Warhammer-Empire.com
The Empire at War ... The Gamers Guild => WHFB The Electors' Forum => WFB 8th & EoT => Topic started by: mr chumley warner on August 29, 2016, 11:32:28 AM
-
Just checking guys,
are people still playing 8th ?
Im in army build mode, but planning a game soon
-
It's kings of war for me, but depending on your region there might still be an active 8th edition community, but usually many active community are probably eitheir converting to KoW or for those that prefer the original Warhammer style switching to the 9th age as it is something like a 8.5th edition.
-
In my campaign, started before the official death of 8th, we're still using 8th. But I can't help you with competitive army list building as we use unofficial lists and armies based on fluff, not gameplay effectiveness.
-
My local group has fully switched to The 9th Age. There are some guys picking up Age of Sigmar now that it has rules for playing games, but I'm staying away. I have no interest in that "game".
-
I don't think there's much juice left in 8th ed. My local gaming club has switched completely to 9th Age. I've read others have gone for KoW, and there's a few weirdos who actually play AoS :engel:
-
I only briefly played 8th Edition, having given up once I saw others actually play it, seemingly it being all about who unleashes their death spell first. These I honestly just play AoS, with a small beastmen force for 9th Edition, that one seemingly being more balanced
-
I alternate between a bunch. Lots of 8th with the people who don't want to switch. lot's of AoS cause it's popular here. A fair bit of kings of war and frostgrave has started.
Only thing we don't really play is 9th.
-
Only thing we don't really play is 9th.
If you have a chance, grab a buddy who is interested and try it out. Everyone I know who played 8th and now plays 9th says that it is a lot better and while I only played a bit, I too find it better~
-
What's 9 th age ???? I've been painting lol
-
All of my group now plays 9th Age.
We are having a 20 man tournament in September.
A few play King of War but they are the least.
None play AoS
mr chumley warner, write in Google; The 9th Age, and there you go :icon_razz:
-
Just read the rules , well skim read , it's like 8th but clearer !!
Just skim read Empire.... HAHA Looks like Mortars , Greatswords, Swordsmen and Crazies are back on the menu boys !!
-
Arg it's all too much , i feel like ive been smacked round the face with a rubber fish,
can any1 give me a brief summary of main comments , main benefits of this 9th ed?
QUick examination leads me to conclude small tweaks, like ASF is now called Lightning Reflexes, +1 to hit ,,,,,,
Army lists look the same, but with points tweaked, and other small tweaks ,
-
I almost never play, but I'm splitting between new and old -- Kings of War and some... :Ohmy: WFB 3rd in a few weeks.
My two old gaming groups have switched -- KoW for the older, game-at-home club, and 9th Age for the in-store, more tournament/competitive group.
-
Arg it's all too much , i feel like ive been smacked round the face with a rubber fish,
can any1 give me a brief summary of main comments , main benefits of this 9th ed?
QUick examination leads me to conclude small tweaks, like ASF is now called Lightning Reflexes, +1 to hit ,,,,,,
Army lists look the same, but with points tweaked, and other small tweaks ,
Most of us here have moved to 9th Age. And we all are very happy.
We are a community of Wargames Fantasy which has been constantly playing for around three years. I, myself have been playing since 5th and I enjoyed 8th very much while it was alive.
We play at a Cultural Center that me and a mate run. We saw how our favorite game fell to pieces with age of Sigmar.
We thought we were in turmoil and that soon they (GW) would change the game and go back to what it really was: square bases, ranks and flanks. But, we were drifting aimlessly, like a surviving hero but with no army, wandering around and watching other games, other systems.
But anyway, I still remember when our friend Paul took the ninth age book printed explaining that
this could be our future. It’s the same as warhammer but as if it were the 9th edition that GW never did.
Much debate followed as a community, some reluctantly accepted the challenge to test the new system. Most of us loved it after one game.
Always bearing of what was most important: Brotherhood and a game of gentlemen that has been maintained.
Helping, rectifying errors, holding tournaments, even lending miniatures to the other player.
All worth it with a cold beer with your mates after (sometimes during LOL) the game to discuss the match ...
This wonderful game called IX age.
Yes, it feel like a lot at first with all the small changes but once you have a few games under your belt it'll be all good.
Also check out some the youtube players such as Chihammer warhammer fantasy and Oncebitten 360 their battle reports are fun to watch
-
Main benefits of 9th age is something you've already said. It's cleaner. All special rules are listed in the big rule book, and anything that's army specific is limited to one or two things, which usually take the form of special rules already in the big rule book. Empire is pretty strong, though all the tournament players seem to be stuck in 8th edition, fielding two blocks of flagellants and no support units, making an MSU grindy army ideal for countering them. The Support Unit rules are amazing. Imperial Guard start with hand weapon shields, so old Reiksguard Knights on Foot are back and with parry and distracto-wagon they're better than ever.
-
During my sleep i think my mind debated High Elves, ok so 9th sees ASF gone, but with Initiative = 5, it's likely you will be striking first quite often, with the new lightning reflex + 1 to hit,,, suddenly i an epiphany , lol, it's even better than just ASF.
It's always hit , lol
Tell me more revellers , tell me of 9th
My time is limited , every minute accounyted for , with parenting, DIY, painting , work and bench press >))))
-
Looking at the local hobby and tournaments, this is what I'm seeing in Helsinki/Finland:
8th ed: 0 players
T9A: about 20 players (more who use it at home)
AoS: about 2 players (more who play it with their kids)
KoW: about 5 players (all of who also play T9A)
Oldhammer: about 10 interested, but it's more about the figures than gaming, it seems
Overall, Fantasy Battles has gone back a lot since the early 2010's and is a bit split atm. But if T9A continues as strong as for the past year, it will become the new standard. However, it gathers the old blood. I don't know if anyone has started playing the game as their first Fantasy Battles game/edition.
There might be an AoS scene around the local GW shop. Haven't checked it for a year.
Higher up the north, KoW seems to have proportionally more support.
-Z
-
8th edition with a couple of house rules taken from 9th age. I love my books/cards too much to do a complete switch :)
-
My area, Rochester NY, is still playing 8th. We still do events, campaign, and get together for pickup games. All 8th. It's the only thing that's still Warhammer Fantasy.
EEFL!
EEFL.freeforums.net
-
I prefer 6th edition for many reasons, so I'm building little warbands, border patrols and 1000 points armies for that edition. :biggriin:
-
I was able to keep playing 8th until very recently. A couple weeks ago I had my first 9th Age game and will have to go that way if I want to play at all around here. I'll live, it is an okay ruleset - not too far removed from my beloved 8th edition.
-
I prefer 6th edition for many reasons,
So do I. I would live to go back to 6th.
-
So do I. I would live to go back to 6th.
Love. Live. Love life. Lively love (!) Lovely life. It's all much of a muchness.
-
What was 6th Editin like? I'm a wee player who hasn't been around that long? :Ohmy:
-
Dang fellas! I've been away too long! Just starting to get back into the swing of things.
8th edition has certainly held my heart and is probably what I'll stick with, but I'm willing to try out 9th since it looks good and hey - the ruleset is free!
-
What was 6th Editin like? I'm a wee player who hasn't been around that long? :Ohmy:
A lot more focus on static combat res and Magical charges. Nowdays, it is much more focused on killing. Too much in my opinion. But not enough focus on static CR either in my opinion.
-
In the last year I've played a handful of games of 8th.
I've downloaded 9th age rules, and KoW. I'd play 9th if a mate was really interested, but KoW doesn't particularly appeal to me.
For most of the last year I've been playing Age of Sigmar, which I've enjoyed immensely. It's been a pleasure to play without restriction, and the main objective to have a fun game rather than to win a game, and only win a straight out and out battle at that. The battleplans and Time of War and the ongoing story have really changed gaming for me. I know all of those were possible in 8th and before, but nobody was interested.
The General's Handbook has already brought back some of those players that only want to do a straight points battle, and already the narrative scenario based stuff has already declined.
Seeing the same armies, playing the same games and the same results time and again just doesn't interest me.
-
Hi !
Out of curiosity, have you played KoW or have you just read the free rules ?
I say that because from my own experience there are many things that I only realised after playing my first game.
Before that it seemed like a decent Warhammer alternative to me but I was still unsure and thinking of some house rules (like using random charges for exemple), but all of that changed after I really tested the game and found it great fun for me and my friend.
Maybe try reading a few battle reports (there are many on the official forums).
Also in case you are not aware yet, the free rules are almost complete, but among the very few things missing compared to the full rulebook are the artefacts (allowing more customisation for your army, as even normal units can equip one) and the scenarios, and of course the free sample army lists are fully playable but do not include all units (see the online army editor at http://kow2.easyarmy.com for all armies with complete options)
Of course, it's perfectly possible that 9th age fit your tastes better, it depends from person to person.
To quote something I read on warseer when it was still online :
"If you loved Warhammer because of the fiddly bits, 9th age is for you.
If you loved Warhammer despite the fidly bits, Kings of War is for you.".
-
I've only read the free rules. I haven't played. I'd be happy to give it a few tries, I don't think one try would give me a fair impression. I'd like to know it well enough to judge. But the opportunity to try hasn't come up. My peer group hasn't suggested it. My main local place to play is a GW store.
It's been the best part of a year, around the time AoS was released, that I read the rules, so I can't even remember really what it was that didn't appeal.
When I first started playing and painting, me and my old school buddy 25 years ago, before we picked up 3rd ed, we made up our own simple rules. AoS felt a bit like that, it brought back that fun feeling of making up a story, not caring what you put on the table, and just playing with simple rules.
I guess it's not so much that KoW doesn't appeal to me, it's more that I'd already really found a game I was happy with
-
I've only read the free rules. I haven't played. I'd be happy to give it a few tries, I don't think one try would give me a fair impression. I'd like to know it well enough to judge. But the opportunity to try hasn't come up. My peer group hasn't suggested it. My main local place to play is a GW store.
It's been the best part of a year, around the time AoS was released, that I read the rules, so I can't even remember really what it was that didn't appeal.
When I first started playing and painting, me and my old school buddy 25 years ago, before we picked up 3rd ed, we made up our own simple rules. AoS felt a bit like that, it brought back that fun feeling of making up a story, not caring what you put on the table, and just playing with simple rules.
I guess it's not so much that KoW doesn't appeal to me, it's more that I'd already really found a game I was happy with
I wasn't impressed with KoW after reading the rules, but gave it a try. After an afternoon of playing, I was semi-converted. Not my ideal game, but a good way to have some fun games with minimal fuss. For me, the "pros" were that it was quick & easy to play, no arguing over rules or constantly looking stuff up, but it still felt like a big battle game where maneuver, position, an overall plan/battle line, etc. were all important.
