Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The bad units are far to numerous to list here so I will just give a couple of examples.

Here is the GW Knight Paladin its has a power rating of 24 with 4 Attacks, its main ranged weapon is a Rapid-fire Battle Cannon with 72" range 4 attacks with a SAP of 6+ and a SAT of 6+. Now compare this with the FW Knight Lancer which comes in at a power rating of 23 and puzzlingly FW Knights only have 3 Attacks, its main armament is a Shock Lance with only an 18" range but you would expect it to particularly deadly at this range considering the long range damage output of the Rapid-fire Battle Cannon but no it has only 2 attacks with a depressing SAP of 9+ and a SAT of 9+, even a Heavy Bolter has a superior SAP of 7+. I mean apart from the cool factor why would you even consider this over a Paladin its not even close it has less range, less attacks and lower SAP/SAT. I should note that both have comparable cc weapons but the -1 attack on the Lancer does sting, the Paladin also has a couple of Heavy Stubbers to boot, it also the option of taking a missile/rocket pod or a Twin Icarus Autocannon.

Now Titans. Titans seem to have good survivability but there damage output is depressingly lacklustre. Lets compare with a GW Shadowsword it has a power rating of 25 it has 5 wounds with a 6+ save, armed with Volcano Cannon with 72" range 4 attacks with a SAP of 7+ and a SAT of 3+ it also has the Destroyer rule meaning it wounds twice for each succesful wound so it has a potential damage output of 8 wounds, it also has a Twin Heavy Bolter with 36" range 2 attacks with a SAP of 7+ and a SAT of 9+ you may as well pay the the Extra 4 PR to get an extra 4 Lascannons and 4 Twin Heavy Bolters or Heavy Flamers. So assuming you took the Heavy Bolters then for 29 PR you have a combined potential damage output of 22 wounds. Now the Warlord Titan has a PR of 154 with an impressive 36 wounds and a great 4+ save but unfortunatly this is where the awesomeness takes a dive. As standard it is armed with 2 Belicosa Volcano Cannons with 180" range but with only 2 Attacks compared to the 4 Destroyer attacks of the Shadowsword but it does have the Apocalyptic Destroyer rule meaning it does 4 damage for each successful wound so taking this into account both weapons have a max potential damage output of 8 wounds, the Belicosa also has a worse SAP of 9+ but an improved SAT of 2+. So essentially it is the same weapon with an increased range and a 1 better SAT surely the Belicosa the most mighty of the Volcano Cannons should do more Damage than a standard Volcano Cannon... nope but at least you get 2 of them, meh moving on. It also has 2 Apocalypse Missile Launchers each with 4 attacks with 360" range but with a SAP and SAT of 8+ it doesn't even have the SAP of a Heavy Bolter hardly befitting of a mighty Titan weapon with Apocalypse in the name, it also has two Ardex-defensor Maulers and 2 Ardex Defensor Twin Lascannons.

So bottom line for 154 PR you get a Warlord with a maximum potential damage output of 32 wounds compared to the 22 potential damage output of the upgraded Shadowsword coming in at only 29 PR. So for the price of the Warlord you could take 5 Shadowswords with a combined max potential damage output of 110 wounds, the Shadowswords also have the advantage of being able to spread out that firepower onto multiple units., so for the points the Titan has a serious lack of firepower. It really puzzles me why FW decided to make Titan weapons so weak or even Super Heavies in general,Titans should be deleting units left right and center especially in Apocalypse. I still would like to own a Titan one day its just a shame they are so bad.

I'm pretty sure Forgeworld had absolutely zero input into the rules for Apocalypse, this is all from GW's main studio. And yes, the Titans do seem a little underwhelming, the Eldar Revenant doesn't even have the Destroyer rule on it's Pulsars, which just seems wrong.

On the other hand, since you're trying to say all FW units are bad in Apoc, a lot of the Craftworld, Drukhari and Tau units I've seen seem at least usable which makes a nice change compared to the abject uselessness of their 40K rules.

