Topic: What is everybodys opinion on 7th Edition?

[Doc J]

So I stopped playing fantasy after the Storm of Chaos global campaign, which was alot of fun BTW, and I just came back into the fold in August. I was able to get a hold of a brand new 7th ed Rulebook, and corresponding Empire and Beastmen Books I also have a mini 8th stater book. Im going to try to get a weekend club started around here. My question is how did you guys like 7th is it worth playing or should I go to 8th? Please feel free to laugh aat me with my antique rulebooks  Ive been a little embarrased to say that my rulebooks were that old I cant even take Demigryphs 

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

The 7th Edition BRB is more or less an upgrade of the 6th BRB, and thus worth playing. Compared to 8th, I personally feel that 6th/7th have more ++ than == (although 8th does have some long overdue changes, like e.g. step up). If you hear people saying that the 7th edition sucked, then that is mainly due to the extraordinary power creep in some of the later AB. One negative issue I can remember was that mounted models only got +1S for a GW - but still struck last.

[Zygmund]

What Fidelis said.

Compared to 8th, I've heard people say they don't like 7th ed measuring/guessing, combined with inching of units. I think the dice resolution is more gamey.

I've also heard people were moving away from bigger infantry blocks, and that 8th gave a reason to have them again (hordes/buses). I think the horde/bus is more gamey.

My personal problem with the 8th was that it rendered a half - or at least a third - of the empire unit choices clearly worthless. I don't mind the power creep (there's that in all editions but maybe 6th ed Ravening Hordes), but to practically narrow unit choices is just boring.

If you want to balance with the old editions, try 7th with 6th ed Ravening Hordes. If you want to catch up with WHFB now, 9th ed is your friend.

Just my holy opinion. 

-Z

[ZeroTwentythree]

The 7th Edition BRB is more or less an upgrade of the 6th BRB, and thus worth playing. Compared to 8th, I personally feel that 6th/7th have more ++ than == (although 8th does have some long overdue changes, like e.g. step up). If you hear people saying that the 7th edition sucked, then that is mainly due to the extraordinary power creep in some of the later AB. One negative issue I can remember was that mounted models only got +1S for a GW - but still struck last.

I agree with all of that, though I didn't care about the mounted GW issue because it makes sense. In spite of some of the army books f'ing it up, at it's heard 7th ed. is still my favorite edition.

Compared to 8th, I've heard people say they don't like 7th ed measuring/guessing, combined with inching of units. I think the dice resolution is more gamey.

...rather than more skilly or thinky, like every edition before. 

I've also heard people were moving away from bigger infantry blocks, and that 8th gave a reason to have them again (hordes/buses). I think the horde/bus is more gamey.

I don't really agree with that. There weren't many people playing giant 10-wide hordes. But big units were still practical. As were MSU armies. In fact, I thought there was a decent variety in 6th/7th -- you could build an army on large or small units, depending on your preferences. I typically played infantry-heavy Skaven or Empire at that time and ran my big combat units around 30 strong, with some larger units of skavenslaves, and some smaller units of elites. That seemed reasonable to me.

If you want to balance with the old editions, try 7th with 6th ed Ravening Hordes.

 

Many of the 6th ed. army books were also very good.

[CarolineWellwater]

(( Hey Doc J,

I started with 5th Edition.  I still have my Empire Book that lists all the old, metal models, and their various part numbers.  Shoot, I really miss being able to field foot knights, and that our 5th Ed knights had Initiative 4.

Anyway, for me, 6th and 7th were an improvement over 5th.  But 8th... kinda felt like a lateral move, instead of a game improvement.  Some things I liked, for example "Step Up", random charge range, and an increased usefulness for musicians... some things I thought weren't well thought out, such as how Cavalry doesn't auto-disrupt on a flank charge, the inability to attempt to counter Irresistible Force, and fuzzing of who can shoot due to "True LoS".  As such, overall, it didn't feel like an improved refinement to the game.  To me, it felt more like when Windows went from WindowsXP to 10.

For the Empire in particular, in 8th Ed, I liked the idea of Demigryphons.  I felt it fit the fantasy part of the game, and still blended with the historic/lore/mythos idea of griffons.  I didn't care for the new wizard chariots... as they seemed more... goofy than anything.  Also, not a big fan of lit candles being held with a headband.  The tank... can go either way with me.  It looks too... steampunky... but... it does kinda fit the idea that the Empire tries to expand on its magic called science.  I do think we should have gotten either the tank or the demigryphs... but not both.