To quote something I read on warseer when it was still online :
"If you loved Warhammer because of the fiddly bits, 9th age is for you.
If you loved Warhammer despite the fidly bits, Kings of War is for you.".
That seems to be the way things have broken down from my own environment. Like I said above, the two groups I previously gamed with each went with one of those. The KoW are the more laid-back group. The 9th Age group are the more competitive, tournament focused group.
-
It's funny how KoW, a game made by a former tournament champion (Alessio) with making tournaments easy in mind (the turn structure allow the use of chess clock if you want, and the game play rather fast compared to Warhammer/9th age) seems to be more popular with casual players than hard core competitives ones :D
To be fair to 9th age, 8th edition was my favorite Warhammer edition (I started with 3rd edition using cardboard square as I was too young to buy more than a few models, came back later during 4th and 5th with my first true armies (undead and dark elves), stopped when they splitted undead, tried 7th and didn't like it, came back for 8th) so I applaud the 9th age initiative, it's just that I found KoW to be a better game for me than Warhammer ever was while still allowing me to use all my collection of models (and keep using the Warhammer fluff if I want).
-
I've moved to KoW. There are a few "fiddly bits" I miss, but I think the game makes up for it in better balance and that proper big-battle feel.
-
Me and two of my buddies have switched to 6th. It's better balanced and more fun for us. Also there is a ton of stuff for it in the old White Dwarf magazines. :smile2:
-
True enough, although it still needed some fixes. The 7th BRB did most of that, but then the AB became ever more unbalanced.
-
True enough, although it still needed some fixes. The 7th BRB did most of that, but then the AB became ever more unbalanced.
Yup, High Elves and VC, not to mention Daemons. What a mess...
-
True enough, although it still needed some fixes. The 7th BRB did most of that, but then the AB became ever more unbalanced.
Yes, I think 7th ed. core rules with 6th ed. army books is my favorite version of WFB.
-
Another 8th game played - still having a blast :)
(http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k631/FarendilAmAndiril/DSC03163a_zpspqv37qpi.jpg) (http://s1119.photobucket.com/user/FarendilAmAndiril/media/DSC03163a_zpspqv37qpi.jpg.html)
-
That gyro blimp is great. And do I spy an old Thorgrim?
-
Nope, thats just Krag the Grim on a ridiculously big rock :biggriin:
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160919/e17182aa979946db99417b65101988ec.jpg)
Still playing
EEFL!
EEFL.freeforums.net
-
Arg it's all too much , i feel like ive been smacked round the face with a rubber fish,
can any1 give me a brief summary of main comments , main benefits of this 9th ed?
QUick examination leads me to conclude small tweaks, like ASF is now called Lightning Reflexes, +1 to hit ,,,,,,
Army lists look the same, but with points tweaked, and other small tweaks ,
If you want the nitty gritty changes then just read their mainrulebook they highlight the changes from 8th edition in blue to make it easy. Other rules have been reworded for clarity and copyright.
Honestly looking at the blue words is exactly what you would be reading here if someone told you the changes.
Otherwise the changes are:
Everything is balanced to a very close margin, so no 'pay to win' GW stuff.
Nerf bat was swung around far and wide. So you don't get crazy deathstars that just eat through everything with crazy dmg and all that jazz.
Everyone who plays it says its fun.
8th edition with a couple of house rules taken from 9th age. I love my books/cards too much to do a complete switch :)
I'm not a big fan of their magic stuff so I don't want to give up my cards as well! lol.
I'll find someone to play The 9th Age with 8th edition magic eventually.
And of course:
EEFL!
-
Still playing 8th edition and loving it!!!
-
Still playing 8th. Pickup games, campaign, building new armies, and big events.
EEFL!
EEFL.freeforums.net
-
Hi guys,
here in Barcelona (and I could extend this analysis to Spain) 9th Age is the rulebook most used. Largely.
I'm far from a competitive player, but still, I think 9th could be the way until GW returned to Fantasy, something I'm sure they will.
All members of my group play only 9th Age, and the rest of wargamers I know (a lot) has changed from 8th to 9th.
In Spain there are minor groups who play other fanmade (or adaptations) rulebooks: Warhammer 8.5, Warhammer Reforged, 6th edition with Manuscritos de Nuth... but the most has changed to 9th.
BUT
I'm not happy with the way 9th Age are turning to. Each edition of their rulebook is more different from the original 8th edition. Each edition introduces more rules. Now you need a calculator to make the simpliest army list. They points has doubled (which makes every comparison with previous editions wrong in terms of scale). Now they have created their own background...
In their obsession for balance in competition games they forget the spirit of the game. But the problem is not the rulebook. Never will be a perfectly balanced rulebok; the problem is the players who squeeze their lists to win at all costs. And these types of players will always exist. So, stop updating the rulebook constantly, because it already tires ...
No, I love Warhammer not only for the rules, games or miniatures but also for their stories: about Gotrek and Felix, about the Empire, about Nagash, about Von carsteins, about the War of the Beard, etc...
-
So true, Rogers Kul! I'm still playing 8th with house rules, but was considering giving 9th a go. With all the new changes I can't be bothered - might as well play KoW as the rules/army building differ so much from what I'm used to. I was hoping they'd go Furion's route of minor tweaks to balance existing army books, but perhaps they want to build a brand of their own. They have a strong support, so maybe they'll stay their course...
-
I'm not happy with the way 9th Age are turning to. Each edition of their rulebook is more different from the original 8th edition. Each edition introduces more rules. Now you need a calculator to make the simpliest army list. They points has doubled (which makes every comparison with previous editions wrong in terms of scale). Now they have created their own background...
I disagree with this.
All the stuff you stated was done because of copyright issues(You can thank GW for that).
I have not read the background yet but once you get passed a few name changes its probably not a big deal?
The points doubling....c'mon. That is not even an issue.
In their obsession for balance in competition games they forget the spirit of the game. But the problem is not the rulebook. Never will be a perfectly balanced rulebok; the problem is the players who squeeze their lists to win at all costs. And these types of players will always exist. So, stop updating the rulebook constantly, because it already tires ...
No, I love Warhammer not only for the rules, games or miniatures but also for their stories: about Gotrek and Felix, about the Empire, about Nagash, about Von carsteins, about the War of the Beard, etc...
I pretty much agree with all of this though.
The stories though....We can thank GW copyright stuff for all that.
The nice thing is that with 9th age the fluff is free use. So lots of good writers can make as many new stories as they wish.
-
For me it's Kings of War, even more so now that they released the historical version with a compatible ruleset so we get even more options for human armies
-
Short answer : Yes.
That said, I'm afraid I will be forced to try AoS at some point, if only to welcome new players to our club...
-
I have been in limbo since my divorce in June 2014. Missed the chance to play Wood elves with their last magnificent army book.
For me the loss of the official fluff was such a hard hit it was difficult to get past it mentally. Really tough.
Now, I am finally coming round I believe. But my elves will not be the same. But by combining my WE and HE I will be able to assemble a KoW elves army. I just need to do it and play it.
I am going to make a new "Empire" army using the League of Rhordia list from KoW, Uncharted empires.
Still, what I miss the most is the loss of the heroes. It is a bit silly since I really like games with massive troop formations but the ability to customize your heroes, give them kit and personalitizes meant so much. Giving them one pesky item as you do in KoW feels very... meh...
that mighty and so on.
And the same goes with Age of Sigmar I guess. May have been converted to play it had it kept the ability to kit and arm your personal hero in a fashion you wanted to as your very Avatar of war.
Removing that removed another layer of personalizing the game in a way that was not just in your head but that affected the game. I never really went for optimized heroes. It was their personality that showed through via their wargear.
At the moment such things cannot be done in battle games save 9th ed and it seems so much hazzle to get into it. Me and my friend Tom likes the idea of having real books in our hands and we can do that with KoW.
However, Frostgrave have appeared on the horizon for me. And my girlfriend found it appealling too. She is a bit bothered by having to fight with me on the tabletop, since she really likes RPG were you co-operate with the other players. But we will try the Thaw of the Liche lord with promises some co-operation aswell and I convinced here such small warband fracasses could be considered as powerstruggling between two questmasters who send out teams to do their bidding and sometimes interests collide.
I think she felt quite okay with it.
I hope that I could get her in on some co-operative gaming with KoW later, having one army each and battling my mate Tom who can field a larger army.
-
Also, if AoS came out with some "Free people" being just ordinary women and men protecting their homes, like the good old Empire or elven milita, and not just shining superheroes I may give it a try. I could never get into Space Marines properly and I guess it is the same reason I cannot get into AoS is the focus on larger than life soldiers, not just heroes.
-
@Mathi, Well on the first part, it's really great to hear your girlfriend would rather fight alongside you rather than against you. :happy:
On the second part I very much understand what you mean. I'll definitely let you know when GW starts focusing on the humble soldier in AoS. Though probably we'll be seeing a battletome for re-using Empire models before we get a proper Free Peoples release.
A comforting thought is that a delayed release means much more work will be put into their models ande fluff. :-D
Short answer : Yes.
That said, I'm afraid I will be forced to try AoS at some point, if only to welcome new players to our club...
We're always happy to help you out at the AoS section if you have any questions. :smile2:
Also, this project might interest you as another way to play AoS if the regular version doesn't set well with you.
http://www.tga.community/forums/topic/5923-hinterlands-skirmish-campaigns-in-the-mortal-realms/
-
There is quite a mix at my old local club, 9th age, and Age of Sigmar with myself and one other playing the odd game of Kings of War. No one is playing 8th, everyone has converted over to 9th age. Those playing Age of Sigmar didn't really play warhammer fantasy much before, they are mainly 40K players.
I'm not keen on 9th age, or Age of Sigmar, I'm playing Saga and Bolt Action at another local club.
-
@Mathi Alfblut, note than in KoW most artefacts are not restricted to heroes only, they can also be used to customize your normal units.
Want to field both your white lions and swordmasters in the same elven army, but it feel wrong to use the same "Palage guard" profile (veteran elves with great weapons) for both units ?
Put the brew of strength on one unit and they will be your white lions, and your swordmasters can be vanilla Palace Guard (or use a different artefact, maybe the chant of Hate so they get both elite and vicious, or the Fog to represent their agility and arrow deflection ?)
-
8th edition is still alive where I play.
-
I'm not happy with the way 9th Age are turning to. Each edition of their rulebook is more different from the original 8th edition. Each edition introduces more rules. Now you need a calculator to make the simpliest army list. They points has doubled (which makes every comparison with previous editions wrong in terms of scale). Now they have created their own background...
