It'd be wonderful to see a more widespread tournament acceptance of FW, it'd certainly help with pickup game acceptance as well. Even with the very small number of units that cause controversy, it's no worse than the stuff that comes out of GW's main studio really given the hilarity we've seen lately, and there's a ton to add to the game.

Besides, I've got a grip of Death Korps of Krieg stuff, Heavy Mortars and Chimera autocannon turrets I'd love to use in more events

I make a big deal about it online, but I probably wouldn't care in real life, most of the time (tournaments are another issue, no invincible tanks in tournaments please). Hell, it'd give me more of a reason to buy FW myself, although all their Dark Eldar offerings suck ass...the tantalus is probably the best unit and it requires taking not only an archon but a court as well apparently, and it costs over 200 points in addition to that...cool model, too expensive, both in game and in terms of cash.

Sidstyler wrote:I make a big deal about it online, but I probably wouldn't care in real life, most of the time (tournaments are another issue, no invincible tanks in tournaments please). Hell, it'd give me more of a reason to buy FW myself, although all their Dark Eldar offerings suck ass...the tantalus is probably the best unit and it requires taking not only an archon but a court as well apparently, and it costs over 200 points in addition to that...cool model, too expensive, both in game and in terms of cash.

It's a heavy support option that MAY be taken as a dedicated transport for your Court of the Archon. You are not required to buy the court.

I was just talking to Patt Higgs about the Chaos Contemptor. It's a lot of points but has some very cool options. I'd be really tempted to try it out if I knew what slot it goes in.

Sasori wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:I make a big deal about it online, but I probably wouldn't care in real life, most of the time (tournaments are another issue, no invincible tanks in tournaments please). Hell, it'd give me more of a reason to buy FW myself, although all their Dark Eldar offerings suck ass...the tantalus is probably the best unit and it requires taking not only an archon but a court as well apparently, and it costs over 200 points in addition to that...cool model, too expensive, both in game and in terms of cash.

It's a heavy support option that MAY be taken as a dedicated transport for your Court of the Archon. You are not required to buy the court.

Well that's even worse, I'd have to replace a ravager.

Mannahnin wrote:I was just talking to Patt Higgs about the Chaos Contemptor. It's a lot of points but has some very cool options. I'd be really tempted to try it out if I knew what slot it goes in.

I'm definitely gonna be trying out the Chaos Contemptor, but the problem for me isn't so much that it costs a lot; it's the fact that compared to the other Contemptprs it's clearly at least 10-15 points over-costed. At least the Multi-melta is a free upgrade.

The 4+ chance to bounce a Glance is pretty cool.

I agree that the multimelta is probably best, though the Butcher Cannon is awfully tempting.

@Sasori and Sidstyler
We think the Tantalus is pretty damn good, actually. Frankie is gong to get one and use it with 15 Wyches and Vect. That sounds pretty mean to me.

@BDJV and Mannahnin
We play tested the Chaos Contemptor with MoN and Butcher Cannon. It is the business! Expensive yes, but man is it cool.

The other cool unit is the dreadclaw. That really adds a lot to a Chaos force.

Reecius wrote:
@BDJV and Mannahnin
We play tested the Chaos Contemptor with MoN and Butcher Cannon. It is the business! Expensive yes, but man is it cool.

The other cool unit is the dreadclaw. That really adds a lot to a Chaos force.

As you know, Khorne is the only thing I care about.

And man, a dreadclaw would be sweet. Unfortunately, the FW model is expensive, and GW will probably release a sweet plastic one that will put any type of counts as or conversion to shame....

I can see both sides of the argument having some strong points but I thought I'd throw in what I think about the whole IA stuff.

First of all, IA stuff are not "normal" 40k and are not normal codex units so one can reasonably expect to never see them. By allowing them, that forces an opponent to prepare for them or be potentially hosed and I guess the question then is can players successfully adapt their army lists to deal with these threats without negatively affecting their overall army list effectiveness and tournament performance?

So lets take the Achilles:

Dark Eldar players can cry all day (but I have no pity on them). They have wyches with haywire grenades (wych, I mean which I can't imagine them not taking at least one or two units of). Even just a 5 man in a venom is a good enough investment-they make great units for tying up stupid psi-riflemen dreads too.

IG have manticores and Lascannons are not too bad either so they are ok.

Tau, well if anyone takes tau, Railguns are great and I can't imagine the tank lasting too long from a few Broadside volleys.

ORKS have it not too bad with deff rollas and s10 claws from Ghaz (if you don't use Ghaz you are doing it wrong). Dreads with s10 can do a number too. but are otherwise hurtin' for a way to deal with the tank and the thunderfire will lay down some pain.

Space Marines, well, I think they are at a loss in dealing with this tank since melta weapons are not really any more effective than missile launchers (simply because a ML has such a longer range and so on). There are always s10 dread CC attacks. There really isn't much one can do except just play to the mission and ignore the tank which would be the tactical thing to do. The tank won't really do that much against SM so I'd personally just focus on the objectives and call it a win?