For esoteric reasons, some of the oddball things I didn't like:

1) The dwarven move away from anything wood/canvas.  I was half expecting the dwarf resculpts to be wearing stone-and-metal pants.

2) More-and-more skulls and slack jaws.  I'm not a big fan of my models looking like window lickers and mouth breathers.  I'm even less of a fan of slapping skulls on skulls on skulls on skulls.

2-A) Also... bone doesn't tend to bleach-white.  It tends to yellow and deteriorate.  Though... I guess white does give it a more horror look.

3) Overly dramatic poses.  I don't mind the occasional "sword stab at the heavens" pose... but an entire unit looking like that, makes for a pain to assemble, as well as get to fit on the bases.

4) Carriage-Mortars.  I know they existed... I just like the mortars that are more stumpy, and look like they are using a mortar-priming-plate.

5) The flappy-jackets of the outriders.  Just... think they don't look terribly good.

6) The more... androgynous (?) look of the deamonettes.  I thought the old-old style of demon-girls with lobster claws was cool.  I even thought the update to girls-with-corsets-and-blade-arms looked kinda neat too.  But... never really liked the androgynous look.  Yes, I know Slannesh is whatever, but... *shrug* I didn't like the look.

Anyway, overall, to me, 8th is better than 5th was... but it still only scores about a C+ / B- ))

[The Real Rick Salamone]

My group is really enjoying 8th and plan to continue. I agree with those who don't like the Empire wizard carts and stuff (and it seems like everyone used war altars and arch lectors in 8th). My solution though was to not use them. My 6-7 empire army looks a lot like my 8th empire army. The only exception is that my units of 25 state troops grew to 40-50, though I didn't always use that many in every game. To me, the look of hordes or buses was awesome and fit my minds aesthetic of an "army of soldiers". At no point did I resent GW for making me buy lots more models, though I resent them now for other things. 8th edition is still going and some of the army books are getting long overdue updates (these are of course optional for 8th play).

If you end up wanting to play 8th with your group, please join the 8th edition forum using the address in my sig.


EEFL!
EEFL.freeforums.net

[Naitsabes]

I think the key difference between 6/7 and 8 is the amount of randomness which in the end is a matter of taste.

To me (and especially looking back) 6/7 was more like a glorified version of chess. For almost all combats you knew exactly how it was going to end. One unit (usually the charger) would beat the other guys by 10 points, break them and that's that. It was very unusual (and exiting) to have a combat going for more than one round. Basically you could skip rolling all the combat dice and move straight to the flee/pursuit rolls which were the only source of randomness. The game revolved around a series of these combats and alternating units from each side getting wiped out...until whoever planned ahead better had his last unit standing.

I like the randomness and the swings in combat that 8 provides much better. It requires a different kind of planning ahead and having contingency plans.

[Doc J]

Thanks for all of the advice Im going to have to sift through it twice and make a pro con board. I want large units but Im financially restricted to smaller ones, the only hode I plan on having is Spearmen I would like to keep the other a 15 or less

The Real Rick Salamone I appreciate the invite, Im not sure my group will do much of anything they are all kind of dragging ass and involved with other hobbies so I think I will have to another find a group.

[Minsc]

7th Ed. was a update of 6th Ed., and was a good edition with good core rules, which got let down by increasingly overpowered armybooks.

Probably my favourite edition to date. It's a shame that most who played back then will remember it as the edition where ASF and Daemons of Chaos (and to some extent Dark Elves and Vampire Counts) broke the game.

[Doc J]

7th Ed. was a update of 6th Ed., and was a good edition with good core rules, which got let down by increasingly overpowered armybooks.

Probably my favourite edition to date. It's a shame that most who played back then will remember it as the edition where ASF and Daemons of Chaos (and to some extent Dark Elves and Vampire Counts) broke the game.

Are the beastmen and empire books still good to go?

[Gneisenau]

I'm still scratching my head at how the Daemons book made it past the editors. You could tell just by reading the bleeding thing that some stuff was hideously overpowered.