In their obsession for balance in competition games they forget the spirit of the game. But the problem is not the rulebook. Never will be a perfectly balanced rulebok; the problem is the players who squeeze their lists to win at all costs. And these types of players will always exist. So, stop updating the rulebook constantly, because it already tires ...
No, I love Warhammer not only for the rules, games or miniatures but also for their stories: about Gotrek and Felix, about the Empire, about Nagash, about Von carsteins, about the War of the Beard, etc...
Rogers Kul, you speak of all the issues why I was never interested in the 9th Age to begin with...
I've been playing WFB for 30 years, and although the classic GW models are what drew me to the game, the WFB background is really what kept me enthralled through the years.
I've played almost all the editions of WFB, and 8th edition is BY FAR the most balanced (and my fav edition). And when I say this I mean at every level, for example in 8th you can't make an army designed to completely avoid combat and frustrate your opponent and actually have a good chance of winning.
Although I've played in many GTs over the years, and even won two of them, I never fancied myself as a "tournament player." Many tournament players were all about fine tuning army lists to make the most broken list possible. In my experience, it are those players that didn't really like 8th edition, because the game play made it most difficult to abuse the rules. For example, in 8th, march blocking is not automatic, the Winds of Magic are random - meaning you can't rely on heavy magic to win the day, skirmishers are no longer amazing, random charge moves eliminates precision movement, etc. These elements of 8th edition, whether one likes them or not, are what greatly helps balance WFB 8th edition.
Anyway, I believe you're annoyed with how people make lists in 9th Age because that's where a lot of tournament players fled to.
What I would say to those who still want to play 8th edition, but feel they cannot because no one else in the area plays: BE the catalyst of 8th in your area. Start off by asking (or pleading!) just one of your friends/gaming group to play a game of 8th. Once that happens, try requesting a 8th game for once a month or week, etc. You might be surprised if you just really keep pushing the issue to play the game.
In the mean time, come talk about 8th with the 8th Edition Lifers... http://eefl.freeforums.net (http://eefl.freeforums.net)
EEFL!
-
@KevinC - In my experience, it are those players that didn't really like 8th edition, because the game play made it most difficult to abuse the rules.
I hadn't thought about this but it actually explains an attitude shift with some of the big gun tournament players that I knew. I personally really liked 8th as I did 7th as it made it more fun to play. (As it is I was never a 'good' general. If I was in real life I'm sure the troops would have slipped a skiv in my back at some point)
-
What I would say to those who still want to play 8th edition, but feel they cannot because no one else in the area plays: BE the catalyst of 8th in your area. Start off by asking (or pleading!) just one of your friends/gaming group to play a game of 8th. Once that happens, try requesting a 8th game for once a month or week, etc. You might be surprised if you just really keep pushing the issue to play the game.
I'm seriously thinking bout this. And the more people I'm talking about it (including also tournament players), the more I feel this is a general feeling.
I'm not happy with the way 9th Age are turning to. Each edition of their rulebook is more different from the original 8th edition. Each edition introduces more rules. Now you need a calculator to make the simpliest army list. They points has doubled (which makes every comparison with previous editions wrong in terms of scale). Now they have created their own background...
I disagree with this.
All the stuff you stated was done because of copyright issues(You can thank GW for that).
I have not read the background yet but once you get passed a few name changes its probably not a big deal?
The points doubling....c'mon. That is not even an issue.
I'm not discussing about copyright or other legal term. I'm really NOT interested on that. Simply I don't like the way the rules are going on.
And points doubling may is not be an issue for you. For me, it is.
The nice thing is that with 9th age the fluff is free use. So lots of good writers can make as many new stories as they wish.
But I don't wan't different stories. I have GoT novels, LotR novels, Forgotten Realms novels... but I want to maintain my battles in Warhammer world. No others.
-
From the infos I've gathered , the background of 9th age will try to get more and more original, for example they probably will introduce three more dark gods (not stands in for Malal, Nehoco, Zuvassin).
And while 8th edition was maybe most balanced i found it to be imho the lowest point for Warhammer setting and atmosphere ( from art to rules as uber spells,silly magical terrains, all those fluff changes, weird new units...)
-
And while 8th edition was maybe most balanced i found it to be imho the lowest point for Warhammer setting and atmosphere ( from art to rules as uber spells,silly magical terrains, all those fluff changes, weird new units...)
Bartolo, while I can see your point about terrain, uber spells and weird units were always apart of Warhammer. Fluff changes were minor. The 6th edition of Warhammer stripped the fluff right out of game in a big way. Then in 7th edition they started to bring the classic fluff back into the game again. 8th edition army books pretty much are the ultimate army books, they pretty much include a lot of the classic fluff, plus all of the older units left out in 6th edition, plus new stuff.
Also, every edition of Warhammer had some fluff changes...
-
Thats funny. I don't remember my 8th edition armybook having:
Winged Lancers
Horse Archers
Halflings
Hot pot
War wagon
Reiksguard foot
Imperial dwarves
Imperial ogres
Every edition is flawed. It comes down to personal preference. No one edition is better than another, except in someones opinion.
Personally, i much preferred 6th and early 7th edition to 8th. But thats because i liked tactics, rather than horde bloodbaths, buff magic and super-doom spells.
If step up was in those earlier editions, as well as a few other tweaks, that would be my ideal.
-
From the infos I've gathered , the background of 9th age will try to get more and more original, for example they probably will introduce three more dark gods (not stands in for Malal, Nehoco, Zuvassin).
And while 8th edition was maybe most balanced i found it to be imho the lowest point for Warhammer setting and atmosphere ( from art to rules as uber spells,silly magical terrains, all those fluff changes, weird new units...)
Balanced? The reliance on hordes, the absurd power levels of certain armybooks (High Elves), massive streamlining of classical, fluffy rules (now Warrior Priests, Shadow Warriors and Dark Elves hate everybody, because reasons) and the butchering of magic items sections. These are only a few flaws of the 8th edition, which, unsurprisingly, was the last edition to ever "grace" our tabletops.
6th was perhaps less "epic", but I'll take it any day of the week, over the clusterf*** that was the 8th.
-
6th was perhaps less "epic", but I'll take it any day of the week, over the clusterf*** that was the 8th.
I agree with you! 6th edition may have had problems in rules (fleeing, unbalanced magic Lores till the FAQs came out, the poor dark elves...) but it was far better (IMHO) for campaigns, supplement, themed armies,it was playable from skirmish to bigger battles, fluff and art quality were superior and overall it hadn't silly ideas like Flying boats, ethereal walls,Ka-boom spells...
-
Thats funny. I don't remember my 8th edition armybook having:
Winged Lancers
Horse Archers
Halflings
Hot pot
War wagon
Reiksguard foot
Imperial dwarves
Imperial ogres
Every edition is flawed. It comes down to personal preference. No one edition is better than another, except in someones opinion.
Pretty much this
-
6th was perhaps less "epic", but I'll take it any day of the week, over the clusterf*** that was the 8th.
I agree with you! 6th edition may have had problems in rules (fleeing, unbalanced magic Lores till the FAQs came out, the poor dark elves...) but it was far better (IMHO) for campaigns, supplement, themed armies,it was playable from skirmish to bigger battles, fluff and art quality were superior and overall it hadn't silly ideas like Flying boats, ethereal walls,Ka-boom spells...
I remember Albion and Lustria campaigns. Also at that time BL novels were often directly tied to 6th edition events, like SoC. It was a good time for WFB.
-
Yes, it was... with "realistic" illustrations and not the extravagant 40k style of John Blanche...
But I always preferred 7th edition.
Anyway, 8th edition also have good points for me.
-
Yes, it was... with "realistic" illustrations and not the extravagant 40k style of John Blanche...
But I always preferred 7th edition.
Anyway, 8th edition also have good points for me.
6th edition had the best art style IMO. Gritty, semi-realistic, just awesome dark fantasy style. Meanwhile Empire's 8th edition codex has Empire soldiers fighting daemonic ground and daemonic trees. :dry:
-
Thats funny. I don't remember my 8th edition armybook having:
Winged Lancers
Horse Archers
Halflings
Hot pot
War wagon
Reiksguard foot
Imperial dwarves
Imperial ogres
Every edition is flawed. It comes down to personal preference. No one edition is better than another, except in someones opinion.
-----I forgot what forum I was on!
Regarding Empire, during 6th edition an effort was made to make the Empire more about the Men of the Empire and that stuck. Back in 4th/5th edition days, people really did make Empire armies like a kind of Dogs of War army. Still, I wish they never dropped Halflings.
Regarding balance, I don't believe it's an opinion. And I'm not speaking of person choices. The fact is, in 8th edition, it is much more difficult than other editions to abuse the rules. Here are some examples:
- In previous editions, a good player could completely abuse the power of skirmishers and fast cav. If fact you could make an all fast cav or skirmisher army, dash around your enemies to avoid all combat, and defeat your opponent soundly. Meanwhile the game was no fun at all.
- Fear in editions other than 8th was totally crazy, if you lost combat to a fear causer, and you were outnumbered, you broke auto! In fact, psychology in general was too much. Low leadership stuff was extremely fragile - and you could not reroll with the BSB.
- 6/7th edition the player could build their lists to determine how many magic dice they could get each phase. 8th might have some big spells, but the Winds of Magic are random, and armies are suppose to be larger. If you want to dominate your enemies with magic, play 6th and 7th edition, you can have your mighty magic phase every turn and crush your opponent without getting into combat!
- Speaking of magic, if you played Vampire Counts and also had half a brain, you might lose to bad luck about once everyone ten games. With the power of magic, fear, and raise the dead, Undead armies were all but unbeatable.
- More on magic, actually with being able to stack your power dice, the big spells in 6th were devastating. I remember Orcs & Goblins players never took a proper Warboss to lead their armies because the Shaman Lord was insane! The Foot of Gork with the double dohus or the reroll staff made Orcs pretty gross. You could destroy entire armies with that combo. You can even go back to at least one 6th edition battle report in WD where this happens. On the tournament scene is was a regular sight.
- 6th edition saw the rise of the Tzeentch flying circus, perhaps the greatest force to blast your enemies away and avoid combat. Sound like fun ?
- The Skink skirmish army, run circles around your enemy shooting them with poison missiles while your Slann blast them with magic. Avoid combat and win!
- The Dark Elf Dark Rider army (see tactics for Tzeentch flying circus and Skink skirmish armies above - key tactic: don't engage in combat, no matter how much your opponent complains).
- Skaven were also totally insane in 6th edition, heavy shooting army backed by huge units of cheap infantry. Warp-lightening, magic, and remember the Rattling Guns when they hit auto? Skaven were probably the hardest army in 6th, along with Vampires.
- Storm of Chaos, while a totally awesome supplement and campaign, the armies were super hard in there. The Daemon Legions list was gross.