Tyranids are actually kind of at a loss. Sure they have Zoanthropes, Carnifexes and Rupture cannons but those all suck. Seriously, a Zoanthrope needs to roll to pass a test, HOPE nobody stops the power with a hood, roll to hit, roll to pen then roll a good result. Just too many hurtles to jump over and its far from reliable for the points you pay. Carnifex units are so overpriced and undereffective and will throw off your armies overall effectiveness IMO, especially if you want to do any kind of a fluffy list. Tyranofexes...please don't go there as those are not really that good for anti tank and cost way too much. Tyranids don't really have anything that will be too reasonably effective except for Trygons (which are ok) and the cannon really hurts but once again, just play the mission, get the objectives and win that way, you don't HAVE to kill the Achilles to win.

Eldar are OK since melta bombs, wychblades, S10 Wraithlords and D-Weapons are going to do ok. HECK, just trap the tank in place with skimmers lol...

Necrons are ok with Scarab farms and you can glance it to kingdom come or just ignore the darn thing and again play the objectives.

I guess the difficulty comes in actually being able to penetrate the darn thing and or get meaningful damage results.

I mean really, if I happen to face an army or unit I can't deal with, I try to ignore it as much as possible and play to the mission. But I definitely can see why some people will have a really hard time with certain units and not want to have to face them. Destroying the Achilles is not a mission objective so, I wouldn't worry too much about it =).

I'm still reading the new article, but I just finished the Hell Blade section and I want to clarify something: Daemonic Possession-as listed in Codex: CSM-drops the Ballistic Skill of a model it's bought for to 3, -not- -1 Ballistic Skill no matter what-which means that a Hell Blade with Daemonic Possession would clock in at 150 points and still be BS3, not BS2.

EDIT: Now that I've read it all... I think you were a lot more spot-on with how much the Chaos stuff rocks face/sucks in comparison to the Loylist article; that's simply my opinion on the matter.

One thing I'd like to say about the Hell Blade is that-though pricey-they're decent anti-light armor (Rhinos hate them) and anti-MEQ due to the rate of fire (it would be even better if they could squadron up, simply force more dice rolls adn increase the odds of putting wounds on "important" models like missile launchers or hidden Powerfists), and it eats almost anything that has less than a 3+ save. Also, the Reapers on the Hell Blades are 48", not 36" like the Terminator variants; this-combined with Aerial Assault-would allow them to dart about the board and skirt the ranges of weapons like Lascannons and still try to get side-armor shots, or opening up on exposed infantry. Combined with a Butcher Cannon-equipped Contemptor, They love crackign open transports, freeing up Obliterators to plasma cannon/gun the occupants to death in the same turn. Granted, Two Hell Blades and the juiced-up Nurgle Contemptor clocks in at 555 poitns, but that still leaves room for what CSM armies tend to need (Dual DPs w/ wings & warptime, 3x3 Oblits (or, in my case, 2x3 oblits and a 4-Missile Launcher Havoc team, trimmed to fit points), 5-man chosen (x4 meltas, x1 champ with claws, rhino w/ combi-flamer), 2x either 5 or 7-man teams of Plague Marines (dual plasma & combi-plasma's how I run them) and a 10-man CSM squad /w Lascannon, Plasma gun, champ, and icon (to keep their asses in place, same as the havocs). It takes some trimming, but I managed to cram all of that into 2500 points (the norm where I play, though obviously the FW options become less appealing in smaller games, when you need to start making room).

EDIT 2:

mortetvie wrote:I can see both sides of the argument having some strong points but I thought I'd throw in what I think about the whole IA stuff.

First of all, IA stuff are not "normal" 40k and are not normal codex units so one can reasonably expect to never see them. By allowing them, that forces an opponent to prepare for them or be potentially hosed and I guess the question then is can players successfully adapt their army lists to deal with these threats without negatively affecting their overall army list effectiveness and tournament performance?

Actually, these ARE "normal" 40k. They've -always- been, it's just on paper now for everyone who's been hard-headed about it for all these years. They're totally legal in Warhammer 40k now as long as they have that Warhammer 40k logo next to them in the book. Unfortunately, I live in Louisiana so tournaments (hell, shops alone) are very few and far-between (no, not everyone who lives in Louisiana is in New Orleans or Baton Rouge. Hell, I don't think they have any LGSes, if they have more then one each then they're not listed on GW's site. Also, no GW stores in the entire state.), but from a RAW standpoint, they should (and likely will) be totally tournament-legal (and in the very near future), and thus the reason for a lot of the Achilles hooplah. Regardless of the semantics, It's an even-harder-to-kill-and-still-killy version of an already-hard-to-kill-and-still-killy tank.

On that note, we've been looking purely at the stats of X gun against the Achilles, when the fact of the matter is that somehting as valuable as the Achilles will -not- go unsupported. And what if there's more than one? In Kill Points, two TL multi-meltas will deal with any transports or dreads that dare get close enough to challenge it, and in non-KP missions it can, with careful positioning, sit on an objective -and- pound the/an enemy objective (dpending on the -type- of objective mission) with nigh impunity. Add in screening units, cover, difficult/dangerous terrian that may or may not be there, and the threat level fo something like the Achilles skyrockets. I feel it would be a unit that would actually benefit from a terrain-heavy board, slowing down any assaulters and-as long as the terrain doesn't block too much LOS-it can pound said assaulters into the dirt while they're trudging through said terrain.