I think that FW make the rules for there own units which would explain the discrepancy but I don't know for sure. You are right some units are playable it seems the Super Heavies are the most underwhelming.

They make the rules for HH and Titanicus, I dont know about the specialist games.

But roumers went around a while ago that GW main studio basically got managment to bar FW from making 40k rules going forward.

Though as this was just internet roumers bothing official however no new FW rules for 40k dors indicate something has changed.

I'd be stunned if FW had a single line of input into Apoc.
Not a shred of evidence to back it up but Apoc seems like a very GW studio game and FW are stretched at the moment by their own admission with AT, LotR, Necro releases etc.

Ice_can wrote:
They make the rules for HH and Titanicus, I dont know about the specialist games.

But roumers went around a while ago that GW main studio basically got managment to bar FW from making 40k rules going forward.

Though as this was just internet roumers bothing official however no new FW rules for 40k dors indicate something has changed.

I don't know if its a case of the main studio "bar(ring)" FW, per se, but what I've been told is that when GW started up all the Specialist Games the FW team was split up onto all those projects, leaving a few to work on the Heresy game and that just due to a lack of work load capacity GW's main studio took over the writing duties for any AoS and 40k rules in support of the FW models. Whether intentional or not, its easy to see why the rules for the FW models just wouldn't be a priority for the main studio. Its great to see all the Specialist Games getting support, but its a shame that GW is effectively killing FW. A lot of people wonder why FW keeps discontinuing products, without releasing much if anything new but it really seems to be the case that GW sees all these Specialist Games and their releases as the new releases under that wider and shared umbrella.

I think somewhere in the mix of things GW decided that the FW models were self-competing with the main studio's and while FW will continue to release models that can be used in 40k their focus will be on Heresy and large models that are show pieces for collections, and not necessarily army centerpieces. GW could have put out 40k rules for the FW Mechanicum transports, but then they probably wouldn't sell as many Scorpius' for 40k. With the Knight Porphyrion, the model was originally conceptualized as an intermediately sized Knight between the Questoris Knights and the Cerastus Knights, and some where in the last months before its release they upsized to being Warhound sized... but I don't think its coincidence that those same months after it was initially shown off to when it was released was when GW's main studio was working on the Dominus... both are fire support Knights that would have been similar in size and only a bit larger than the Questoris, its hard not to see that even in its original form people might have ended up choosing a Porphyrion over a Dominus.

I'm just happy to have rules for Korvydae. Though they didnt give him a jumppack for some reason..

 aka_mythos wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
They make the rules for HH and Titanicus, I dont know about the specialist games.

But roumers went around a while ago that GW main studio basically got managment to bar FW from making 40k rules going forward.

Though as this was just internet roumers bothing official however no new FW rules for 40k dors indicate something has changed.

I don't know if its a case of the main studio "bar(ring)" FW, per se, but what I've been told is that when GW started up all the Specialist Games the FW team was split up onto all those projects, leaving a few to work on the Heresy game and that just due to a lack of work load capacity GW's main studio took over the writing duties for any AoS and 40k rules in support of the FW models. Whether intentional or not, its easy to see why the rules for the FW models just wouldn't be a priority for the main studio. Its great to see all the Specialist Games getting support, but its a shame that GW is effectively killing FW. A lot of people wonder why FW keeps discontinuing products, without releasing much if anything new but it really seems to be the case that GW sees all these Specialist Games and their releases as the new releases under that wider and shared umbrella.

I think somewhere in the mix of things GW decided that the FW models were self-competing with the main studio's and while FW will continue to release models that can be used in 40k their focus will be on Heresy and large models that are show pieces for collections, and not necessarily army centerpieces. GW could have put out 40k rules for the FW Mechanicum transports, but then they probably wouldn't sell as many Scorpius' for 40k. With the Knight Porphyrion, the model was originally conceptualized as an intermediately sized Knight between the Questoris Knights and the Cerastus Knights, and some where in the last months before its release they upsized to being Warhound sized... but I don't think its coincidence that those same months after it was initially shown off to when it was released was when GW's main studio was working on the Dominus... both are fire support Knights that would have been similar in size and only a bit larger than the Questoris, its hard not to see that even in its original form people might have ended up choosing a Porphyrion over a Dominus.