- March blocking, which made a lot of the above armies successful, was nothing but an extremely frustrating part of the game that players used to make magic/shooty armies work really well. Back then if an enemy model was with 8", you were march blocked automatically and could not march. Obviously used to slow down armies while they were blasted by magic and missiles.
- People constantly complained that High Elves and Dark Elves were weak and 'sucked' and so you never saw them.
- Tournaments were made of: Skaven, Vampires, Lizards, Daemon Legions.
- 6th edition army books had hardly no fluff, and dropped a lot of classic units: Steams Tanks, War Wagons, Forest Goblins, Spider-Riders, all the classic special characters, etc.
That's all that comes to mind at the moment.
The reason I'm saying 8th is the most balance is because you can't do all the uber stuff described above. You can't make an army to avoid combat in 8th and have a realistic chance of winning. The random elements of the game, such as charge moves and the winds of magic, make it so a player losing the game can make a comeback and win.
For those of you who like 6th edition best, did you simply forget about the stuff I mentioned? Or do you play those armies? Or did you, some how, simply not encounter those type of armies and play style?
While I enjoyed playing 6th when it was the current WFB, many games were frustrating. In 8th, I never have games like that. Player must engage in combat, players cannot just rely on shooting and magic to win, psychology and LD checks do not dominate the game.
This is why I'm saying it's a fact, not an opinion, that 8th is the most balance. You could take the most amount of people and put them in one game room to play and I believe they would have the most fun compared to previous editions of the game. For me, if I'm not auto marched blocked, I'm having a good time, period.
-
When discussing previous editions - or even the new 9th Age - we should really distinguish between the Core or Main (Big Red) Book and then the army books.
I think most gamers who go back to 6th Edition or before would agree that one of the big complaints about GW was army book creep. Every time they redid an army (releasing new figures) they had to make them uber-attractive as they wanted to sell loads. I am sure the GW suits aimed that every gamer would buy every new release and have every army ................
I had lost interest in Fantasy, before 8th and wasn't inspired by it.
I decided to let 9th Age settle before I even looked at it in any depth, because there was no way it would be got right all in one go.
However one of the things that keeps me hopeful is that they can do all the army books close together without the prejudice or pressure of 'sales'.
I was surprised that the organisers did all the name changes - GW 'cancelled' or ended their interest, and actually changed the names themselves to all the AoS terms.
It would hardly be in their interest to go after anybody on IP grounds, when (1) No money was being made and (2) their existing units would be more likely to carry on selling.
If in 9th Age the black powder empire troopers were called Handgunners then maybe people would buy GW Missile State troopers over Warlord Games Pike & Shotte Musketeers for example?
-
Didn't enjoy what I saw of 8th, so I haven't played it.
I came into WFB at the end of 6th edition, enjoyed it, and rapidly moved to 7th edition when it arrived, and enjoyed that as well.
-
- 6th edition army books had hardly no fluff, and dropped a lot of classic units: Steams Tanks, War Wagons, Forest Goblins, Spider-Riders, all the classic special characters, etc.
That's all that comes to mind at the moment.
Quality is more important of quantity. Steam Tanks had rules in Warhammer Chronicles and they included many variants of it (you could order bitz to build them from Mail Order) afterall Steam Tank had a new miniature in 6th ed, spider riders were at end of O&G army books, themed armies, together with spider swarms(thanks Sigmar Arachnaroks were only described in Lustria book and not common in all Warhammer World forests like in 8th), classic special characters with miniature had rules in GW website ,Warhammer Chronicles and White Dwarfs. Kislev had its online supplement, Dogs of War were playable and hireble for other armies and Ravening Hordes lists were pretty balanced.
7th edition edition broke a lot with past, there're certaing things in Chaos fluff that existed since 3rd ed RoC volumes till Liber Chaotica(6th ed.) that were drastically changed . There was an interview to John Blanche in a old WD and it perfectly describe what Warhammer was supposed to be, article title was ''the Illustrated Man''.
I think it's hard to explain but for me rules that convey the setting, atmosphere of the game are more important than the ones that balance it ( thats why i don't like magical terrain, effects described in end game spells) 8th edition lets you have a Demon Prince of Nurgle as general and a Tzeentch aspiring champion as BsB, enough said.
That's why I'd take 6th edition over 8th also with Bretonnia and Tzeentch Flying circus, the overpowered skavens, the cavalry winning over infantries...
-
For those of you who like 6th edition best, did you simply forget about the stuff I mentioned? Or do you play those armies? Or did you, some how, simply not encounter those type of armies and play style?
First off the main answer to these questions is really found in Midaski's post:
When discussing previous editions - or even the new 9th Age - we should really distinguish between the Core or Main (Big Red) Book and then the army books.
I don't think many of the proponents of the 6th love the way the edition progressed but more the core rule book Ravening Hordes and the balance and thought that seemed to go into the initial army book releases (Empire, OnG, and Dwarfs). Many of the things you have mentioned were terrible but a failing on the part of the designer that did the army book and not the core system. Skirmishing armies. flying circus armies and their ilk are a terrible bit of games design since a wargame should not cater to 'points denial' and sadly many list began to aim for such. Similarly gum/magic lines also have no place even with some sort of contrived theme. The 8th did indeed address this but took the heavy handed approach of making melee the be all and end all of the day; maneuver, shooting, psychology and magic all need to be a bigger part, at least in my mind than what the 8th offered, it was a fix but not as nuanced as I, or many others, wanted.
The 8th has plenty of flaws too, a poor scenario generation system with entirely wonky battles (watchtower is gamey as hell), terrible terrain options (almost all magical and completely unimaginative in the use of the rather innovative sprained ankle test vs old malus on movement), it scales poorly in smaller games (being that a battle in the 8th is largely fueled on some sort of combat death matrix with almost all buffs and hexs playing into it), and let us not forget the terrible idea that the games designers had that when in need of a special rule lets make it about adding more bloody re-rolls.
Now for the mainly Imperial point:
- 6th edition army books had hardly no fluff, and dropped a lot of classic units: Steams Tanks, War Wagons, all the classic special characters, etc.
How so?
All the core things you needed to know about the Empire were still in the army book simply the presentation changed from omnipotent facts from all knowing writer to those presented by in world scholars. The Empire book contained the same sort of political, geographic, and historical information all of them have, 4th/7th/8th being just c&p of the 4th edition book with a few edits often errors but more often infuriating bits of uber super fantasy fluff. By page count 15 pages of the 6th edition Empire book deal with basic fluff to 18 pages in the 8th edition book, the use of the difference is minuscule and also doesn't count the Blackfire Pass story of the Battle at the Gates of Kislev which push the 6th book to 23 pages.
As for units you ignore that by the end of the 6th an Empire army could field all but the Outriders from the 4th and a true War Wagon (though it could easily proxy in as the fighting platform Steam Tank). A late 6th edition army can be more like a 4th edition 'classic' army than anything you can put on the table in the 8th.
Special characters however are a joke, to which I think the 6th edition rightly treated them as such. Taken them with your opponents permission only since they are ill suited to real game play. Most army book characters in the 6th seemed more like here is an interesting NPC you can work into your RPG but you don't have to rather than the later attempt to sell them as something that is at all interesting by making them legal all the time. One of the core ideas of the Warhammer character system and army creation is that it was up to you, you make the model. paint the model. and play the model how you like in game not per-created 'characters' to work with as you so please. Further on aside here the 6th edition army book has two pages on Luthor Huss to the three paragraphs in the 8th edition book which means, at least as the 8th is concerned, there is hardly any fluff on Luthor Huss in the army book.
The 8th being the more balanced is not a demonstrable fact, it remains and will remain an opinion largely dependent on how one wishes to play the provided ruleset. I certainly agree that an argument can be made that if one takes the sum of all rules plunks down for a beer and pretzel pick up game the 8th will appear the 'more balanced'. However if one is using the game to further a campaign, a themed friendly, or some other such early 6th edition play may in fact be the more balanced. It is all what you are trying to get out of the game and if you find the 8th the best great enjoy it but I certainly don't believe that you can factually prove it is the best for all settings/playstyles/player types.
-
KevinC 2020!!
EEFL!
EEFL.freeforums.net
-
I'm reminded of Monty Python. :icon_lol:
-
- In previous editions, a good player could completely abuse the power of skirmishers and fast cav. If fact you could make an all fast cav or skirmisher army, dash around your enemies to avoid all combat, and defeat your opponent soundly. Meanwhile the game was no fun at all.
Never saw this happen. In fact how could you make an all skirmisher army? Lizardmen on Skinks? Skaven on Night/Gutter Runners? Seems a bit far fetched to me.
- Fear in editions other than 8th was totally crazy, if you lost combat to a fear causer, and you were outnumbered, you broke auto! In fact, psychology in general was too much. Low leadership stuff was extremely fragile - and you could not reroll with the BSB.
I agree. Then again there's a multum ways in 8th to completely avoid fear, especially for certain armies.
- 6/7th edition the player could build their lists to determine how many magic dice they could get each phase. 8th might have some big spells, but the Winds of Magic are random, and armies are suppose to be larger. If you want to dominate your enemies with magic, play 6th and 7th edition, you can have your mighty magic phase every turn and crush your opponent without getting into combat!
No, sorry but just... no. I've played a couple of battles against HE's in 8th. There was nothing, NOTHING, I could do to stop his magic phase, and I had Wizards and Warrior Priests in every Lord/Hero slot. Meanwhile in 6th I could block magic a lot easier and do not worry about shit like the Purple Sun of Xereus. Even the infamous Pit of Shades was toned down in 6th. That was because of game balance. 6th edition forced you to combine magic with might. In 8th you could just magic your opponent to death with most armies, and there was nothing he could do.
- Speaking of magic, if you played Vampire Counts and also had half a brain, you might lose to bad luck about once everyone ten games. With the power of magic, fear, and raise the dead, Undead armies were all but unbeatable.
Vampire Counts magic in 8th edition is obscenely hard. Then again Vampires, and Undead in general, always had one of the strongest magic phases in every edition of WFB.
- More on magic, actually with being able to stack your power dice, the big spells in 6th were devastating. I remember Orcs & Goblins players never took a proper Warboss to lead their armies because the Shaman Lord was insane! The Foot of Gork with the double dohus or the reroll staff made Orcs pretty gross. You could destroy entire armies with that combo. You can even go back to at least one 6th edition battle report in WD where this happens. On the tournament scene is was a regular sight.
It gave low magic armies a decent chance of casting spells, and breaking strong anti-magic resistance, like that of the Dwarves. Some armies in 8th don't need the stacking, beacuse they're so strong in magic, that it'll always work for them, or almost always.