And yeah, people could change their lists for this one tank they MIGHT encounter...and thus harm themselves versus everything else.

As someone who champions FW products/rules in competitive play in the UK through various means i have one question to all the people who are complaining about any of the IA units. Can you please provide any real life evidence that in a tournament environment IA have negatively affected the event or indeed messed with the overall balance of the game? Im not sure how many US events allow FW but in the UK the ones that do generally have a positive feedback from players and organisers about them or at worst they don’t care. I suppose what im asking for is for people to list events they have attended that have allowed IA and give their opinion and how its effected the event.

This isn’t intended to ruffle feathers but im genuinely interested in real life negative experiences with IA in competitive play not just people who’s melta spam armies lost to a LR Achilles at their local game store.

Amerikon wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Yeah, so the message of "it is only a 1,4% more resilient" presented in the review can only be seen as....what?...dangerously misleading?...wholly wrong?...an unfortunate case of misunderstood math?

I think it was mostly just misunderstood math. I don't think Reecius is trying to trick people, but his statement greatly understated the actual difference in toughness.

And I agree with you that the lascannon example was pretty weak to begin with. Shooting a lascannon at a Land Raider is pretty foolish unless you have no other targets. For me it's melta or nothing, although I play Sisters so my solution to most problems is "Moar melta!!!"

Just to echo this, though... I understand the lascannon example was someone else's, but it Does sidestep the primary advantages of the Achilles (immunity to melta/lance effect) and imo, the stat was misleading. I read the article, and had no idea how much more resilient it was until seeing the further discussion in this thread...

I don't think it's being unreasonable to point out that the math was misleading. Terms like "fail" will of course ruffle feathers...

However, I also think it's entirely reasonable for people to question the viability of including this tank in tournaments without Having to have faced it. Or rather, without immediately accepting "We've played against it / tournaments have allowed FW with no problems." It's a valid concern and, other than general anecdotal evidence, the math is the best way of looking at what kind of impact it will have.

If anything, real game circumstances will play to the strength of the achilles even more- i.e., if it has a troop squad inside and can claim an objective, the fact that it ignores dangerous terrain, etc.

Not wanting to stir things up, but I want more than "We've played against it, it's not broken", or "Events have allowed FW without problems" when I'm considering if this is something I want to face or not. And right now, I have that option... I can choose not to allow it.

For me, I feel that there's a possibility of ever-increasing "hard" lists based around the 2% of FW units that are undercosted/overpowered. Imagine if BA could still take the dreadpod? It's such a no-brainer it's silly... and as I'm putting together a dreadnought drop pod BA list, it actually would Bother me if we could take it. Because then everyone would, and my own army becomes ho-hum. I'd rather not risk tilting tournaments into an environment where the few over-powered FW units are everywhere. It'd be like it is now with codexes, but another step up... I understand that people DO want to allow it, and perhaps some for just the coolness. But many of the people I see in favor of it are regular tournament goers who take the hardest list they can. There's nothing wrong with that... but as a semi-regular tournament goer who plays themed lists, I'd rather not face a list composed around an insane FW item if I don't have to.

It feels different to me for something like the Adepticon team tournament, where there will be a spread of hardcore and more "for fun" players, which I'll be doing for the first time this year . And I'm sure every tournament has that to a degree. But I have a feeling that if FW is allowed in "regular" tournaments, it will shift things signifcantly towards a very small percentage of FW units being used... and that's something I'd rather not see.

Just my opinion, and I understand that others really want these allowed... I just don't see the fun in it when I expect that tournies would only see a very small percentage of FW choices represented. I.e., what does that really add that makes it so worth including? I'd love someone to explain that to me... rather than implying "if you haven't faced it, you can't comment". Most people haven't faced it because it's not usually allowed. So they have concerns about facing it... and that's completely legitimate, imo, and shouldn't be written off. Let's say someone fields 2 of these things? Now the deathstar build would have gotten even more insane... doesn't sound very fun to me.

Now with ALL of that said, I'd actually be tempted to get one if they werre allowed as it's a pretty sweet model! But I probably wouldn't, as I like to avoid the "auto-include" units... and whether it's fair or not, this tank seems to be getting that label, and there's at least some reason for it.

The Achilles has the same rules as the old living metal on the monolith. Nobody was complaining about it being too hard to kill. Mine got blown up every other game.

That's also about the only thing the old 'crons had going for them... if you could have suddenly added an AV14 "living metal" tank into any marine army, I bet it would have raised a few more eyebrows.

Hence the discussion about the Achilles, I think (or at least, my concern with it... and more broadly, including FW in standard events in general).

I should note that I am open to changing my mind, in fact I haven't even really made it up yet (and don't have the experience with 40k to do so, just getting back into it after playing fantasy for a few years). But I haven't seen an argument that would make me want to face the Achilles or an answer to what this really adds to the overall flavor of tournaments, when it is likely that only a small percentage of the available FW options will be taken... not adding variety so much as simply a few more overpowered or undercosted units to deal with.