I don't disagree with anything your saying, but it feels intentionally or not GW main studio has zero incentive to give FW models good rules and a long list of reasons to give them bad rules.
Which when your talking about £200+ models is going to hurt sales.

I dont mean they need to be the next tournament meta defining OP units but some of them you can compare like for like with a codex unit and have some serious moments of WTAF who thought that this cost was remotely justified?

If FW models were really good in Apoc, people would be screaming about them being 'pay to win' or some crap.

There's no winning unless everything is perfectly balanced, but that'll never happen, so there's no winning.

I fielded a Revenant, a Skathach, and two GW Wraithknights in my first game of Apocalypse; at least with the Eldar the FW superheavies and the GW superheavies seemed to perform similarly to each other.

If I go back and look at the numbers directly both Wraithknight variants have the same statline; the Skathatch is more expensive (PL24 to PL21) because it has Deep Strike and Webway Rupture (move back into Tactical Reserves). Any further difference is in weapons.
The standard Wraithknight may be equipped with two wraithcannons (36/1/7+/3+/Destroyer) and two fists (melee/2/4+/4+), or a scattershield (improve save to 5+), one fist, and either a suncannon (48/4/6/6) or a ghostglaive (melee/user/4/4/Destroyer).
The Skathach always has two fists (melee/2/4/4), and may have any combination of two inferno cannons (24/1/10+/4+/Destroyer), deathshroud cannons (48/2/6+/6+), or one gun and a scattershield (improve save to 5+).

The Wraithknight has stronger guns (suncannon/scattershield is equivalent to two deathshroud cannons but has the scattershield), but the as the Skathach doesn't give up its second fist to have a scattershield it is more flexible overall and Deep Strike lets it engage in melee more effectively. I'd rate the Skathach as perhaps a bit overpriced but definitely useful and capable of doing things a normal Wraithknight can't.

Let's bring the Revenant onto the field for the moment. At PL 70 it costs about as much as three Wraithknights (63). It has 10W where the Wraithknights would have 15W, but it has a 5+ save built in rather than the Wraithknight's 6+ without the scattershield and has distortion fields so enemies take a -1 to-hit penalty shooting it, so let's call that a wash for the moment. The Wraithknights' most comparable armament to the Revenant's pulsars are the wraithcannons; three Wraithknights would have six shots at 36/7+/3+/Destroyer where the Revenant has eight shots at 60"/6+/4+. The maximum potential output of the Wraithknights is definitely higher (12 versus 8), but the Revenant has a 2+ to hit all the time and with 36" movement and 60" range it has a much easier time engaging from somewhere enemies can't hit it back, so that looks like it comes out a wash as well.

The Phantom is 130pts for 22W and a 5+ save, each arm is equipped with a D-Bombard (72"/2/5+/3+/damage 4), a Dire Pulsar (120"/4/5+/3+), or a Wraithglaive (Melee/4+/4+/damage 4). Durability and damage output (with the D-Bombard, anyway) are therefore roughly comparable to that of two Revenants, which are conveniently about half the price.

So at least in Eldar the superheavies look pretty comparable between GW and FW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tank_Dweller wrote:
The bad units are far to numerous to list here so I will just give a couple of examples.

Here is the GW Knight Paladin its has a power rating of 24 with 4 Attacks, its main ranged weapon is a Rapid-fire Battle Cannon with 72" range 4 attacks with a SAP of 6+ and a SAT of 6+. Now compare this with the FW Knight Lancer which comes in at a power rating of 23 and puzzlingly FW Knights only have 3 Attacks, its main armament is a Shock Lance with only an 18" range but you would expect it to particularly deadly at this range considering the long range damage output of the Rapid-fire Battle Cannon but no it has only 2 attacks with a depressing SAP of 9+ and a SAT of 9+, even a Heavy Bolter has a superior SAP of 7+. I mean apart from the cool factor why would you even consider this over a Paladin its not even close it has less range, less attacks and lower SAP/SAT. I should note that both have comparable cc weapons but the -1 attack on the Lancer does sting, the Paladin also has a couple of Heavy Stubbers to boot, it also the option of taking a missile/rocket pod or a Twin Icarus Autocannon...