- 6th edition saw the rise of the Tzeentch flying circus, perhaps the greatest force to blast your enemies away and avoid combat. Sound like fun ?
Almost as fun as the Doomfire Warlock spam for DE's and White Lions with Banner of the World Dragon for HE's in 8th. Don't even get me started on a block of Phoenix Guard with an Archamge inside. Fun times.
- The Skink skirmish army, run circles around your enemy shooting them with poison missiles while your Slann blast them with magic. Avoid combat and win!
Like I've said before, in every edition you can create a bullshit roster. Sort of like 40K's 7th edition Space Marines Skyhammer/Raptor Wing Combo with an Iron Hands Chapter Master on a bike.
- The Dark Elf Dark Rider army (see tactics for Tzeentch flying circus and Skink skirmish armies above - key tactic: don't engage in combat, no matter how much your opponent complains).
Same as above.
- Skaven were also totally insane in 6th edition, heavy shooting army backed by huge units of cheap infantry. Warp-lightening, magic, and remember the Rattling Guns when they hit auto? Skaven were probably the hardest army in 6th, along with Vampires.
Just like VC's, Rats were always good in WFB, that's nothing new. Also all those things that you've mentioned are exactly as deadly in 8th. And in 8th they have even more stuff.
- Storm of Chaos, while a totally awesome supplement and campaign, the armies were super hard in there. The Daemon Legions list was gross.
I agree in 100%. However for me, it was the Sea Patrol with its free round of shooting and the dwarven Slayer army that could win, even when they lost, that really took the cake. However, if I remember correctly, you had to ask your opponent for permission to use those armies in the first place.
- March blocking, which made a lot of the above armies successful, was nothing but an extremely frustrating part of the game that players used to make magic/shooty armies work really well. Back then if an enemy model was with 8", you were march blocked automatically and could not march. Obviously used to slow down armies while they were blasted by magic and missiles.
Yes, that was irritating. I think that Dwarves could negate this, I think, to some extent, but I could be wrong.
- People constantly complained that High Elves and Dark Elves were weak and 'sucked' and so you never saw them.
Weak? No. Most armies were balanced. Except for Skaven, VC's and Chaos Warriors, they were evenly matched. Also look what happened to Elves in later editions. Army wide ASF, even on basic units. That's a bad comedy.
- Tournaments were made of: Skaven, Vampires, Lizards, Daemon Legions.
Never played those. Then again, every tournament list is usually tailored heavily and made from the best units possible, so that's not exactly strange. I like casual gaming. Winning for win's sake, or to make myself feel better, was never my style, so I avoid tournaments and play casual games with my friends. It's about fun, not about who has the biggest, plastic or finecast d**k after all.
- 6th edition army books had hardly no fluff, and dropped a lot of classic units: Steams Tanks, War Wagons, Forest Goblins, Spider-Riders, all the classic special characters, etc.
Nope. Not really. Like Bartolo Miachevelia said, new units were presented in WD's (which was goddamn cool) and they even introduced heroes, who were often absurdly strong AND priced (Karl Franz for 999 points, if I recall correctly). Fluff was plentiful, supplemented by BL books and novels, and even 2nd edition WFRP was connected to the 6th edition WFB (check out the stats for White Wolves cavalry hammer in the Old World Armoury, it has the exact same rules, as those in the Empire Armybook). Not to mention, the fluff for 6th was much more "down to earth", while the fluff of 8th edition had to be epic and over the top, because GW desperately wanted Fantasy to be like 40K.
Also there were more artifacts in 6th edition and fluff-wise, it was also better written. I've already written about Warrior Priests hating only those, who are true enemies of Sigmar, while in 8th they hate everyone, because "we 40keks now, duh!".
I also loved how inconsistent and downright stupid, 8th edition could be. Take for example our beloved Empire. So you have those giant chickens (fluffy as hell for a standard, human army, amirite?) which can be used by IC Knights. It would be cool, if our Grandmaster could use one as well, right? WROOOOONG! No giant chicken for you, Grandmaster man. Begone! Also consider Greatswords - elite, heavy infantry, used to swinging huge pieces of Steel for most of their lives. Veterans all, right? They are Strength 3. Ok, normal human strength, no problem, right? Then you look at Dark Elf Excecutioners... who are Str 4. I guess our Greatswords don't even lift, while those willowy bastards do. Sucks to be us, right?
Now, I don't hate on 8th edition, I really don't. I don't like it, but there are good parts of it, just like there are bad parts of my favourite 6th edition, some of which you've mentioned. In the end, it's a matter of personal prefferences really.
-
My local group has fully switched to The 9th Age. There are some guys picking up Age of Sigmar now that it has rules for playing games, but I'm staying away. I have no interest in that "game".
I don't know anyone in my FLGS actively playing AoS, but I never will; I'll try any ruleset that is free, cheap, or that I can borrow; personally, I prefer ones more like WHFB, such as KoW or, for historical, War & Conquest.
Just read the rules , well skim read , it's like 8th but clearer !!
Just skim read Empire.... HAHA Looks like Mortars , Greatswords, Swordsmen and Crazies are back on the menu boys !!
What V. of 9th Age is this? It seems to change at rather short notice, although it takes a while for the new version to filter down to all players....
I prefer 6th edition for many reasons, so I'm building little warbands, border patrols and 1000 points armies for that edition. :biggriin:
I liked 6th Ed. too, even though I never won a game under it's rule set.
@BaronVonGriffon: Glad to hear it!! :icon_wink:
-
- In previous editions, a good player could completely abuse the power of skirmishers and fast cav. If fact you could make an all fast cav or skirmisher army, dash around your enemies to avoid all combat, and defeat your opponent soundly. Meanwhile the game was no fun at all.
Never saw this happen. In fact how could you make an all skirmisher army? Lizardmen on Skinks? Skaven on Night/Gutter Runners? Seems a bit far fetched to me.
------------KevinC: I have no interested in explaining it, but I'm shocked you're not familiar with this if you played 6th. But it just might be how/where you play, I've played with a wide range of people including, campaigns, GTs, and so on.
I would concede, if you play 6th edition as a gentlemen's game it is really good. But beware the competitive players....
- 6/7th edition the player could build their lists to determine how many magic dice they could get each phase. 8th might have some big spells, but the Winds of Magic are random, and armies are suppose to be larger. If you want to dominate your enemies with magic, play 6th and 7th edition, you can have your mighty magic phase every turn and crush your opponent without getting into combat!
No, sorry but just... no. I've played a couple of battles against HE's in 8th. There was nothing, NOTHING, I could do to stop his magic phase, and I had Wizards and Warrior Priests in every Lord/Hero slot. Meanwhile in 6th I could block magic a lot easier and do not worry about shit like the Purple Sun of Xereus. Even the infamous Pit of Shades was toned down in 6th. That was because of game balance. 6th edition forced you to combine magic with might. In 8th you could just magic your opponent to death with most armies, and there was nothing he could do.
--------KevinC: Forget everything that happened to you by the HEs. Just do the math - the winds of magic in 8th are random. In 6th they are stacked, the player designs his power dice during army list creation. Magic was extremely powerful in 6th and 7th edition. And magic dominating armies were really insane, and really common. The game design also made if much more difficult to make a comeback.
- Speaking of magic, if you played Vampire Counts and also had half a brain, you might lose to bad luck about once everyone ten games. With the power of magic, fear, and raise the dead, Undead armies were all but unbeatable.
Vampire Counts magic in 8th edition is obscenely hard. Then again Vampires, and Undead in general, always had one of the strongest magic phases in every edition of WFB.
------KevinC: Are you sure you've played 6th edition? Back in 6th and 7th, when I had to play Vampires, I new it was a completely uphill battle - my chances of winning were low, merely by army list design. They were completely overpowered and if a general with half a brain played them - they could not lose. Come on, someone out there has to know what I'm talking about here.
When I play Undead in 8th, it's no big deal, they are just another army. In 6/7, I'd really not even want to play against them.
- More on magic, actually with being able to stack your power dice, the big spells in 6th were devastating. I remember Orcs & Goblins players never took a proper Warboss to lead their armies because the Shaman Lord was insane! The Foot of Gork with the double dohus or the reroll staff made Orcs pretty gross. You could destroy entire armies with that combo. You can even go back to at least one 6th edition battle report in WD where this happens. On the tournament scene is was a regular sight.
It gave low magic armies a decent chance of casting spells, and breaking strong anti-magic resistance, like that of the Dwarves. Some armies in 8th don't need the stacking, beacuse they're so strong in magic, that it'll always work for them, or almost always.
- 6th edition saw the rise of the Tzeentch flying circus, perhaps the greatest force to blast your enemies away and avoid combat. Sound like fun ?
Almost as fun as the Doomfire Warlock spam for DE's and White Lions with Banner of the World Dragon for HE's in 8th. Don't even get me started on a block of Phoenix Guard with an Archamge inside. Fun times.
--------KevinC: I'm not saying there are not some hard combos in 8th, but that's not want I'm talking about. The reason 8th is better is because the whole design of the system is geared to more fun for both players. If I bring my hordes of goblins, your eagles or scouts are not going to march block my whole army the entire game while you shoot and blast me with magic. You're not going to get the exact number of power dice you want each magic phase. You're not going to be able to make "no combat," or "no blocks of troops," armies in 8th AND be able to a crush your opponent.
In 8th, If I bring a fluffy army design and you can bring filth, and I can still soundly beat you. That's not how 6/7 editions worked.
When I look back at all the GTs I've been to during the various editions, it was 6 and 7 where players where able to abuse the base rules to make abusive, OTT armies. 8th stopped most of that.
Find a hardcore tournament player and ask them why they don't like 8th (because I'm sure they don't) - if you have a honest discussion about it, it's going to be stuff like random charge moves, random winds of magic, etc that they don't like. Why? Why are those things so bad? Answer: because it's much harder to manipulate and abuse.
- The Skink skirmish army, run circles around your enemy shooting them with poison missiles while your Slann blast them with magic. Avoid combat and win!
Like I've said before, in every edition you can create a bullshit roster. Sort of like 40K's 7th edition Space Marines Skyhammer/Raptor Wing Combo with an Iron Hands Chapter Master on a bike.
----------------True, but it's much harder to do in 8th. I believe you may not have been exposed to the abuses of 6th/7th edition.
- Skaven were also totally insane in 6th edition, heavy shooting army backed by huge units of cheap infantry. Warp-lightening, magic, and remember the Rattling Guns when they hit auto? Skaven were probably the hardest army in 6th, along with Vampires.
Just like VC's, Rats were always good in WFB, that's nothing new. Also all those things that you've mentioned are exactly as deadly in 8th. And in 8th they have even more stuff.
