|
Post by jukei on May 19, 2020 13:34:41 GMT
Two hordes clashing each other is the absolute most fun is the only answer. the answer is not an absolute truth for everyone. you have your answer ..but mine is different.:-)
|
|
|
Post by sedge on May 19, 2020 16:32:53 GMT
The answer is clearly to collate the best of each editions - unstoppable hordes from 8th, godlike characters from 4th, superpowered cavalry from 7th (or was it 6th?) - and make every unit massively overpowered. Colossal armies clash, and within two turns all that's left is a greasy smear on an otherwise empty battlefield.
It also solves the problem of WFB games supposedly taking too long.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on May 19, 2020 19:26:04 GMT
The answer is clearly to collate the best of each editions - unstoppable hordes from 8th, godlike characters from 4th, superpowered cavalry from 7th (or was it 6th?) - and make every unit massively overpowered. Colossal armies clash, and within two turns all that's left is a greasy smear on an otherwise empty battlefield. It also solves the problem of WFB games supposedly taking too long. You forgot bonkers over the top magic with high chance of catastrophic consequences 😁
|
|
|
Post by sedge on May 19, 2020 20:17:36 GMT
Ah yes. 7th edition Teclis for everyone?
|
|
|
Post by jukei on May 19, 2020 21:08:38 GMT
Ah yes. 7th edition Teclis for everyone? ohh how many memories...and frustration... now 8th ed. seems to me even better :-)))))
|
|
|
Post by snyggejygge on May 20, 2020 12:17:25 GMT
Obviously my love for older editions is a big part nostalgia. I´ve played since 1994, I played a lot of 8th edition, even after the end of the Old world, I tried 9th age (didn´t like it), Kings of War (liked it, but doesn´t feel like warhammer), in the end I decided to ditch Warhammer 8th edition as well (except for Triumph & treachery which I enjoy a lot), it wasn´t the type of game I wanted, so I went back to my roots, 4th & 5th edition. Just like any other edition, those have their flaws, characters can be very powerful as others have said (btw you should know that the Hydra sword multiplied each hit to D6 hits on that same model, so a 4 attack vampire could still only kill a maximum of 4 models, although those were very dead ), the arms race people talk about is mostly because they were young, I did the same thing until I started playing tournaments & faced those Black Amulets, Black gems of Gnar or 4-5 scrolls which shut down my magic, after that I learned to value troops & cheap characters & the best thing is that everybody had access to those answers, so characters doesn´t have to dominate the game unless you want to! It was a simpler game, less rules, more about fun, with some changes to % (my group changed it to max 33% characters & minimum 33% regiments) & some discussion about what type of game you want I find this rule-set superior to 8th edition. Of course one can do this discussion with any edition, we just found we had the most fun in this edition. & no I do not enjoy 2 hordes facing eachother in a grindfest, that´s just throwing loads of dice & hoping you roll better than the opponent. I prefer a tactical game where a flank charge is devastating (probably my biggest gripe with 8th edition), where a mistake can be punished, where you have to think ahead & plan for the unexpected.
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on May 22, 2020 5:51:46 GMT
Things like cavalry & smaller units were much more viable in earlier editions than 8th, which makes the armies easier to collect. 5th edition has the herohammer tag, but tbh it´s an unfair tag, characters back then were no better than they are in 8th edition, there was no unbreakable daemon princes with incredible saves, no unkillable lords. Basic champions got to have magic items, which helped a lot vs overpwered characters, Black gem of Gnar locked a character in time, heart of woe exploded when you got killed, Black Amulet rebound wounds, Talisman of Ravensdark made creatures with flying useless, every army had access to these items, so people couldn´t just take a tooled up dragon rider lord & hope to win. Magic was tougher to cast, you could have as many dispel scrolls as you wanted. Yes characters could dominate if you didn´t take actions against it, but nowhere near what they can do in 8th edition. Having said that, 5th edition had its flaws as well, I wouldn´t want a game just like that, I want something from each edition that could help make a perfect edition, a fun edition with balance (it should still have those oh shit moments), but not a tournament game like chess, 9th age or KoW. That is not my experience, but of course this may differ depending on