The Lancer is also a) cheaper, b) has an extra wound, c) faster, and d) gives enemy superheavies a -1 to hit it in melee. You may consider better guns on the Paladin enough to overcome all its advantages but there's some reason to take a Lancer.

I'm still quite disappointed that a Porphyrion's Magna Lascannons wound tanks on a 6+.... when lesser lascannons wound tanks on a 5+. Yes, I know the Porphyrion's have the Destroyer rule, and it wounds infantry on a 6+ as well... but battle cannons wound on a 6+/6+. Why the hell would a Magna Lascannon wound on the same roll as a battle cannon? One is S8 AP-2 D3 D, the other is S12 AP-3 6D... they should NOT have the same chance of wounding an enemy in apocalypse.

Plus, it doesn't have any better save or more wounds or anything to differentiate it from a Castellan, when in 40k It's T9, has 2 more wounds, and has an auto-repair rule.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

The Lancer is also a) cheaper, b) has an extra wound, c) faster, and d) gives enemy superheavies a -1 to hit it in melee. You may consider better guns on the Paladin enough to overcome all its advantages but there's some reason to take a Lancer.

Where does it say its faster I can't seem to find that? I have to disagree with you, yes it has 1 more wound and is a point cheaper but its main weapon is worse than a Twin Heavy Bolter with less range and it has less attacks in cc, the. -1 to hit from other Super Heavies in cc is not incentive enough I personally would never consider it over a Paladin.


As for the Revenant It seems better balanced than an Imperial Titan but the extra 50% damage output the 3 Wraithknights have is still considerable. Its fire power may be more reliable thanks to its bs although its anti-tank is worse than a Wraithknight, its range is definitely a bonus but it still seems underwhelming to me for what a Titan should be. Titan weapons have already been nerfed this edition due to the loss of the huge apocalyptic blasts that could target multiple units and take out large swathes of the battlefield and on top of that these lacklustre weapon stats are just the nail in the coffin for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:
I'm still quite disappointed that a Porphyrion's Magna Lascannons wound tanks on a 6+.... when lesser lascannons wound tanks on a 5+. Yes, I know the Porphyrion's have the Destroyer rule, and it wounds infantry on a 6+ as well... but battle cannons wound on a 6+/6+. Why the hell would a Magna Lascannon wound on the same roll as a battle cannon? One is S8 AP-2 D3 D, the other is S12 AP-3 6D... they should NOT have the same chance of wounding an enemy in apocalypse.

Plus, it doesn't have any better save or more wounds or anything to differentiate it from a Castellan, when in 40k It's T9, has 2 more wounds, and has an auto-repair rule.

Yeah I noticed this about the Magna Lascannons, there doesn't seem to be any consistency between the GW rules and FW, I just noticed something else that bugs me, GW's Stormlord Vulcan Mega Bolter has 8 shots where as the FW Titan one has only 6 and its the same damn weapon.

I own only one big knight, a Forgeworld Castigator, and I haven't really compared it to the Warden (roughly the GW knight equivalent). Let's take a looksie.

3PL more for the Castigator.

Castigator gets 1 more wound.

Castigator gets 3" more movement.

GW knight can have hull weaponry.

GW knight gets a rando heavy stubber or melta.

Castigator Bolt Cannon does 25% more damage (total shooting output is only 20% more, thanks to Hero Heavy Stubber)

Tempest Warblade does 25% less damage in melee than the Knight as it has 4 attacks, buuuuut you're missing that the Cerastus knights have TWO melee weapons and in apocalypse they BOTH get to attack. So overall, the Knight-Castigator actually does about 10% more damage in melee.