---------Nah, although Skaven and Vampires are good in 8th. Not scared of them, they are just another army, nothing insane like they use to be.
- Storm of Chaos, while a totally awesome supplement and campaign, the armies were super hard in there. The Daemon Legions list was gross.
I agree in 100%. However for me, it was the Sea Patrol with its free round of shooting and the dwarven Slayer army that could win, even when they lost, that really took the cake. However, if I remember correctly, you had to ask your opponent for permission to use those armies in the first place.
- March blocking, which made a lot of the above armies successful, was nothing but an extremely frustrating part of the game that players used to make magic/shooty armies work really well. Back then if an enemy model was with 8", you were march blocked automatically and could not march. Obviously used to slow down armies while they were blasted by magic and missiles.
Yes, that was irritating. I think that Dwarves could negate this, I think, to some extent, but I could be wrong.
- People constantly complained that High Elves and Dark Elves were weak and 'sucked' and so you never saw them.
Weak? No. Most armies were balanced. Except for Skaven, VC's and Chaos Warriors, they were evenly matched. Also look what happened to Elves in later editions. Army wide ASF, even on basic units. That's a bad comedy.
---------KevinC: No offense, but it's hard for me to believe you have a good amount of experience playing 6th. There was a whole movement to alter the Dark Elf book, which GW eventually did with an errata. It was common knowledge that Dark Elves and High Elves were far under par. Go back to various message boards and do a searches for 2001-2003 (?) on these topics. And you'll see.
- Tournaments were made of: Skaven, Vampires, Lizards, Daemon Legions.
Never played those. Then again, every tournament list is usually tailored heavily and made from the best units possible, so that's not exactly strange. I like casual gaming. Winning for win's sake, or to make myself feel better, was never my style, so I avoid tournaments and play casual games with my friends. It's about fun, not about who has the biggest, plastic or finecast d**k after all.
----------KevinC: Well here is the disconnect. I figured. I agree with your style of play, however I use to always go to several huge GTs every year, but mainly because they were a whole weekend of playing WFB. If you went to tournaments you'd see how bad 6th edition was abused.
- 6th edition army books had hardly no fluff, and dropped a lot of classic units: Steams Tanks, War Wagons, Forest Goblins, Spider-Riders, all the classic special characters, etc.
Nope. Not really. Like Bartolo Miachevelia said, new units were presented in WD's (which was goddamn cool) and they even introduced heroes, who were often absurdly strong AND priced (Karl Franz for 999 points, if I recall correctly). Fluff was plentiful, supplemented by BL books and novels, and even 2nd edition WFRP was connected to the 6th edition WFB (check out the stats for White Wolves cavalry hammer in the Old World Armoury, it has the exact same rules, as those in the Empire Armybook). Not to mention, the fluff for 6th was much more "down to earth", while the fluff of 8th edition had to be epic and over the top, because GW desperately wanted Fantasy to be like 40K.
---------KevinC: It's not a debate. The 4/5 edition army books were tomes of background. GW as company policy decided to take most of the fluff out of 6th edition army books and 40K 3rd edition army books. That's a fact, and that's what I'm talking about. So if you were a 4/5 ed. player, like I was, when 6th edition army books came out, it was like "what happened to everything?" 7th edition started to bring a lot of that stuff back, which I was delighted by.
-
- In previous editions, a good player could completely abuse the power of skirmishers and fast cav. If fact you could make an all fast cav or skirmisher army, dash around your enemies to avoid all combat, and defeat your opponent soundly. Meanwhile the game was no fun at all.
Never saw this happen. In fact how could you make an all skirmisher army? Lizardmen on Skinks? Skaven on Night/Gutter Runners? Seems a bit far fetched to me.
Beastmen in 6th, then Wood Elves, and later Dark Elves, if you never saw this happen then you were lucky. I played a number of games against Wood Elves in 6th and 7th and they were always frustrating experiences since you could never pin them down.
-
The one thing you had in 6th that was lost/weakened was the 25pt Dispel Scroll.
That made a big difference to the magic effect.
As an Empire player I used to go fairly "magic-lite" but always had some dispel scrolls up my sleeve, or in a pouch. :engel:
-
@KevinC: I never played competitively in my life. In fact the first, "serious" campaign I've played last year, was for 40K and I didn't liked the experience. Suddendly everyone brought so much cheese to the table that it wasn't funny anymore and seriously shown just how much OP certain codexes/builds really are.
I know that what you said is true, in certain points. Every edition had its ups and downs, its high and low points. It's just a matter of prefference. I like 6th for its simplicity, lack of obvious powerbuilds, toned down magic, low-fantasy feeling and synchronicity with other Warhammer Fantasy products of that era. You like 8th for different reasons - I get that and I respect that. To each his own, I guess. ;)
-
My local group has fully switched to The 9th Age. There are some guys picking up Age of Sigmar now that it has rules for playing games, but I'm staying away. I have no interest in that "game".
I don't know anyone in my FLGS actively playing AoS, but I never will; I'll try any ruleset that is free, cheap, or that I can borrow; personally, I prefer ones more like WHFB, such as KoW or, for historical, War & Conquest.
In case you are not aware, Mantic released an historical version of Lings of War, and while the way you build an army is different, they use the same core rules so you can even fight a fantasy army with a historical one if you want.
Back to the original Kings of War, you can already try it for free, they have the rules available as a free PDF.
With the free PDF, you are missing :
- fluff and pictures
- the list of magic artefacts(*)
- the free army lists(*) are sample list that are fully playable, but don't include all the units available in the printed rule book
- the full rulebook has 6 scenarios(**), while the free PDF only give the rules for the most basic one : Kill! (get points for kililng units)
Outside of that, they are the complete rules for the game
(*) there is a free and very good army list editor at http://kow2.easyarmy.com/ that include all units and options from both the core rules and the supplements (including artefacts and unique heroes), and when switching to "View" or "PDF" you get all special rules printed at the bottom of the list (incluing the artefacts) so you can try them even without buying the book (but it book is cheap so if you try and like the game you will probably end buying it anyway)
They also made a version for the historical Kings of War : http://kowh.easyarmy.com
(**)note that the tournament tweaks (sort of a soft errata compiled by the official Rule Comitee, designed for tournaments but used by most players) also introduced 2 new free scenarios (search for the PDF of the Clash of Kings tournament, it includes those)
-
i started playing in the end of 5th, loved 6th edition. Even though i only played dark elves. :ph34r:
luckely my main oppponent was high elves.
Anyhoo all editions have its merits and flaws, much of it mentioned above.
Ill keep playing 8th edition with my mates, Houseruling as we go, but we think its quite ballanced and had a few good fixes like random charges and stepup.
But then again Psychology should be bigger factor again, ASF as army wide rules needs to go, and why the hell shouldnt i be able to break steadfast with a large heavy cavalry unit in the flank and to name a few things.
That being said what i dont get is people saying 6th edition was light on magic. I agree with Kevin on this
I played against armies generating 12-16 pd per magicphase.(bloody VC but possble with other armies aswell). and you stood no change if you didnt make sure that your army had enough spellcasters to counter this.
Sure, you got these terrible spells now, but i havent been hit with dwellers below , ever.
And the times magic won the game for me are few. What happened more often was that I invested quite some points in magic and you would roll crap on the winds of magic.
-
I agree about magic, 8th edition was the worse system, except for all other warhammer editions !
Joking, from memory 5th edition magic was not completly unlike the 8th edition, except that you replaced the dice roll with a deck of "winds of magic" cards.
I don't remember how many cards you drew for the deck, it was probably based on the number of wizards however, in which case it probably allowed for some abuses, but what I remember using seemed more balanced that the 6/7th edition system.
8th edition had the advantage of adding a notion of disminishing returns to taking lots of wizards, making viable to only take one or maybe two only, a great imprvement from 7th edition, but it also came with taking at least one wizard be strongly advised if you didn't want to see the magic dice "wasted", plus the wizard level being added to the roll made having a level 4 even more important
-
As has been pointed out before, one has to distinguish between the BRB and the Army Books. The magic system of the 6th and 7th BRB was as such much more balanced than that of the 8th. However, that balance was unhinged by some of the ABs.
-
Sorry but i fail te see how it was more ballanced? "If you dont take the same amount of wizards as me, you re screwed" can be counted as ballanced ofcourse.
It wasn't really down to te ABs IMO, some probably made it worse. But by taking a l4 and 2l2 you had 10pd every turn. (without taking pd boosting items in account) And you really had to counter that with enough spellcasters of your own, being down 4-6 dice every turn was very painfull indeed. I agree there is a big difference between the spells now and then. But back then you didnt want a black horror or a comet of casandra coming through either. Especially not more then once.
-
Most importantly, as you acknowledge, the BRB spells were not overpowered. [Note that the Comet of Casandora was a RiP spell, which under the old rules meant that the spell was ended if the Wizard attempted to cast a new spell, left the table or was slain. So, as long as the Comet was up, the Wizard could not cast a spell without terminating the Comet.] In addition, to cast a spell, wizards could use a maximum of PD equal to their level +1. In principle, the maximum number of dice a wizard could use was 5 per spell. The level was not added to the casting result. In the 7th edition, a wizard could only use the dice he himself generated and those of the common pool. To take your example, you may have had 10 PD a turn, but the lvl 4 could only use 6 of those.
To add: the spell selection was indeed random - you could not optimise the spell selection between various wizards.
-
However, that balance was unhinged by some of the ABs.
"some"? was there a AB lore that didn't unhinge? O&G I guess, admittedly my memory is fuzzy and biased by the horrible things endless processions of skaven, chaos and undead armies did to me.
Another thing to consider is that 6/7 lores had many more movement spells and as far as I remember also 'magical move then charge' spells whereas 8th does not. The oh-so-thoughtful 'tactic' of moving your unit into the flank vector of the enemy during movement, then magically charge in was quite common (I also remember a tomb king item allowing a free reform for extra nimbleness) This is coupled with the ability to reliably produce lots of power dice, i.e. relative ease to pull it off.
My favorite metaphor:
6/7 is like a car race. You can pretty much look at the car and its setup and you know who will win unless the drive makes a major mistake. Drivers mostly need to push the pedals and pull the steering wheel at precisely the right moment and the car will stay on the optimal line and follow the course. Every race is pretty much the same, minor differences in the courses but really just push the same pedals and you'll be fine.
8 is like a horse race...on untamed broncos. Riders need to mitigate the bucking while steering their horse towards the finish line without much control about how fast the horse goes. Sometimes the horse will spin in a crazy way and rider skills help to put it back on track. Races are messy and unpredictable affairs. Sometimes the better rider will have an especially unruly horse and lose the race.
