Topic: 6th or 7th Edition???

[GamesPoet]

So I am now considering a game of Warhammer, and not sure whether I want to return to 6th edition or 7th edition.

I mostly play Empire vs. Empire, but I do have some O&G, some Skaven, and considering a WoC army at some point.  Also, I am a bit of a Warhammer: Warbands player as well, small units, quick games, makes it easy to play with the nephews, but I digress.

However, what do veteran players recall about 6th & 7th that makes sense to keep in mind, the good and the bad, before deciding which set of rules to reread and begin playing again?

[ZeroTwentythree]

Its been a long time, but i recall the 7th core rules being like a refinement of 6th. They just screwed that all up in the army books.

[Darknight]

6th ed has, I think, the distinction of being the first of the "modern" era. It solved a lot of the Herohammer problems. It was a very good system if I am any judge.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

What 023 says.

[Rein]

What FvS says.

[Finlay]

7th was great. Just ignore the horrendous 7th ed  army books

[rufus sparkfire]

7th had that rule that your unit was instantly destroyed if it ran through five or more enemy troops, which I didn't like much.

[Wareagle]

I have explicitely researched this question myself when 8. Came out and I decided to stay with. 6. Edition.
For me the best compromise of ruleset/ demands on strategy and tactics and application of magic.

WHFB has never been what one could call a balanced game.
I started with 3rd. Edition ( Bestiary....Siege Rules, Polystyrol foam castle, cardboard houses, first white plastik dwarfs and darkelfs ).

We played mainly huge battles with hundreds of minis on the table. A battle lasted a whole weekend and many Pizzas and litres of coke...

6.gave me some of that feeling back, but in a more "modern" way if you like....

[Dosiere]

It's been a long time, but here is what pops into my head.

The good:

Detachments were a thing, and were fun to use.  I honestly don't know how they ever really worked in 8th, the rules were confusing as hell.
Cannons were harder to use but when you did get that perfect shot it was a good feeling.
Magic was a thing but not the "lulz you can remove that unit and that unit now" kind of thing it is now.

The bad:

Did not like the enormous advantage given to chargers.  I could go through an entire game, and win, but probably only throw a few attacks here and there.  It was all about dat static resolution.
Fear and terror were crazy good, too good. 

[Syn Ace]

It's been a long time, but here is what pops into my head.

The good:

Detachments were a thing, and were fun to use.  I honestly don't know how they ever really worked in 8th, the rules were confusing as hell.
Cannons were harder to use but when you did get that perfect shot it was a good feeling.
Magic was a thing but not the "lulz you can remove that unit and that unit now" kind of thing it is now.

The bad:

Did not like the enormous advantage given to chargers.  I could go through an entire game, and win, but probably only throw a few attacks here and there.  It was all about dat static resolution.
Fear and terror were crazy good, too good.

I was good at war machine ranging. I agree on the problems with charging (compounded by no Step Up) and the OP aspects of Fear and Terror.

I think 7th was better than 6th, but personally, I like 8th better than 6th or 7th.

[GamesPoet]

I realize there are strong feelings for some to stick with 8th, but I won't be going there.  I'm going back to either 6th or 7th, and I appreciate the info being provide here on those two editions gentlemen, thnak you!

[knightofthelance]

I realize there are strong feelings for some to stick with 8th, but I won't be going there.  I'm going back to either 6th or 7th, and I appreciate the info being provide here on those two editions gentlemen, thnak you!

I hear you there. I adjusted to 8th, but it's honestly got some major shortcomings. The movement/reforming and terrain rules were the biggest problem for me. I even got to where I support random charge ranges. It did some things really well, but for each thing it fixed it messed something else up. In the end I went all the way back to 3rd. But every edition has had things that need improving. For now it looks like we've settled on KoW2. We'll stick with the (now old) warhammer background, but use that rulesystem.

[Dosiere]

Well, 7th edition was pretty good if you liked it, meaning it didn't have a bunch of nonsensical rules.  It was certainly more refined and cleaned up, basically 6.5.  I have heard that using the 7th edition rules with the 6th edition army books is the way to go if you want to play 6/7 edition.  8th edition really needed the same treatment, it introduced huge sweeping changes that through us playing it showed it needed some work, even to those who prefer it over 7th edition.  So I understand the desire to go back.

[Michael W]

6th also had some great accessory resources - the Compendiums/Annuals (2002-2004), the General's Compendium, and Storm of Chaos.  Most of those can be picked up for dirt cheap on Amazon or something similar.  It was also closer to 5th, and while it predates me, it's clear that smaller units were more the order of the day, and that definitely carried into (especially early) 6th edition.  15 greatswords did their job just fine, and 25 swordsmen was a big fat unit of state troops.  If you're going for more warband-size battles, 6th seems like a better resource to utilize.  As for complication of 6th...I mean, lapping 'round wasn't that complicated.  It worked, really, once you got your head around it.  Also, guessing ranges was an art form.

[Wareagle]

6th also had some great accessory resources - the Compendiums/Annuals (2002-2004), the General's Compendium, and Storm of Chaos.  Most of those can be picked up for dirt cheap on Amazon or something similar.  It was also closer to 5th, and while it predates me, it's clear that smaller units were more the order of the day, and that definitely carried into (especially early) 6th edition.  15 greatswords did their job just fine, and 25 swordsmen was a big fat unit of state troops.  If you're going for more warband-size battles, 6th seems like a better resource to utilize.  As for complication of 6th...I mean, lapping 'round wasn't that complicated.  It worked, really, once you got your head around it.  Also, guessing ranges was an art form.

Absolutely correct. As we were casting our tin--lead minis ourselves back then, ot was better not to have the huge 50 men regiments coming up with 7. However. 6. Edition rules were sleaker if I remember right. We always had a preferrence for games with no too many rules as we applied always some house-rules anyway...Again , I wouöd always prefer 6/7. over 8. Edition

[Finlay]

7th had that rule that your unit was instantly destroyed if it ran through five or more enemy troops, which I didn't like much.

I quite liked that rule!

[rufus sparkfire]

7th had that rule that your unit was instantly destroyed if it ran through five or more enemy troops, which I didn't like much.

I quite liked that rule!

It's annoying if it's something weedy but mobile like five harpies! Far too easy to do.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

The concept was very interesting, but a unit strength of 5 was indeed far too low.

[Finlay]

and probably far too easy for some armies and far too hard for others.

I like it encouraging manuevering though, which 8th doesn't bother doing.

[Elder Days]

The thing I really liked about 6th was that the core book included rules for siege and skirmish games. As others have said though there isn't a huge difference between 6th and 7th.

My group and I have combined 6th Ed with Warhammer Ancients 2.0 and have been enjoying immensely. We have just started working on sprucing up army lists. One of the major aspects of that being adding in the newer units.

If anyone is interested I am more than willing to share our ideas.

[patsy02]

On charges: They were extremely important and powerful, probably too much. But on the plus side, it encouraged movement-focused plays, MSU, and doing your best to goad or force the enemy into making the wrong move.

It's pretty much what made 6th-7th ed. empire interesting, heavy focus on baiting, hammer/anvil, screening tactics, as opposed to brute force or magic spam.

[ZeroTwentythree]

The 6th ed, supplements work just as well for 7th ed.

[Finlay]

You could probably make a very good version by adding a few of the good elements of 8th into 7th.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Step-up and adding the Wizard Level to the casting/dispel roll come to mind.

[Xathrodox86]

6th ed all the way. It has none of this herhammer nonsense and has the most balance, when it comes to army books. Not to mention all of its campaign books were pure gold.