Or is that wrong, and I'm missing something here? Like I said, I'm open to discussing it, but what I've seen so far has not convinced me of the merits of including FW in standard events. The argument of "Recent codexes have overpowered units, why worry about FW's?" doesn't sway me... as one being true (and not optional to face) does not justify including the other (which is currently optional).

RiTides wrote:

Amerikon wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Yeah, so the message of "it is only a 1,4% more resilient" presented in the review can only be seen as....what?...dangerously misleading?...wholly wrong?...an unfortunate case of misunderstood math?

I think it was mostly just misunderstood math. I don't think Reecius is trying to trick people, but his statement greatly understated the actual difference in toughness.

And I agree with you that the lascannon example was pretty weak to begin with. Shooting a lascannon at a Land Raider is pretty foolish unless you have no other targets. For me it's melta or nothing, although I play Sisters so my solution to most problems is "Moar melta!!!"

Just to echo this, though... I understand the lascannon example was someone else's, but it Does sidestep the primary advantages of the Achilles (immunity to melta/lance effect) and imo, the stat was misleading. I read the article, and had no idea how much more resilient it was until seeing the further discussion in this thread...

I don't think it's being unreasonable to point out that the math was misleading. Terms like "fail" will of course ruffle feathers...

However, I also think it's entirely reasonable for people to question the viability of including this tank in tournaments without Having to have faced it. Or rather, without immediately accepting "We've played against it / tournaments have allowed FW with no problems." It's a valid concern and, other than general anecdotal evidence, the math is the best way of looking at what kind of impact it will have.

If anything, real game circumstances will play to the strength of the achilles even more- i.e., if it has a troop squad inside and can claim an objective, the fact that it ignores dangerous terrain, etc.

Not wanting to stir things up, but I want more than "We've played against it, it's not broken", or "Events have allowed FW without problems" when I'm considering if this is something I want to face or not. And right now, I have that option... I can choose not to allow it.

For me, I feel that there's a possibility of ever-increasing "hard" lists based around the 2% of FW units that are undercosted/overpowered. Imagine if BA could still take the dreadpod? It's such a no-brainer it's silly... and as I'm putting together a dreadnought drop pod BA list, it actually would Bother me if we could take it. Because then everyone would, and my own army becomes ho-hum. I'd rather not risk tilting tournaments into an environment where the few over-powered FW units are everywhere. It'd be like it is now with codexes, but another step up... I understand that people DO want to allow it, and perhaps some for just the coolness. But many of the people I see in favor of it are regular tournament goers who take the hardest list they can. There's nothing wrong with that... but as a semi-regular tournament goer who plays themed lists, I'd rather not face a list composed around an insane FW item if I don't have to.

It feels different to me for something like the Adepticon team tournament, where there will be a spread of hardcore and more "for fun" players, which I'll be doing for the first time this year . And I'm sure every tournament has that to a degree. But I have a feeling that if FW is allowed in "regular" tournaments, it will shift things signifcantly towards a very small percentage of FW units being used... and that's something I'd rather not see.

Just my opinion, and I understand that others really want these allowed... I just don't see the fun in it when I expect that tournies would only see a very small percentage of FW choices represented. I.e., what does that really add that makes it so worth including? I'd love someone to explain that to me... rather than implying "if you haven't faced it, you can't comment". Most people haven't faced it because it's not usually allowed. So they have concerns about facing it... and that's completely legitimate, imo, and shouldn't be written off. Let's say someone fields 2 of these things? Now the deathstar build would have gotten even more insane... doesn't sound very fun to me.

Now with ALL of that said, I'd actually be tempted to get one if they werre allowed as it's a pretty sweet model! But I probably wouldn't, as I like to avoid the "auto-include" units... and whether it's fair or not, this tank seems to be getting that label, and there's at least some reason for it.

RiTides,

I have looked over the book myself as I ordered it along with a couple of our own guys in the area. Looking over the units and stats it has given options to weaker codeices to shore up weakness and in my eyes to allow those books to compete. It gives Orks a option to become mechanized and have more str 8 shooting and allow Chaos armies to play like they should have been before with a deep strike option and a dreadnought that isn't going to shoot your army. What I am getting it is it opens players to playing their armies in a different way that a lot of people should have been able to play in the first hand.

As for balance, I do find it odd that Forgeworld introduced this book but it looks like to be a book to balance all of the armies out there at once from a game design point of view. Which is radical but also great at the same time. That being sad coming from a tournament stand point, I think they have done a great job and people should use them. Nothing in that book will shift armies radical to your dreadpod for example. There are too many design limitation built into the book to go that route were it would be ineffective. That being said your still going to see a lot of the top players and top armies use models that are not from Forgeworld. It would allow a lot of the middle players and people who like to have fun try their new toys.

Everything in that FOrgeworld book would have a counter also. If someone went the route of having all dread pods they would only have three. They would have also had to spend a large amount of points to make that work. When a player reserves first turn and completely negates that tactic, that player has wasted his points and is playing behind the b all because he can't use his army effective at that point.