Some people like cars, some people like horses. :::cheers:::
-
Another part of the previous editions that I don't miss, is the horrible autobreak from fear when being outnumbered. That one was just bonkers.
-
Another thing to consider is that 6/7 lores had many more movement spells and as far as I remember also 'magical move then charge' spells whereas 8th does not. The oh-so-thoughtful 'tactic' of moving your unit into the flank vector of the enemy during movement, then magically charge in was quite common (I also remember a tomb king item allowing a free reform for extra nimbleness) This is coupled with the ability to reliably produce lots of power dice, i.e. relative ease to pull it off.
But this very issue illustrates one of the key problems the 8th created. Magic movement spells were indeed a problem but rather than address them by prohibiting charge moves they removed almost all of them and offered no spells that hinder enemy movement. The 8th Ed game design really failed here and made the game 85% about the whole melee combat nexus.
-
The fact that combat only usually lasted one turn was what made 6-7th worse in my book. Nothing like building a nice deep infantry unit, put a character there maybe and then get steamrolled by 6 knights. It was fun to use tactics and all to avoid that situation but in 8th you can just take 30 swordsmen with a Witchhunter and fight a bit! Even if you lose in the end, you still at least get to see them attack :icon_rolleyes:
-
Step up by itself does not make 8th ed the stronger edition. However it was a much needed rule.
-
Its that and steadfast.
Also the magic setups. In 6th its either a caddy or 4+2+2+2. Why wouldn't it when every next level of magic was a better investment than the previous? I was only really a question of whether you needed a BSB more than the third level 2. Most of the time the answer was no as the enemy should never reach you, blown away by your gunline. Shooting armies were just terrible back then - I took a SAD army once myself, just to try and counter my friends Dwarf artillery range.
8th has its problems, probably went too far in a number of areas. But the core rules were more to my liking - they cut casual lists more slack.
-
Its that and steadfast.
Also the magic setups. In 6th its either a caddy or 4+2+2+2. Why wouldn't it when every next level of magic was a better investment than the previous? I was only really a question of whether you needed a BSB more than the third level 2. Most of the time the answer was no as the enemy should never reach you, blown away by your gunline. Shooting armies were just terrible back then - I took a SAD army once myself, just to try and counter my friends Dwarf artillery range.
8th has its problems, probably went too far in a number of areas. But the core rules were more to my liking - they cut casual lists more slack.
--------Exactly!!! And if a anyone here does not know what a SAD army is, then they are not qualified to comment.
-
Quality is more important of quantity. Steam Tanks had rules in Warhammer Chronicles and they included many variants of it (you could order bitz to build them from Mail Order) afterall Steam Tank had a new miniature in 6th ed, spider riders were at end of O&G army books, themed armies, together with spider swarms(thanks Sigmar Arachnaroks were only described in Lustria book and not common in all Warhammer World forests like in 8th), classic special characters with miniature had rules in GW website ,Warhammer Chronicles and White Dwarfs. Kislev had its online supplement, Dogs of War were playable and hireble for other armies and Ravening Hordes lists were pretty balanced.
--------------------Yes, I'm glad all that stuff happened, but if you played with groups that where into "official," "tournaments," and so on, you couldn't use stuff not in the army book or the back of the book stuff. For me, that greatly restricted play.
Also, it's not a question of quality vs. quantity. In fact, I know what happened. During 4/5 edition, players complained if an army book described a unit and GW did not create the miniatures. So GW actually listen to fans (for once) and so only included unit entries in 6th edition books that had up-to-date citadel miniatures. For an old school player like myself, if was devastating. Although I played many funs games during the 6th edition era, GW broke my heart with the exclusion of units and background text. I think they recognized these mistakes for 7th edition.
7th edition edition broke a lot with past, there're certaing things in Chaos fluff that existed since 3rd ed RoC volumes till Liber Chaotica(6th ed.) that were drastically changed . There was an interview to John Blanche in a old WD and it perfectly describe what Warhammer was supposed to be, article title was ''the Illustrated Man''.
----------This is not true. Fake news here. Many players thought the above regarding the 7th edition Daemon book because you could mix the four Chaos powers without penalties. However, many of the unit describes in the 7th edition Daemons of Chaos book came directly from the old 3rd edition hard cover Chaos books.
I think it's hard to explain but for me rules that convey the setting, atmosphere of the game are more important than the ones that balance it ( thats why i don't like magical terrain, effects described in end game spells) 8th edition lets you have a Demon Prince of Nurgle as general and a Tzeentch aspiring champion as BsB, enough said.
That's why I'd take 6th edition over 8th also with Bretonnia and Tzeentch Flying circus, the overpowered skavens, the cavalry winning over infantries...
--------There is more Chaos restriction regarding the powers of chaos than 6/7 editions. 8th edition brought back Khorne v. Slaanesh hatred, and Nurgle v. Tzeentch hatred for example. And in any event, true WFB players won't do things like mix Khorne and Slaanesh, etc.
-
----------This is not true. Fake news here. Many players thought the above regarding the 7th edition Daemon book because you could mix the four Chaos powers without penalties. However, many of the unit describes in the 7th edition Daemons of Chaos book came directly from the old 3rd edition hard cover Chaos books.
--------There is more Chaos restriction regarding the powers of chaos than 6/7 editions. 8th edition brought back Khorne v. Slaanesh hatred, and Nurgle v. Tzeentch hatred for example. And in any event, true WFB players won't do things like mix Khorne and Slaanesh, etc.
Not fake news, reading Jervis Johnson's Standard Bearer when DoC army book came out(7th ed) it's clearly stated that they want to bring the different chaos ''closer'' making them work more like Ancient Greek ones.
In 6th ed you could mix the different marks only if your general was undivided(as per rules of Hordes of Chaos book). 6th edition also had limits like 0-1 for some units or some depending on numbers of others( like skaven clan rats).
Not forgetting that 7th ed O&G armybook had big chronologic mistakes inside it (for example the piece about Gorbad siege).
And not talking about things like Storm of Magic! Hey I'm a high elf noble let's do a pact with demons... -.-''
-
And in any event, true WFB players won't do things like mix Khorne and Slaanesh, etc.
This point invalidates a bunch of your other ones. No true player would take a SAD. Or a tzeentch flying circus. Or an empire gunline.
Or, in your example, a mixed god Demon army. But they did, because the rules allowed them to. Or they did, primarily in WAAC environments, which it sounds like what you play in. Which is fine. But not everyone did. Therefore, 8th suits you better. It doesn't suit everyone, and people have their preferences. People have opinions, and you don't need to try and browbeat them into submission.
-
I have to correct my previous post.
After speaking with the manager of the main store in Barcelona, seems 9th Age is not wealthy as I thought. This system has lost much support over the past few months.
Certainly, all tournements there are here use 9th Age rules, but they have less participation and they are few in number in comparison of the previous year. Basically, seems that the only ones who plays 9th Age are competitive players, the only ones who can follow the continuos changes on the rulebook. This means new players don't want to enter on this system because the will be compelled to play as them.
I also ask him about other fanmade rulebooks: Manuscritos de Nuth Reload, Warhammer Reforged, Warhammer 8.5... Nobody play it.
Another curious thing is that Age of Sigmar neither grow up. Few people play it a year ago, and the same few people play it now.
Could be interesting to make a quiz in the forum, about the system do you play, don't you thing?
-
So basically its all broken.
-
Seems like it, Warlord :biggriin:
Anyway - I'm off to play a heavy house-rules game of 8th edition now. In the end thats what counts - playing games and having fun, no matter what rules you use :happy:
-
Not fake news, reading Jervis Johnson's Standard Bearer when DoC army book came out(7th ed) it's clearly stated that they want to bring the different chaos ''closer'' making them work more like Ancient Greek ones.
In 6th ed you could mix the different marks only if your general was undivided(as per rules of Hordes of Chaos book). 6th edition also had limits like 0-1 for some units or some depending on numbers of others( like skaven clan rats).
Not forgetting that 7th ed O&G armybook had big chronologic mistakes inside it (for example the piece about Gorbad siege).
And not talking about things like Storm of Magic! Hey I'm a high elf noble let's do a pact with demons... -.-''
----------I'm a huge fan of the Hordes of Chaos book actually! Regarding Chaos though, it was never in the lore that the Chaos factions never work with each other under any circumstance. 8th edition brought back the old rivalries (khorne v. slaanesh; Nurgle v. Tzeentch), which I was really glad about.
For the record I'm fine with how people want to build their army. But I prefer themed armies.
What's out of place about Gorbad's siege....never caught that ?
-
And in any event, true WFB players won't do things like mix Khorne and Slaanesh, etc.
This point invalidates a bunch of your other ones. No true player would take a SAD. Or a tzeentch flying circus. Or an empire gunline.
Or, in your example, a mixed god Demon army. But they did, because the rules allowed them to. Or they did, primarily in WAAC environments, which it sounds like what you play in. Which is fine. But not everyone did. Therefore, 8th suits you better. It doesn't suit everyone, and people have their preferences. People have opinions, and you don't need to try and browbeat them into submission.
-----------I'm not sure of your reasoning. I don't like 6th edition v. 8th because of how easily the rules are abused, not because of various themed armies. For example, I think the Tzeentch Flying Circus is a very cool themed army, just it's not a lot of fun to play against.
I'm not trying to browbeat anyone, and I'm completely respectful of whatever people want to play. In fact if everyone on this forum completely hates 8th edition, is doesn't bother me. I'm merely expressing my annoyance when people praise 6th edition like it was the ultimate Warhammer.
At the end of the day, I've always bought the whole "Warhammer is a gentlemen's game." And if you play with the right gentlemen, all editions are excellent games.
-
Basically everyone has their own opinions about what was or is good or bad.
There were good things about 6th and 7th and 8th in my opinion - I was sort of hoping 9th would eventually settle down to the best of all of them.
Certainly, all tournaments there are here use 9th Age rules, but they have less participation and they are few in number in comparison of the previous year. Basically, seems that the only ones who plays 9th Age are competitive players, the only ones who can follow the continuos changes on the rulebook. This means new players don't want to enter on this system because the will be compelled to play as them.
I think maybe you are being a bit too critical here and impatient.
Firstly ever since the start of 6th Edition it seemed the rules were always changing NOT ONLY with edition releases, but with every new Army book. :engel:
Secondly I am quite happy for competitive players to 'test' the rules - if they find the 'broken' combinations as they used to do with GW then it gives the writers the opportunity to correct them.
As a fun player I don't have to use them, or play against players who do.
How long has it been since AoS appeared and Fantasy was canned?
Maybe it's too soon to see the eventual outcome.
-
So basically its all broken.
Well, I wouldn't say broken but scattered.