person. In 5th some of the special characters and weapon combinations were just wrong. Kragg the Grim with his S10 D6 wound hammer just smashing anything he touched. The hydra sword weilding vampire lords (that's 4xD6 s7 attacks for you younger folks) etc. Most regiments on the field were just decorations, when facing such odds. Of course me and my gaming friends were very young. Buidling the most OP combos was a natural part of the game for us back then. Only much later did I find out that a more gentelmanly approach provides a more enjoyable experience for all. However I feel 5th encouraged these silly builds more than other editions. As for specific 8th ed stuff, the horde rule I could do without. I preffer multiple moving pieces to fewer, suped-up deathstars. Alternatively, tweaking it is also an option. From what I recall in 9th age hordes do not provide rank bonus, which I think is an elegant solution and gives the smaller units a purpose. I am in favor of the 'step-up' rule and support attacks. Nothing more annoying than watching your troops getting cut down every turn by a higher initiative opponent, without being able to respond. Recently had a 6th ed game where my 20 strong greatsword block did not have a chance to swing a single time over 4 rounds of combat. Just reminded me of poorly infantry faired against cavalry and monsters back then. Each edition has its weaknesses, but I feel that 8th with a little bit of tweaking could really shine. I play 8th edition with some tweaking... aka Chillhammer and it's da bomb! I love 8th as a toolbox and simple things (like each flank bonus stacking and cannon hits on mounted monsters randomisation (5+ to hit rider rather than monster) are so easy to implement. 8th is my favourite edition of Fantasy battles by far and best recreates a mass battle game in 28mm. Stepup makes a massive difference and stops situations of prior editions where your guys couldn't fight.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on May 26, 2020 13:27:19 GMT
One of the largest problems with editions 4, 5, 6 and 7, is that players could really design annoying, unfun armies AND win with them! An army of skirmishers or fast cav that avoids your opponent all game, etc. What's more those armies were extremely powerful.
The main tactics in those editions was simply march blocking everything and avoid combats as best you could. 6th edition magic was SUPER powerful. You BUILT your dice pool when you made your army list.
I really believe most people don't remember all the broken elements of the prior editions. When it comes to balance, no other edition comes even close to 8th edition.
In 8th edition, you can't create these entire armies of skirmishers AND expect an easy victory.
|
|
|
Post by snyggejygge on May 27, 2020 7:53:54 GMT
Beastmen disagrees with you. On a serious note though, the most balanced warhammer ever was, isn´t 8th edition, it´s 6th edition, using ravening ordes & playing games of 1500-1999 points (no lords, max 1 rare, everything is equally balanced due to ravening hordes being designed & playtested in one go without a stupid amount of special rules). 2 armies could play tose tactics well, wood elves (in their very late book) & lizardmen, the rest of the armies played normally. Yes you built your dicepool of magic when designing your list, on the other hand, a miscast took prevalence over total power & if you compare the spells in the lores with those of 8th edition, the powerlevel doesn´t even come close, not to mention that a wizard could carry multiple scrolls, which meant it was easier to defend against magic, my Undivided Chaos army had 7 dispel dice & 3 scrolls despite only having 1 wizard, even magic heavy armies struggled to get any decent spells through. Even with Dogs of War I could defend well enough against magic, 2 scrollcaddies was 4 scrolls & 4 dispeldice, you just had to learn which spells to priorotize when dispelling, I never feared magic more than what I do in 8th edition, the spells have potential to wipe out entire units, something we haven´t seen since 5th edition (which also allowed wizards to carry multiple scrolls, so in the end easier to defend against as well).
Yes skirmishing armies might be annoying, but it´s easy to win over if the opponent isn´t a good player & you are somewhat prepared for it, in 8th edition I don´t feel tactics matter all that much, games depend more on the list & how well you roll those dice.
This sounds like I hate 8th edition, I really don´t, I especially love playing Triumph & treachery, but if we talk balance & tactics, 8th edition isn´t what comes to mind & it´s not even that I´m biased towards 6th edition, because my favorite is actually 5th.