If you see Forgeowrld it will be one off units that will come with a high premium to the army. Only ones who actually get a benefit out of it would be Black Templar. Mainly because Their Blessed Hull Land raider isn't to far from the cost of a Achilies and they would welcome a need of a mortis dread. That being said they are going to get redone here in about three months so that is kind of moot when a whole new book is coming and will change their dynamic.

As for people being worried about the Achilles, I wouldn't worry about it at all. You worry about a land raider because what it can deliver to your lines as a threat. With no assault ramp and low troop carrying capacity it would either sit in the middle of the table or hold a objective. You have the ability to focus on other parts of the army you need to take out and win the game that way. if you have some spare shots at str 9 take it at the Achillies, otherwise ignore it, its not that big of a threat without a strong paylod. A good player could still hide a 5 man squad in the back field to hold a objective and not let them get shot. he doesn't need a Land Raider to cover them up.

Also the Achillies is resilient but it won't be that tough to kill.

9 Las Cannon shots vs the Achillies at BS 3 is your chances below. Drop into a P curve it you can get it first try but the Standard deviation isn't bad because at the end of the day we are still rolling dice and absolute values will have to come threw.

Armor
Value Glancing Penetrating Some type of Damage Stun/Shake Weapon Destroyed Immobile Destroyed
AV14 8.3% 8.3% 80.6% 65.4% 11.8% 22.4% 11.8%



Against a normal Land raider is still the same chance for you to land on a immobile result All this really does is shift the results down one and allow more stun and shake results happen.
Armor
Value Glancing Penetrating Some type of Damage Stun or shake Weapon Destroyed Immobile Destroyed
AV14 8.3% 8.3% 80.6% 40.2 % 22.4% 22.4% 22.4%


Here it is calculated by one shot
shooting against Achilles.
Value| |Glancing| |Penetrating| |Some type of Damage| |Stun or shake | |Weapon Destroyed| |Immobile | |Destroyed |
AV14 |8.3% |8.3% | 16.7% | 11.1% | 2.8 | 1.4% | 1.4%

Vs Normal Land raider

AV 14 |8.3% |8.3% |16.7% |6.9% |2.8% | 2.8% | 2.8%

MajorTom11 wrote:Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post in it's entirety where I essentially conceded those very points by way of explanation. By all means, keep being upset and pissy though, you seem very offended about it and I will not make the mistake of trying to mollify your toy-soldier hang-ups again. I apologize for voicing a differing perspective than your own.

Let's all move on now shall we?

Bravo, the most civil and adult thing I think I have heard on dakkadakka.

@Darkwynn
I 100% agree. The first thing we all said when we opened the book was wow, this makes so many armies better than they were. We felt it IMPROVED game balance, not broke it at all.

As you said, and we have said as well, the top lists will look the same because there are things in the existing books that are better for the top tier armies than what they can get here.

@Whitedragon
Haha, I know it, brohym! I have an all Khorne FW army, too. and I am so juiced for the new rumors! I hope we get a Khorne army that isn't overpriced and underpowered.

@RiTides
The math I presented may have appeared misleading to some, and if so, I apologize as that was not my intent. I was merely countering someone else's example.

I didn't want to cover my post with math, as that tends to turn people off. Getting into the stats typically goes over people's head, too. I was just trying to show that while it is tougher than a normal Land Raider, it isn't invincible as many people try to make it sound.

And, as I tried to say over and over, you don't have to kill the dumb thing. Just as Necronboy pointed out, the old Monoliths were nearly as hard to kill. What did everyone advise you to do? Ignore them. Same thing applies here. Play to the mission. That is the path to victory. Ignore the dumb Achilles as much as you can.

@Kepora
Thanks for pointing out that error! I fixed it.

I think the Hell Blade is a rad unit, but for the points I just don't think it's that hot. If it has another weapon system I could get into it, suck as a Las Cannon or such, but for the points, AV10 on a Flyering Stand? I just don't see it lasting long or killing much. I'd love to be wrong though, as it is an awesome model.

@Boomstick
I have played in MANY tournaments with FW units (and in most leagues I have been in, we have allowed FW) and I can honestly and truly say that they were not, at all, game breaking in any of my experiences.

Even the Hades Breaching Drill, which is criminally under-priced, isn't game breaking. At Adepticon we played against multiple opponents with multiple Breaching Drills and we beat them every time with our "Fluff" lists.

The Lucius Drop Pod is no big deal, in fact, I have played against three of them at once, as well as in singles and NEVER did it change the game. If you know they're coming, pan for it. Simple, IMO.

But anyway, time will tell. I think these will become mainstream, but we'll see. I feel that it is good for the game to mix things up.

@Mortetvie
You make good points. There is a valid argument on both sides of the aisle, but I honestly believe including these units in the game will make it better, not worse.

Darkwynn wrote:I have looked over the book myself as I ordered it along with a couple of our own guys in the area. Looking over the units and stats it has given options to weaker codeices to shore up weakness and in my eyes to allow those books to compete. It gives Orks a option to become mechanized and have more str 8 shooting and allow Chaos armies to play like they should have been before with a deep strike option and a dreadnought that isn't going to shoot your army. What I am getting it is it opens players to playing their armies in a different way that a lot of people should have been able to play in the first hand.

