuss such things here or if it's appropriate in a thread in a tactical forum, but I am curious what other tactical games comparable to WH and 40K but maybe not as spendy some of you have been enjoying. Thanks again for all your comments. This thread and a few of the others discussing hordehammer, magic and game theory have been quite enjoyable.

[Scythe]

but I do dislike the way a lot of units have been left behind in the new game and the way tactics seem to have given way to army builds.

Can't say I agree with that. 8th edition is certainly not worse regarding the importance of army selection than 7th edition. 7th edition was quite notorious for having dozens of useless units (infantry in general often had a bad name), and a few optimal builds for most armies (often revolving around cramming as many power dice generators in your list as possible). As for tactics, tactics in 8th are different, and deal more with judging risks and having backup plans. The 'judge distances perfectly so you can get the charge and win combat' thing of 7th edition has nothing to do with tactics at all.

[Tupinamba]

Although 8th ed. can still make for fun and tactically good games, it has some core rule problems that I really don´t like and overall I prefer the gameplay of 7th edition, despite of the problems of that edition, which were mostly army balance issues, not core rule issues. IMO, the sad thing is that 8th ed. had everything to be really great, like making infantry good and having more of a feel of a medieval/fantasy battle, but because of some seemingly smaller and quite easily fixed points, turned into this gameplay of 2-3 huge infantry blocks + chaff + buffing, which reminds me more of Magic the Gathering (inclusive focus on list/deck building) than of a wargame.

IMO, serious 8th ed. problems are:

True line of sight: stupid in an abstract game and causes far more problems than it has benefits
No max cap on unit sizes + no disruption of steadfast + no points for units below 50%/ fleeing + efficient magic buff = incentive to have few huge units, death stars and points denial units
March blocking got more difficult + random and reduced flee range = less emphasis on manouvre units/fast cav
fast reform + random charge distances + easier re-selecting of charges = less emphasis on positioning
step up + horde formation + initiative strike order + bloodier combats = reduced importance of charging/SCR
no disruption of steadfast = reduced importance of flank and rear charges; reduced importance of cavalry
better BSB = reduced importance of psychology
Magic system that almost forces the use of lv 4s
Very powerful magic, autokill spells and template weapons
Terrain that is excessive but at the same time irrelevant; doesn´t affect movement and LOS, but kills smaller/fragile units and reduces even more the use of cavalry

So, while I´m not of the extreme opinion that the game hasn´t tactics anymore, or that cavalry, BS shooting, terror monsters etc. got useless, the gameplay is certainly less "dancing around" and less "combining multiple units" than it was before. Many people find this new, more direct and bloodier style more fun. Many others, found the tactical dancing around far more fun. But these changes are only relative, not absolute. The game still is won and lost on deploy, the abbility to determine where and when to fight and where and when to concentrate force and avoid supperior foes.

As to the comment about why people that dare to criticize this edition frequent this forum, I wasn´t aware that warseer was specifically dedicated to 8th ed... Isn´t it about Warhammer Fantasy? Also, what kind of logic is that? So, in a forum let´s say dedicated to the US economy, only people with favourable opinions should post? As far as I know, discussion forums are about discussion of several points of view, including criticism.

[amazingdev2005]

In your arguement everyone has a vested interest in the economy, so it makes sense to have conflict of opinions. If someone doesn't like a game system they aren't forced to play. So why frequent a specific forumn on a game you don't play or don't like or both? Seems sad and pathetic. Respect your time living enough to spend it more wisely.

[Twisted Ferret]

Don't belittle them with your swallow assumptions, don't pretend that they have no valid reason to stop enjoying their hobby. It makes you look like the name calling childish person, who attacks people, simply because they've drifted away from something you think you have to defend with untruths.

Your assumptions are just that, nothing more than untruths. Because to be honest the player base I know who have walked away from the game are; infact, by far an away pleased that theres a group of people that enjoy some form of wargaming and in this way the wargaming community stays happy and benefits as a whole, dice get rolled, models get sold, stores stay open, interest in wargaming as a whole is still there, Its just passed on to different players.

Well, did he say that these players weren't happy others were enjoying the game? He does admit that many people have a valid reason to stop enjoying the hobby; I think he makes a good point, however, in pointing out that saying the game has no more tactics is just plain not true, and seems to be said most often by players who also admit to not playing the new edition very much or at all.