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on May 28, 2020 4:31:21 GMT
Beastmen disagrees with you. On a serious note though, the most balanced warhammer ever was, isn´t 8th edition, it´s 6th edition, using ravening ordes & playing games of 1500-1999 points (no lords, max 1 rare, everything is equally balanced due to ravening hordes being designed & playtested in one go without a stupid amount of special rules). 2 armies could play tose tactics well, wood elves (in their very late book) & lizardmen, the rest of the armies played normally. Yes you built your dicepool of magic when designing your list, on the other hand, a miscast took prevalence over total power & if you compare the spells in the lores with those of 8th edition, the powerlevel doesn´t even come close, not to mention that a wizard could carry multiple scrolls, which meant it was easier to defend against magic, my Undivided Chaos army had 7 dispel dice & 3 scrolls despite only having 1 wizard, even magic heavy armies struggled to get any decent spells through. Even with Dogs of War I could defend well enough against magic, 2 scrollcaddies was 4 scrolls & 4 dispeldice, you just had to learn which spells to priorotize when dispelling, I never feared magic more than what I do in 8th edition, the spells have potential to wipe out entire units, something we haven´t seen since 5th edition (which also allowed wizards to carry multiple scrolls, so in the end easier to defend against as well). Yes skirmishing armies might be annoying, but it´s easy to win over if the opponent isn´t a good player & you are somewhat prepared for it, in 8th edition I don´t feel tactics matter all that much, games depend more on the list & how well you roll those dice. This sounds like I hate 8th edition, I really don´t, I especially love playing Triumph & treachery, but if we talk balance & tactics, 8th edition isn´t what comes to mind & it´s not even that I´m biased towards 6th edition, because my favorite is actually 5th. -----------Well I have nothing to really disagree with. I love every edition of Warhammer. In my experience there is no opinion or debate, 8th is simply the most balanced. You mentioned that you took 2 scroll caddies with 4 scrolls, and you needed this to defend against magic - that proves my point, magic was OTT. I don't need a scroll caddie or even a wizard to be an army in 8th. But you are right, if you didn't take scroll caddies in 6 or even 7, it would be difficult. Magic was way too reliable in those editions.
|
|
|
Post by snyggejygge on May 28, 2020 7:01:55 GMT
Beastmen disagrees with you. On a serious note though, the most balanced warhammer ever was, isn´t 8th edition, it´s 6th edition, using ravening ordes & playing games of 1500-1999 points (no lords, max 1 rare, everything is equally balanced due to ravening hordes being designed & playtested in one go without a stupid amount of special rules). 2 armies could play tose tactics well, wood elves (in their very late book) & lizardmen, the rest of the armies played normally. Yes you built your dicepool of magic when designing your list, on the other hand, a miscast took prevalence over total power & if you compare the spells in the lores with those of 8th edition, the powerlevel doesn´t even come close, not to mention that a wizard could carry multiple scrolls, which meant it was easier to defend against magic, my Undivided Chaos army had 7 dispel dice & 3 scrolls despite only having 1 wizard, even magic heavy armies struggled to get any decent spells through. Even with Dogs of War I could defend well enough against magic, 2 scrollcaddies was 4 scrolls & 4 dispeldice, you just had to learn which spells to priorotize when dispelling, I never feared magic more than what I do in 8th edition, the spells have potential to wipe out entire units, something we haven´t seen since 5th edition (which also allowed wizards to carry multiple scrolls, so in the end easier to defend against as well). Yes skirmishing armies might be annoying, but it´s easy to win over if the opponent isn´t a good player & you are somewhat prepared for it, in 8th edition I don´t feel tactics matter all that much, games depend more on the list & how well you roll those dice. This sounds like I hate 8th edition, I really don´t, I especially love playing Triumph & treachery, but if we talk balance & tactics, 8th edition isn´t what comes to mind & it´s not even that I´m biased towards 6th edition, because my favorite is actually 5th. -----------Well I have nothing to really disagree with. I love every edition of Warhammer. In my experience there is no opinion or debate, 8th is simply the most balanced. You mentioned that you took 2 scroll caddies with 4 scrolls, and you needed this to defend against magic - that proves my point, magic was OTT. I don't need a scroll caddie or even a wizard to be an army in 8th. But you are right, if you didn't take scroll caddies in 6 or even 7, it would be difficult. Magic was way too reliable in those editions. On the contrary, I feel magic was much more reliable, but at the same time much easier to defend against. In 8th I would never dream of playing a game without a wizard lord, in earlier editions a scrollcaddie & some defensive items or a pair of scrollcaddies was enough in 2000 points, in 8th I feel like I´m forced to bring a wizard lord, in my last game I brought a Sorcerer lord of tzeentch with scroll & spellshield (inside unit of Tzeentch warriors) as my magical defense & that was just 1500 Points! 1500 Points in 5th or 6th I would´ve taken a single scrollcaddie & it would be just as effective & cost me half the points. Maybe it's my mindset, I used to be an avid tournament player, playing a game in any edition without a scroll felt like suicide, but more so in 8th where I feel you have to bring a lot more magical defenses, a cast Pit of shades or Purple sun will win the game 90% of the time, in 6th I don´t feel like any spell have the same impact.
|
|
beastyboy
Full Member
5th eddition lizardmen !