As for balance, I do find it odd that Forgeworld introduced this book but it looks like to be a book to balance all of the armies out there at once from a game design point of view. Which is radical but also great at the same time. That being sad coming from a tournament stand point, I think they have done a great job and people should use them. Nothing in that book will shift armies radical to your dreadpod for example. There are too many design limitation built into the book to go that route were it would be ineffective. That being said your still going to see a lot of the top players and top armies use models that are not from Forgeworld. It would allow a lot of the middle players and people who like to have fun try their new toys.

Nice points! You guys make the book sound quite comprehensive... tempting to get it now.

@Reecius- Thanks for the reply, and it makes more sense with that being a counter to someone else's point. Also, I probably should have prefaced it all with a big Thank You for putting the article together . It's nice to be discussing these things from a competitive point of view!

Necronboy wrote:The Achilles has the same rules as the old living metal on the monolith. Nobody was complaining about it being too hard to kill. Mine got blown up every other game.

The difference is that the monolith didn't have the -1 to damage results ability (That makes it twice as hard to destroy as an old monolith)and the army was built very much around the fact that it was the only vehicle in the army and that it was hard to kill. Also, yes, during 3E and 4E the Monolith was incessantly complained about.

Darkwynn wrote:As for people being worried about the Achilles, I wouldn't worry about it at all. You worry about a land raider because what it can deliver to your lines as a threat. With no assault ramp and low troop carrying capacity it would either sit in the middle of the table or hold a objective.

That's sorta the issue. It can sit in the middle of the table on top of an objective with a scoring unit inside and two TL'd multi meltas with a TFC and sporting PotMS and simply laugh at most enemy attacks. For armies that don't know it's coming and can't bring the "niche" AT weapons that normally don't have a place in an all comers army to deal with it, it can effectively dominate a game by itself.

Reecius wrote:
@Kepora
Thanks for pointing out that error! I fixed it.

I think the Hell Blade is a rad unit, but for the points I just don't think it's that hot. If it has another weapon system I could get into it, suck as a Las Cannon or such, but for the points, AV10 on a Flyering Stand? I just don't see it lasting long or killing much. I'd love to be wrong though, as it is an awesome model.

No problem! And amen on the weapon loadouts; been runnign ideas in my mind about a possible twin Hurrican Bolter variant, the Hell Scythe...and Lascannons, plasma cannons, or even multi-meltas would be neat. The best use I've found for them it to hold them in reserve, swoop in and open up on the first available target, be it light armor or infantry. Maybe try to cause a few wounds on MCs because of the S7 shots?

Reecius wrote:
@Whitedragon
Haha, I know it, brohym! I have an all Khorne FW army, too. and I am so juiced for the new rumors! I hope we get a Khorne army that isn't overpriced and underpowered.

So I got a chance to look at the actual book, and the Contemptor does look pretty tasty if not extremely expensive! However, what slot does it take up from the FoC? I must have glanced over that part. Also, it looks like dedicating things to Khorne gives them the rage rule. That's pretty crummy compared to the bonuses that Nurgle (-1 to damage chart), Slaanesh (I+1 and grenades) and Tzeentch (AP3 and re-roll ones) get.

So, if Khorne getting "rage" is a sign of the things to come, it looks like I can settle in to "Counts As" for my World Eaters for a long time.

Really looking forward to your reviews for Tyranids. I've hears Stone Crushers have a 2+ save and better regeneration, which might make them worth running as my melee fexes, and a Malanthrope brood has been on my wishlist for a while. But with the state of Tyranids right now, I've bee hesitant to pull the trigger on the books and models.

@Kepora
Yeah, I think if it had a las cannon for the same price, it would be a totally smart choice, as it is now, it is just a little weak, IMO. It costs what a Vendetta does, you know? Not even comparable. But then, a Vednetta is way under-priced.

@Whitedragon
Yeah, I agree. I hope that isn't the case, but the rumors i have been hearing don't indicate that. I hope they don't give us rage again, that was weak...unless they change the rules for rage and make it more fun.

@Loki
I really like the Nid units, personally. The Malanthrope especially looks like a good unit, to me.

Necrons added pg 1

Umm, the necron link is asking me for an admin login.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/04/imperial-armor-apocalypse-second-edition-necrons-review/

Enjoyed the review on the Tomb Stalker! I really like it's stats, and it ended up being the first forgeworld model I bought. The only thing I lament, is not being able to bring this in a normal game pick up game! I wish they had just added it to the dex's heavy support slot.

Thanks Mr. Burning.


Thanks for the great reviews Reecius.



Ordering a Tomb Stalker this weekend. Luckily the group i play with is happy to allow FW models in normal games (one fo them plays a "proper" Red Scorpions army with Apothacary sergeants and everything) so i should get some decent use out of it.

Reece,

I haven't finished reading all the reviews yet (just got through the IG section), but I really feel like you're mis-representing what is being said in Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd edition.

You ask: 'where is the Vulture?' and 'why would they leave it out?'

The answer is, of course that the Vulture is in Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2 (page 24 to be exact), a book which is still on sale.