The steadfast rule on its own is nothing short of retarded. Let me give an example: A unit of 12 dragon princes smashes into 80 goblins who fear elves and are facing the best of the best of the high-elven army, instead of braking as they should, since the goblins are totally outclassed, and should have zero chance of winning they decide it's not a big deal to lose 30-40 of their friends as long as they outnumber the elves, and manage to kill one every once in a while.

It makes sense to me that 80 goblins - not the sharpest crayons in the shed at the best of times - would have a go at swarming over a measly 12 High Elves. Now, when those same 12 High Elves kill half of their mates in the same amount of time it takes to blink, they'd probably change their mind... but isn't this reflected by the rules as well, when they lose the combat? Or does steadfast mean they won't ever break until there are less than 12 of them?

I am actually getting along just fine in the performance section, thank you very much. The game just doesn't feel challenging. I like small elite armies (because I paint slow as **** and 20 strong units test my patience already) so my WoC army is basically nothing but warriors with a few dogs and a hellcannon. And magic. ie. march -gateway -hellcannon. march -gateway -hellcannon. charge-gateway -hellcannon.

Is this a problem with the game, or a problem with the meta-game around your area? I.e., does this march-gateway-hellcannon strategy always win no matter what, or is there a way to counter it that the players you face just aren't using?

Or are you saying that there is simply no other competitive way to play WoC? I'm interested in your reply, because I stopped playing almost a decade ago and am now re-starting my own WoC army.

[Sexiest_hero]

It seems to me that people who gamed the 7th edition ruleset are the most upset. Let me say this. I played the first broken army, Vampire counts. 15 power dice with blood knights isn't fun. Kill 5 guys while the other 90 sit and watch was a hard sell to people wanting to get into the hobby. things like make way, step up, steadfast and powerdice caps balance the game for ALL kinds of armies. No more can one unit of blood knights hack 5 guys while i laugh at your 4 dd to my 16 pd.

[Tupinamba]

In your arguement everyone has a vested interest in the economy, so it makes sense to have conflict of opinions. If someone doesn't like a game system they aren't forced to play. So why frequent a specific forumn on a game you don't play or don't like or both? Seems sad and pathetic. Respect your time living enough to spend it more wisely.

Personally, I play and still enjoy 8th ed. (hope that was clear in my post?), which doesn´t prevent me from having criticism. But even if I weren´t, my membership in this forum is from way before 8th edition and IMO the forum is about Warhammer, not about this particular edition only. Everytime an edition changes, all people who prefer the previous one should be kicked out of the forum? Also, the OP was asking opinions to form his own opinion as to wether play it or not. I think it´s more than reasonable to let people present the different pros and cons and their takes on the game.

What I find more perplexing though, is why the staunch defenders of the current edition never actually adress the specific rules problems I´ve mentioned, which by the way are concerns shared by very many players, even the one´s who despite it prefer 8th ed. The main argument is almost always about broken 7th edition armybooks, like VC or whatever.

Balance is important, but it´s not the single most important thing in a wargame and certainly not the only one. And balance could have been fixed with new armybooks, instead of changing gameplay in a way that reduces the most interesting parts of a strategy game, movement, positioning and synergetic use of different elements to achieve a whole that is greater than its parts (and before anyone says it, I deliberately use reduce, these things are still there, just less prevalent than before). Plus, from what I read around, it seems that tournaments are already having new balance and "army tier" problems anyway.

[Askari]

And balance could have been fixed with new armybooks, instead of changing gameplay in a way that reduces the most interesting parts of a strategy game, movement, positioning and synergetic use of different elements to achieve a whole that is greater than its parts (and before anyone says it, I deliberately use reduce, these things are still there, just less prevalent than before). Plus, from what I read around, it seems that tournaments are already having new balance and "army tier" problems anyway.

Which tournaments? Are the problems as bad as they were during 7th (I highly doubt this)? Is movement and positioning the most interesting parts for every player? Any proof that it's been lessened at all?

The most interesting part, to me, is having my troops actually be allowed to do something. 7th did not, they were charged, first 5 guys were killed, the unit was broken, run down, and 3 nearby units also decided to turn tail and flee. Nothing at all State Troopers could do to stand before Chaos Knights, they didn't even get a chance to hit them back, even though they outnumbered the Knights 3+ to 1?

I'd argue movement and synergy is more important now, as you can't charge and lol-break a larger enemy unit with one charge. You're going to have to wear them down with magic or artillery, or pin them with an infantry unit in front, then flank charge with cavalry to be likely to break a unit.

To sum it up, why I don't address "rules problems" you've mentioned? Because I don't find them a problem.