So it's a bit more expenive, and a bit better at everything. *Shrug* I'm fine with it.

The Knight Lancer vs the Knight Gallant the Gallant does more damage in melee, that's for sure. The Lancer is just more reliable at actually getting into combat and is 1/6 more survivable (1/3 vs enemy superheavies.) The question is, if you're piloting a Gallant can you actually find enemy models that you NEED 8 blasts on average to kill, or is it better to have the Lancer's 4.5 blasts that will still pretty consistently kill a lot of units and his better durability/mobility?

The fact that your pure melee knight moves 30" rather than 24" on the first turn Assault order is most likely the difference between doing your damage turn 1 and not, unless your opponent plays like a total dingus and deploys right on the line of scrimmage knowing you have a Gallant in your army.

the_scotsman wrote:
I own only one big knight, a Forgeworld Castigator, and I haven't really compared it to the Warden (roughly the GW knight equivalent). Let's take a looksie.

3PL more for the Castigator.

Castigator gets 1 more wound.

Castigator gets 3" more movement.

GW knight can have hull weaponry.

GW knight gets a rando heavy stubber or melta.

Castigator Bolt Cannon does 25% more damage (total shooting output is only 20% more, thanks to Hero Heavy Stubber)

Tempest Warblade does 25% less damage in melee than the Knight as it has 4 attacks, buuuuut you're missing that the Cerastus knights have TWO melee weapons and in apocalypse they BOTH get to attack. So overall, the Knight-Castigator actually does about 10% more damage in melee.

So it's a bit more expenive, and a bit better at everything. *Shrug* I'm fine with it.

The Knight Lancer vs the Knight Gallant the Gallant does more damage in melee, that's for sure. The Lancer is just more reliable at actually getting into combat and is 1/6 more survivable (1/3 vs enemy superheavies.) The question is, if you're piloting a Gallant can you actually find enemy models that you NEED 8 blasts on average to kill, or is it better to have the Lancer's 4.5 blasts that will still pretty consistently kill a lot of units and his better durability/mobility?

The fact that your pure melee knight moves 30" rather than 24" on the first turn Assault order is most likely the difference between doing your damage turn 1 and not, unless your opponent plays like a total dingus and deploys right on the line of scrimmage knowing you have a Gallant in your army.

Your right I missed the Titanic feet, that does make the Lancer a slightly better proposition although I still think its ranged Shock Lance is a joke, where are you getting the extra 3" movement from I can't seem to find that in the rules.

It's move stat is just 15". Vs 12".

Also it takes 1 more wound to crit a cerastis knight and crit reduces their damage by 1/3 instead of 1/2 for questor knights.

There are a number of mechanics I don't think you're considering here. The gallant and Lancer fighting each other both crit the other turn 1, then mutual destruct turn 2. They're pretty equal. The comparison with the paladin is a bit weird, because it's an advance unit rather than an assault unit. You basically want no shooting on an assault unit.

As to your point about the Gallant I would rather have the Gallant's 8 large blasts in cc, better for taking out enemy Super Heavies and you can multi charge and spread those attacks out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
It's move stat is just 15". Vs 12".

Also it takes 1 more wound to crit a cerastis knight and crit reduces their damage by 1/3 instead of 1/2 for questor knights.

There are a number of mechanics I don't think you're considering here. The gallant and Lancer fighting each other both crit the other turn 1, then mutual destruct turn 2. They're pretty equal. The comparison with the paladin is a bit weird, because it's an advance unit rather than an assault unit. You basically want no shooting on an assault unit.

Duh I forgot the movement is in the statline now. Why would you want no shooting on an assault unit when Superheavies are fully capable of shooting and assaulting in the same turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as far as cc goes there is not much in it between a Paladin and a Lancer.

You can Fight and Shoot with an Advance action. You can't shoot on an assault action (where you get double move). If you want to use your knight for melee turn 1, you must assault.