The premise of your article seems to be that it is 'about time' that they finally made IA rules 'official' or something...which IAA 2nd edition does not do in any way shape or form...or rather it doesn't make those units any more or less 'official' than any other Imperial Armor book.

First off: The stamps. These are not 'official' stamps like those found in the units introduced in White Dwarf. Those stamps simply say 'official' on them, whereas these stamps just say 'Warhammer 40,000' on them. In essence, these stamps just make it easy to identify at a glance which units in the book are designed to be used in standard games of 40K as opposed to being 'apoc only'.

Previous IA books have simply just had text in their entry explaining how they could be taken in a 'standard' 40K army when it applied to a unit. So if a unit didn't have such instruction that was the indication that it was an 'apoc only' unit. Obviously this isn't the most clear way to present info, so they're now including the nifty stamps to delineate the two, but this is not some big 'change'.

Moreover, IAA 2nd edition says about using these units:

"As with all our models these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact that they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

This is exactly the same thing they've been putting in the IA books for years now, and that statement even acknowledges that 'all' their models are considered 'official' (but should be okayed by your opponent).


And actually even earlier on that same page it says:

"You'll get the best out of it when used in conjunction with Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2 (which, except for a handful of profile updated here, remains valid and up to date)."


As you can see, they expect you to use Imperial Armor Apoc 2 in conjunction with this new book (along with the rest of the IA series), which is why you don't see the 'Vulture' or dozens of other units in it, because they already have equally valid and 'official' rules published elsewhere.


So while I totally applaud your efforts to get the IA rules out there into the minds and hearts of tournament players (its what I want too), I think you do a disservice to represent that this new book indicates some sort of 'change' in how Imperial Armor is handled by GW. It is exactly the same as it has ever been. The only change is that they've made it more clear which units are apoc only and which are allowed in basic games of 40K via the 'stamps', but this info DOES exist in other IA books, just not as clearly.

yakface wrote:


So while I totally applaud your efforts to get the IA rules out there into the minds and hearts of tournament players (its what I want too), I think you do a disservice to represent that this new book indicates some sort of 'change' in how Imperial Armor is handled by GW. It is exactly the same as it has ever been. The only change is that they've made it more clear which units are apoc only and which are allowed in basic games of 40K via the 'stamps', but this info DOES exist in other IA books, just not as clearly.

Agree. I look forward to the majority of independent competative events to remain unchanged and for the FORGEWORLD metagame to remain a secondary options 'for fun' type of tourney and not the standard as this book has done zero to make them any more or less official than they already have been for a decade.

@Praxiss
Sorry about that, I was really tired when I put that up and accidentally put the wrong link up.

@Sasori
Yeah, it is a really cool unit, definitely worth investing in for games with an opponent that won't mind you using it, and hopefully in the (near) future, for tournament play.

@Yakface & nklesch
We approached this book as different because it is different in a lot of people's minds.

I understand fully the points you both make, but if we are going to make head-roads into the hearts and minds of tournament gamers, we need to start somewhere. The 40K approved stamp, as flimsy as it is, is a start and the point from which we are starting.

It is somewhat arbitrary, but it is a start.

Reecius wrote:
I understand fully the points you both make, but if we are going to make head-roads into the hearts and minds of tournament gamers, we need to start somewhere. The 40K approved stamp, as flimsy as it is, is a start and the point from which we are starting.

It is somewhat arbitrary, but it is a start.

Here is my issue:

Let's say this was an attempt to balance older non-competative codexes and fix the game... That means these unit choices basically become not only optional for use but practically mandatory for fair play to occur. Since that means that the codexes in question are unplayable in a competative environment without using these units (especially if others will be using them) then you have the issue of "Hey, I can't afford the appropriate forgeworld model! How fair is that???"

So you have two options:
1. Only allow those with official FW models and rulebooks to benefit from the new units and gain a boost while everyone else goes without. This flies in the face of competative gaming and basically allows people to 'cash buy an advantage' in-game. It then makes those with the most resin more competative when it comes to older codexes.

2. Allow everyone everywhere to use the units with or without rulebooks or models. While this would 'repair' the metagame and allow older codexes options to compete, it promotes copyright infringement and proxies and bad 'counts as' as people won't have the units, won't convert them (this stock plastic dred is every dred option in any rulebook as I need it) and will claim in the name of 'only the game matters' that they should be allowed to use proxies or stand-ins in official tourneys.

Both options ruin the game in my opinion. One because it unbalances the metagame and starves peopel from being able to compete without resin. The other because it introduces horrible proxies and unreasonable stand-ins to what is supposed to be 'quality' levels of play at these well-run tourneys.

Right now allowing FW to be a declared option in a type of tourney allows people who are looking for that to CHOOSE to attend, and since they CHOSE to attend, they must have purchased the rules and have the appropriate models to participate and it works because if you don't feel like you can compete or lack the models, you have the regular tourney to participate in. 40k and 40k+FWunits are very different games and people enjoy them differently and to see one of them eclipse the other would be a bad thing in my opinion, but that seems to be the agenda of some is to have only one valid competative standard and for it to include FW rules sets.