Posts: 227
|
Post by beastyboy on May 28, 2020 12:57:42 GMT
I always bring a level 4... so many flying death mages around it just has to be done .
|
|
|
Post by snyggejygge on May 29, 2020 6:10:39 GMT
I always bring a level 4... so many flying death mages around it just has to be done . Exactly! If I could bring more than 1 dispel scroll I would!
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on May 29, 2020 8:53:48 GMT
Beastmen disagrees with you. On a serious note though, the most balanced warhammer ever was, isn´t 8th edition, it´s 6th edition, using ravening ordes & playing games of 1500-1999 points (no lords, max 1 rare, everything is equally balanced due to ravening hordes being designed & playtested in one go without a stupid amount of special rules). 2 armies could play tose tactics well, wood elves (in their very late book) & lizardmen, the rest of the armies played normally. Yes you built your dicepool of magic when designing your list, on the other hand, a miscast took prevalence over total power & if you compare the spells in the lores with those of 8th edition, the powerlevel doesn´t even come close, not to mention that a wizard could carry multiple scrolls, which meant it was easier to defend against magic, my Undivided Chaos army had 7 dispel dice & 3 scrolls despite only having 1 wizard, even magic heavy armies struggled to get any decent spells through. Even with Dogs of War I could defend well enough against magic, 2 scrollcaddies was 4 scrolls & 4 dispeldice, you just had to learn which spells to priorotize when dispelling, I never feared magic more than what I do in 8th edition, the spells have potential to wipe out entire units, something we haven´t seen since 5th edition (which also allowed wizards to carry multiple scrolls, so in the end easier to defend against as well). Yes skirmishing armies might be annoying, but it´s easy to win over if the opponent isn´t a good player & you are somewhat prepared for it, in 8th edition I don´t feel tactics matter all that much, games depend more on the list & how well you roll those dice. This sounds like I hate 8th edition, I really don´t, I especially love playing Triumph & treachery, but if we talk balance & tactics, 8th edition isn´t what comes to mind & it´s not even that I´m biased towards 6th edition, because my favorite is actually 5th. In my experience there is no opinion or debate, 8th is simply the most balanced. Er, are you saying an Edition where one army was two editions behind, two were one edition behind and several armies especially suffered due to escalating powercreep (8th Edition) is more balanced than an edition where every army had a current-edition army book and had an early-form General's Handbook (6th Edition)? I've never played 6th Edition (I started in 7th) but to me it sounds much more balanced than 8th, and with a lot less bloat. I do like 8th, no bones about it, and it is the Edition I play most often, but to me it does have a few standout flaws that previous editions of the game didn't have (the Horde rule, OP magic, OP cannons, UP cavalry, e.t.c).
|
|
|
Post by Horace on May 29, 2020 9:12:43 GMT
-----------Well I have nothing to really disagree with. I love every edition of Warhammer. In my experience there is no opinion or debate, 8th is simply the most balanced. You mentioned that you took 2 scroll caddies with 4 scrolls, and you needed this to defend against magic - that proves my point, magic was OTT. I don't need a scroll caddie or even a wizard to be an army in 8th. But you are right, if you didn't take scroll caddies in 6 or even 7, it would be difficult. Magic was way too reliable in those editions. On the contrary, I feel magic was much more reliable, but at the same time much easier to defend against. In 8th I would never dream of playing a game without a wizard lord, in earlier editions a scrollcaddie & some defensive items or a pair of scrollcaddies was enough in 2000 points, in 8th I feel like I´m forced to bring a wizard lord, in my last game I brought a Sorcerer lord of tzeentch with scroll & spellshield (inside unit of Tzeentch warriors) as my magical defense & that was just 1500 Points! 1500 Points in 5th or 6th I would´ve taken a single scrollcaddie & it would be just as effective & cost me half the points. Maybe it's my mindset, I used to be an avid tournament player, playing a game in any edition without a scroll felt like suicide, but more so in 8th where I feel you have to bring a lot more magical defenses, a cast Pit of shades or Purple sun will win the game 90% of the time, in 6th I don´t feel like any spell have the same impact.
I mean if you put all of your points in 1 unit like that at 1500 points, obviously 1 doom spell will finish you
|
|