One gun knights are Advancers, they're going to just shoot turn 1 and hope to do both turn 2. Gallant and Lancer want to assault turn 1 and be punching right off the bat.

The gallant deals 8 blasts not large blasts. I was counting destroyer as X2. And you can theoretically spread those out, but only to two targets, since it's two weapons.

They have pros and cons but IMO the Lancer is far more reliable. I sincerely doubt many opponents would be dumb enough to give you a turn 1 attack on the gallant unless you get a card to do it.

Leviathan seems okay still.

Fair point but the Gallant has two cc weapons each with the destroyer rule and 4 attacks on each so that is 8 large blasts unless im missing something.

 Tank_Dweller wrote:
Fair point but the Gallant has two cc weapons each with the destroyer rule and 4 attacks on each so that is 8 large blasts unless im missing something.

The....hit rolls and wound rolls it has to make? Regardless of whether it targets a vehicle or Infantry it'll do about 8 damage, as in 4 large blasts. 8.4 actually I forgot one weapon will always be on 5s.

And there are situations where the 8.4 vs 4.5 from the Lancer makes a difference. But I'd say the extra movement and defense is much more likely to make a difference. How many opponents are going to give you something superheavy-sized directly on the deployment line across from your gallant?

You get a reward for taking high risk options that do no damage turn 1 in apoc usually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Leviathan seems okay still.

Other than the typo on the wounds stat of the chaos one.

 LunarSol wrote:
Leviathan seems okay still.

Dreadnought? Otherwise, sure, but the Hellforged one only having two wounds has to be a typo when Deredeos have three as well as the loyalist Levi.

I wasn't saying its consistent but it has the potential to put out that much damage. Yeah each unit has something to bring to the table perhaps I was a little unfair on the Lancer that ranged attack still irks me though.

its almost like its a game designed to sell lots of models with rules being a last minute thought before a long bank holiday weekend...(and yes some rules are fine but stopped clocks and that)

which sholudnt matter in an bring all the toys for funsies but if your favourite big toy got the short end of the stick folks is gonna moan

R&H rules are improved massively compared to their 40k variants, so this fails as a blanket statement.

 Sir Heckington wrote:
R&H rules are improved massively compared to their 40k variants, so this fails as a blanket statement.

Well i mean there's only up if you sit in the mariana trench now is it?

Malanthrope is good.

Stonecrusher carnifex looks good.

Kutlahk the world killer looks good surrounded by lychguard.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:
R&H rules are improved massively compared to their 40k variants, so this fails as a blanket statement.

Well i mean there's only up if you sit in the mariana trench now is it?

Considering I was expecting not to get rules at all...

Forgeworld Units are depressingly bad in Apocalypse

Strange,

I have played with several Forgeworld units and it seems pretty solid. Not one complaint from our group on Forgeworld items being bad or OP.

As you have detailed out , your title for this should have been:

Some Forgeworld Units are depressingly bad in Apocalypse

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
its almost like its a game designed to sell lots of models with rules being a last minute thought before a long bank holiday weekend...(and yes some rules are fine but stopped clocks and that)

which sholudnt matter in an bring all the toys for funsies but if your favourite big toy got the short end of the stick folks is gonna moan

Its not about my favourite toy getting the short stick, I don't even own a Titan, I just want them to be fairly balanced because I want to see them on the battlefield kicking xenos ass, there is nothing fun imo about playing a hugely unbalanced game which is what will happen if you sunk your points into one of these.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da-Rock wrote:

Forgeworld Units are depressingly bad in Apocalypse

Strange,

I have played with several Forgeworld units and it seems pretty solid. Not one complaint from our group on Forgeworld items being bad or OP.

As you have detailed out , your title for this should have been:

Some Forgeworld Units are depressingly bad in Apocalypse

Yeah ok they are not all bad.

At this point GW seems to want to pretend FW 40k models don't exist and seem content to let that branch slowly die between lack of production and generally bad rules.