Kings of War and Warma Hordes, games never played two years ago, have now more support.
And then, obviously, there are who keep playing with 8th edition.
-
I'm not trying to browbeat anyone, and I'm completely respectful of whatever people want to play. In fact if everyone on this forum completely hates 8th edition, is doesn't bother me. I'm merely expressing my annoyance when people praise 6th edition like it was the ultimate Warhammer.
Pretty much this.
I tried to get into warhammer in 6th edition and two rules really put me off.
1) charges being double movement = Just leads to people having units 0.5 inches outside charge range. And yes, I am was a tradsperson and could guess to within 1/4 of an inch like 99% of the time.
2) no steadfast. 40k had the same problem when one tiny rank and file model wipes out full strength elite units. Even before I tried fantasy my gaming group in 40k made a house rule that you had to outnumber your opponent to wipe it out or it had to be below half strength.
Then 8th edition came about with random charges and steadfast and I was sold! I bought right in when the red shirt at GW pointed out these 2 differences from the previous editions.
Also, Kings of War is quite similar to 6th edition in feel. I still don't like the double movement = charge distance because it leads to units standing 0.5inches outside charge range.
And you can't get wiped out until you take a certain number of wounds but it avoids 8th editions grind to the last man problem. So it works.
-
At first with Kings of War i was expecting to find the static charge distances to be a problem like you describe and had even started thinking of simply importing the random charge distance from 8th edition ...
... then I got to really try the game in real situation, and I discovered that in practice it was not a problem.
It was less "keep 0.5 inche away" and more "do I charge or do I stand my ground to make him charge me, hoping to survive and charge him in the flank with a second unit ?"
In warhammer the fact that you get to attack both in your turn and your opponent turn introduced a whole house of problems, as well as the fact that sometimes charging an unit with more troups resulted in your target getting more attack backs (I still remember the time when I surroundered a swordmasters unit with tomb guards, skeletons on a flank, and a sphinx on the other flank and was crushed by them)
In KoW you get the same number of attacks , you don't have tricks to maximise the contact or champions or heroes covering the whole unit behind them with their magical armor. This means that being outnumbered is always a bad thing, and prevent death starts or elite expensive units from dominating the game, and it give a lots of importante to the mouvement phase.
You're right that in some aspects KoW takes from 6th and 7th edition, normal as the core rules where made by Allessio Calvatore, but I positively hate 7th edition (I lost my first and last 7th edition game during deployment, or more correctly during the army selection, having played a tomb king army against a wood elf skirmishing force)
And yet I find KoW to have taken the good ideas being 6th and 7th and made a nice implementation that using the same core rules dating back to the 80s would never have allowed.
-
I disagree about the static charge distance making the game more about a trying to get into the flank or stand ground, etc...
It might be what it wants to do. But in practice it just makes movement 10 the best stat in the game.
Why? Because there are very few units that can take a decent charge in KoW. In the Kingdom of Men army there is a pike block unit that has phalanx and ensnare. Phalanx elimitates thunderous charge, ensnare gets your enemy -1 to hit.
This unit basically becomes a crutch.
A high defense is ok but that easily gets mitigated by the plethora of crushing strength and thunderous charge.
So if your unit can't take a charge then there it is just too risky to stand your ground.
I guess you can play the troop spam game. I personally found this un-immersive.
And I totally agree with that Kings of War is better than 6th and 7th. I couldn't get into 6th or 7th but I could get into kings of war.
Its funny that in Kings of War you don't strike back. In 6th and 7th edition you do, but not really.
Only the front rank attacks, and only if they didn't die. ...so you effectively don't hit back. Another reason KoW is better.
-
Maybe back to the topic?
So, 6 months since I last wrote to this thread. Time for update from my region (Helsinki/Finland).
8th ed: enough random players to get a game if you really like. Say, 4. The only change from 6 months past is I heard of these guys. The reason is dissatisfaction with T9A. So this is a conscious choice and includes compromising and home rules, it's not so much a direct continuation of the old.
T9A: somewhere around 30-40 players, at least. The tournament scene is completely T9A. It's slowly growing.
AoS: about 3 players. Here, I know nothing about how it does at the local GW. Completely different scenes, it seems.
KoW: about 5 players (most of who also play T9A). Stagnating.
Oldhammer (3rd ed): about 10 interested, mostly dads who have/paint older metal figures and have time for a couple of games per year. Very slow-motion and feel-good scene. Likely not growing.
So that's about it. The single Fantasy Battles game that is really played is T9A, it seems.
The real games that are played and that are getting new players are X-Wing, 40K, Infinity and FoW, in no particular order. Bloodbowl and historicals are still around and will be for the foreseeable future. There is Gates of Antares and a couple other 'alternatives to the big two', and this includes AoS and KoW, both of which make (rare) appearances at local clubs. I haven't heard of anybody playing the 8th at the local clubs for a year at least.
The August summary went like this:
Looking at the local hobby and tournaments, this is what I'm seeing in Helsinki/Finland:
8th ed: 0 players
T9A: about 20 players (more who use it at home)
AoS: about 2 players (more who play it with their kids)
KoW: about 5 players (all of who also play T9A)
Oldhammer: about 10 interested, but it's more about the figures than gaming, it seems
Overall, Fantasy Battles has gone back a lot since the early 2010's and is a bit split atm. But if T9A continues as strong as for the past year, it will become the new standard. However, it gathers the old blood. I don't know if anyone has started playing the game as their first Fantasy Battles game/edition.
There might be an AoS scene around the local GW shop. Haven't checked it for a year.
Higher up the north, KoW seems to have proportionally more support.
-Z
-
Wow, it seems like every thread, long enough, ends up in a comparison between editions nowadays :Ohmy: Might as well post my two clipped, debased copper pfennigs here.
For those who've seen my posts since my recent return, this might come as a surprise, but I actually think that in 6e, static CR was too dominant. I never liked it how the core mass ranked infantry was just there to provide static CR while trying to keep the enemy from farming kill CR off them (which meant that everyone and their pet dog used hw+shield, even dark spearelves at times). Only that there was a tipping point after which, if the enemy managed to amass that much killing power, he simply could overcome your static CR no matter what you did, making maneuver lose its significance.
Letting everything be steadfast if it's deeper than the enemy is, on the face of it, a buff for the mass ranked little guys. It gives them a way to obtain staying power that isn't effectively capped 6e style. That game design change means, though, that it must actually be possible to feasibly grind down such blocks in protracted combat, thus the need to increase the lethality of combat across the board. Something that has the additional, in my opinion beneficial, effect of making core infantry vs core infantry about something else than static CR, and things like weapon choices actually matter. Now, if only steadfast had been negatable by flanking...
Something else I didn't like about the 6e design was that if fighting against effectively unbreakable units, such as stubborn bodyguard units, maneuver became largely irrelevant. That lovely CR which you'd get from flanking would effectively count for nothing. 8e and onward, at least flanking enables you to kill more, as the flanking unit would get the benefit of second-rank support attacks, while the victim of the flanking would just get a few extra attacks.
It seems thus to me, from following the debate back and forth, that 8e had generally the right ideas, only they were executed poorly in a way that created new problems, like often happens when making fundamental overhauls. As far as I've gathered, it's the same with magic, in that the winds of magic system created a diminishing returns effect and made magic not be the all-or-nothing it was in earlier editions, but that various army-specific rules make it circumventable to such an extent that magic-heavy armies become even more unstoppable than ever.
So it seems to me like T9A has a fundamentally sound design, one whose issues are more a matter of fine-tuning than anything else.
-
@Konrad Von Ricthmark: Do the founders of T9A offer a way to get notified each time a new edition is posted.....?
-
I do not know. I just recently emerged from a years-long lurking streak a few days ago :-P
-
@Konrad Von Ricthmark: Do the founders of T9A offer a way to get notified each time a new edition is posted.....?
I don't know why anybody but competitive ETC players would need to know when the new edition gets posted, on the very day it happens.
Just check their rules page now and then:
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?simple-page/&s=139c710d328d54700e524b215a12a43eb49178d4 (http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?simple-page/&s=139c710d328d54700e524b215a12a43eb49178d4)
There should be no updates before next August. Until then, 1.3.1 stands as is.
-Z
-
@Konrad Von Ricthmark: Do the founders of T9A offer a way to get notified each time a new edition is posted.....?
I don't know why anybody but competitive ETC players would need to know when the new edition gets posted, on the very day it happens.
Just check their rules page now and then:
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?simple-page/&s=139c710d328d54700e524b215a12a43eb49178d4 (http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?simple-page/&s=139c710d328d54700e524b215a12a43eb49178d4)
There should be no updates before next August. Until then, 1.3.1 stands as is.
-Z
I just wouldn't want to turn up for a game and end up realising we're both expecting to play different rules, O.K?!
-
Yes, that could be a problem. It actually was for me over the past year. Twice there was an update that I wasn't aware of. :icon_lol:
Next time you need to check their rules updates is August-September. Unless they again change their plans... :roll:
-Z
-
Rochester, NY just had a Warhammer Fantasy meetup on Friday night. 6 guys played on 3 beautiful tables. Every model was painted, beer was consumed. Good times. Warhammer is alive and well over here.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170226/e98d310f8b2d3aedfebf59fa3b9553bb.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170226/018ff0a293e573c4735c307ffa5b9773.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170226/c34ba8c91fb002f7988c2df21372ff88.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170226/08816252e79324f3e8cba73d08c05ede.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170226/b995c9875e5d36bdae12ac84ad9518d7.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170226/3604e4920c10c3086cbeb1591cf909db.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170226/de78fb85e3fbc06ee638f0836d22c0fb.jpg)
EEFL!
EEFL.freeforums.net
-
Sounds great! Love the mushroom fields 😸
-
Fantastic! That egyptian-themed table is just lovely!
-
Tomb Kings! :icon_eek: :icon_biggrin:
-
The mushrooms look great. What is that orange army?
-
Great looking battles and gorgeous minis and tables. Love 'em. :blush:
-
The mushrooms look great. What is that orange army?
I would guess our very own wilsonthenarc's Empire of the Sword & Sun.
-
I dug out the Empire of the Sword & Sun (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php/topic,49477.0.html) thread, with detailed pictures.
-
Thank you. I think i had only previously actually seen the first page of that thread. What an inspired effort.
-
Yes, @wilsonthenarc found my gaming group through this here forum. He is now part of EEFL and a local gamer in my stable of opponents. That Empire army is awesome in person...and leaves sand everywhere due to its crazy display base/zen garden.
-
...and leaves sand everywhere due to its crazy display base/zen garden.
So you are suggesting that when his bases don't leave enough sand he dumps a zen garden on you...rather rude I'd think