So, why isn't anyone just playing 8th edition?

[Galadrin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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" .

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?

[Galadrin]

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]

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]

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

[Commissar Vaughn]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.