[Minsc]

Are the beastmen and empire books still good to go?

Do you mean if it's possible to play 7th Ed Beastmen vs. 7th Ed. Empire without any oot shenanigans? Yeah I'd say so.

I'm still scratching my head at how the Daemons book made it past the editors. You could tell just by reading the bleeding thing that some stuff was hideously overpowered.

Some stuff?
Everything in that AB was more or less overpowered. I remember that our local DoC-player tried to make a weak list, but even those lists ended up being very strong. The fact that the AB got past editors shows that GW didn't do much playtesting back then.

In a edition where getting the charge and static CR was important, and where no supporting attacks existed, the daemonic instability rule backed up by a BSB was riddicoulus. A DoC-player could simply take a charge to the face, make some 5++'s, loose his front rank, loose combat by ~4, roll relatively low:ish (like 7 or less) on the breaktest and then proceed to murder his opponent in the next combatphase. 

[KevinC]

I liked 7th edition a lot. For one, I felt GW was making proper army books again (as opposed to the 6th edition books) with full background, the full range of units, etc. However, Vampire Counts and Daemons were really powerful. Otherwise I thought it was a good edition of the game.

[The Real Rick Salamone]

Remember that GW used outside playtesters for their army books prior to 8th.


Eighth Edition for Life!

Join the discussion at EEFL.freeforums.net

[Gneisenau]

They should ask for a refund then.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

He said "they used," not "they paid."

[Syn Ace]

7th was okay until the power surge. I prefer 8th by far though. I like the random charge range--as stated above, it was too chess like for my tastes-- and the back ranks stepping up to fight when the first rank falls -- God I hated getting my front rank whacked and everyone else in the unit stood around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the break test. They took out autobreaking when outnumbered by a fear-causing opponent which was good. Did they get 8th perfect? No, it's GW, of course not. But it was a step in the right direction and I had a lot of fun playing 8th, though they should have toned down the killer spells and put size limits on units so people didn't have to buy a ton of guys to keep up with the Jones. And Banner of the World Dragon -- what were they thinking?

[Ursa Doom]

I think that 7'th edition had very good rules but the army books had some balance issues. I would just play 7'ty edition wih 6't edition army books instead.

[Minsc]

I think that 7'th edition had very good rules but the army books had some balance issues. I would just play 7'ty edition wih 6't edition army books instead.

Yeah, late 6th Ed. ABs and early 7th Ed. ABs where pretty fine towards eachother externally.

[Daymz]

I clearly prefer 8th over 7th. What many here said already is that 7th has some broken internal balance, and I think it's not a bit broken, it's completely broken.
Without heavy amendments and comp it was hardly possible to have a fair game going. Certain mechanics are not for me, such as the lack of step-up and the fact that the faster unit almost always will get the charge, and hence the first strikes. And that meant doom for most combats anyways.
8th Edition allows for much more grinding combats. It's not just one charge and it's all set, but more of a question of what comes after that, and how you are going to influence it. Besides which I think it's much more about units than singular models, for better or for worse. Sigmarite prayers affecting the entire unit are a good example in 8th, as opposed to 7th.
Myself, I clearly prefer 8th over the other editions I played, and 6th over 7th even. Yes, due to the horrible balance.

[The Peacemaker]

My opinion of 7th is that a carpenter will never miss a guess range. And anyone in the trades will be almost as good as a carpenter.

And since im in that category, i cant seriously play against anyone who does not have the ability to guess a distance within 99% accuracy.

Now 7th edition with random charges and pre-measuring, that might be a game i would play.

[Padre]

Yeah, it was really easy to guess distances in 6th and 7th. You could see them on the table, or just imagine 12" rulers lying end to end.

[Syn Ace]

My friend is a carpenter and misses guessing ranges ha ha. I can see why they got rid of it -- people like me hemming and hawing over their range and trying to calculate and recalculate diagonal distances -- and then changing your mind and targeting something else instead and starting the guessing again. I was still pretty good at it -- though sometimes took me awhile to get my final guess narrowed down.

[Warlord]

Removing guesses was a way to speed up the game. TLOS Imo was a way to slow it down. Its like they didn't know what their objectives were when making some rules, other than simply changing it and seeing what happened.

[Syn Ace]

Yeah not a fan of TLOS.