[Sexiest_hero]

8th's issues are mostly from old army books. I really see nothing "broken" just a few nitpics. Even the 6th spells have their place removing. death stars. Cannons could have been tweaked alittle, but I'm sure their prices will go up.

[dragonbreath]

I was packing the warriors into their army transport box last night, hopefully for a game against a high elf player this weekend, and I had to smile. I had to blow the dust off them (been gone for a while) but it was nice to see them again. I want to thank all of you for your comments - I see valid points on both sides. I like the steadfast rule, like the units staying on the field instead of fleeing after a few losses, don't like nerfed cavalry and the watered-down fear/terror/flank and rear charge effects and absolutely hate the big magic and ragged way GW updates the game. And yes, without comp rules, tournaments can be wickedly unpleasant. Even with them, some good players get run over by certain armies and balanced rules and army books could fix that, but GW has some odd notions of how to take care of their customers. Some guys also just can't get away from 'Ard Boyz mentality which doesn't seem helpful. I like winning too, and don't deliberately draw at chess, but I like to think war gaming is a little different, especially if you want to draw new players into the game. The acrimony over what people prefer is pointless; the discussion of ways to improve the game more useful. I think I will look at other gaming systems too, but I am just too attached to the warriors to stop playing them, I think. The fellowhip of the game seems the most important thing to me, and I am grateful for the good friends I have made playing it. Maybe I have just spent too much time working alone in empty places the last decade or so, but this seems the truth of it.

[Dungeon_Lawyer]

Impression on 8th?
For every problem GW fixed they created a new one. I find 8th more "fun" in a beer & preztels sense, I found 7th gave me more intellectual enjoyment and I liked playing in cometiative tourneys better under the 7th ruleset.

In either case its still an excuse to drink beer, roll dice, and hang out with friends. Thats good enough for me.

[Frankly]

In either case its still an excuse to drink beer, roll dice, and hang out with friends. Thats good enough for me.

Nice. ^^^^^^

[Lord Solar Plexus]

There's really nothing wrong with the current edition. At the end of the day, it is a huge improvement over the last - if you like larger regiments, that is.

Much of the "critique" in this thread is unfounded or plain silly. Some is even worse than that.

the only goal of it was to force players to paint another 100-200 models of ugly plastic models just to play the game

This is one of those silly statements. The aesthetics of models have nothing to do with an edition. If you don't like GW models, feel free to buy from other manufacturers. You're essentially saying that playing with only 60 ugly models in 7th was just bearable.

and it makes the game disbalanced for the 7th edition armies, because of the crappy rules and ideas of the 8th edition.

Neither the old Vampires nor Skaven nor Empire nor Bretonnia nor Dwarves nor Chaos Warriors nor Chaos Deamons are at a noticeable disadvantage. Some might have to resort to one single netbuild (GG + Drakenhoff) but that is not a sign of supposedly crappy rules, it is a natural effect of new rules, ashe.

If there is one thing this edition has done it is to level the playing field. Perhaps you enjoyed playing against 16+ PD armies, perhaps you enjoyed removing whole units after setting them up. Perhaps you even enjoyed entering terrain that was usually the next best thing to impassable. It is however a fact that most people did not.

The steadfast rule is a good rule, period. It did not remove unit power, it finally gave some staying power to infantry, a unit type that was next to useless unless it was very elite or missile. This has little bearing on the amount of tactics. It only shifts the balance of power between unit types.

it no longer matters how good a unit is as long as your foe have enough cheap cowardly units to stand ageist it

I'm afraid you have not understood the rules properly if you believe this nonsense. It does matter a lot how good a unit is, and no number of "cowardly units" will stand a chance against a serious combat unit. They will run away. Just smashing a unit of CAV into Goblins is indeed bound to fail - bide your time, employ support, combo-charge, use tactics.

that idea killed the use of fighting lords and monsters since they can no longer smash units by themselves as they should.

No, they should and must not, ashe, and both are clearly widely fielded wherever one looks. It should be obvious that your approach of just running forward with a fighty character and smash units left, right and centre contains no tactics at all. In the current edition, you will indeed be forced to consider support and much more tricky moves (unless you play Ogres).

Thats not being rude, its just untrue and silly and alittle insulting to players who have been apart of the growth of the game for a very long time before this edition.

Don't be absurd. Of course it is objectively true that the people who have stopped playing after one or two months and only played a few intro games have nothing to stand upon. The target audience you refer to has not even been mentioned once.