This is just another "My way is the right way of playing" debate trying to force only one way of existing at tourneys which I disagree with on its face and resist at every opportunity. I feel both FW allowed and FW not allowed are both important and the % of events will directly grow and shrink depending on what people want.

Kepora wrote:The Rape-eus Assault Ram is broken? Who woulda thunk it?!

I'm going to have to argue with you -bigtime- about the Achilles, though. A hard-to-break tank made almost invincible? It ignores Melta and Lance (the best ways short of railguns and D-strength weapons, and Railguns essentially lose their AP1 bonus when rolling to damage the Achilles), which cripples almost every non-marine army by making it nigh-inuvlnerable to long-range fire, and can kill things in not-marine armor easily (via the Thunderfire Cannon), and would give many marine armies a hell of a lot of trouble too.

And yeah, "play around it". Implying you can "play around" a pair of twin-linked multi-meltas and a Thunderfire cannon that are almost totally indestructible. Also, that "unimpressive" 1.4% extra survivability means a -lot- more when you understand the numbers better.

EDIT: Also, yeah, those first-turn assaulters you mentioned? They're not as hard to get rid of in combat as a dreadnought, and hit damn hard as it is. A bare-bones dread throwing down a multi-melta and then following with a S10 charge?

Buuut lets look at its weapon load outs.

It is armed with a thunderfire cannon. A long range weapon.
Its other weapons for anti tank are short ranged. So you have conflicting weapons on the tank. If you want to destroy tanks, then you have to mov ein, potentially bringing you closer to grenades which can ruin your day or other weapons.
I saw nothing in its rules on ignoring plus one for ap1 weapons, wheres that? So railguns can still damage it.

The achilles Ill admit has high defense, but at its pointcost and meager shootback, its tough but impractical.

It shoots 4 small blasts you say? Big whoop. A lot of things can shoot better cheaper.

@nklesch
Your fundamental premise is flawed, IMO.

You don't NEED FW units to compete.

They compliment the game, they don't fundamentally alter it. Again, I have played in quite a few tournaments that allow FW, and it is well and truly not that big of a deal.

Secondly, this isn't a "play our way or don't play at all" argument in the slightest. We like using them as we feel it opens the game up, as an expansion to a video game does.

As for the money argument, again, this is fundamentally flawed. A Mech IG list costs more than a FW Space Marine list with 3 Achilles. That argument just doesn't hold water for me. These units aren't auto-win units and they aren't required and they don't cause an army to become significantly more expensive (for the units people get upset about) than normal "good" armies.

If you disagree, that is totally fine, but I really feel that this line of argument is flawed.

I'll say the Ork ones go a long way toward putting things in the book that it was lacking as a late 4th/early 5th book. Especially the Warkoptaz, Grot Mini-Tanks, and Grot Super Tanks

Especially the Warkoptaz

Reecius wrote:@nklesch
Your fundamental premise is flawed, IMO.

You don't NEED FW units to compete.

They compliment the game, they don't fundamentally alter it. Again, I have played in quite a few tournaments that allow FW, and it is well and truly not that big of a deal.

I disagree. They do fundamentally alter the metagame. Many of the FW units are overpowered and spamming them in a competative fashion pushes the envelope even further. It gives the top tier codexes even more of an edge and leaves the bottom tier codexes even farther in the dust.

One of the supposed justifications I have seen around is it 'balances' the game better which is why it should be allowed. I disagree it balances the game better, but if it 'did' it then means those who don;t have access are playing a less-balanced codex and are at a disadvantage without them.

Can't have it both ways... either it upgrades and balances meaning those without are in a worse spot or it does nothing, which I don't agree with as there are enough underpointed overpowered units worth spamming in triplicate in competative lists to make a difference (along with the natural advantage of surprise and unfamiliarity which is gained by using such a unit)

Secondly, this isn't a "play our way or don't play at all" argument in the slightest. We like using them as we feel it opens the game up, as an expansion to a video game does.

Not everyone agrees with you. Many want this to be GW law to force everyone to fully 100% accept their FW units in any and all situations. It doesn't open the game up, it changes the game. Which is fine, but not for everybody and not all the time. 'opening the game up' also closes other aspects down because it changes it.

As for the money argument, again, this is fundamentally flawed. A Mech IG list costs more than a FW Space Marine list with 3 Achilles. That argument just doesn't hold water for me. These units aren't auto-win units and they aren't required and they don't cause an army to become significantly more expensive (for the units people get upset about) than normal "good" armies.

Some people simply have zero access to Forgeworld models. Not everyone has the ability to purchase internationally and people are sometimes limited by what is actually available for retail in their country or region. It still becomes an issue of the HAVES vs the HAVE NOTS.

If you disagree, that is totally fine, but I really feel that this line of argument is flawed.

GW has not made FW official like people have suggested, that line of argument is flawed.

These rules do not balance the current metagame, they do not have a zero impact on the metagame, Those arguments are flawed as these units do impact and some are overpowered and can be spammed competitively for real advantage.

They are not available to everyone and being unavailable in both product and rules makes playing against them in a competative environment a disadvantage for many... which means people should be able to choose to OPT IN to such an environment.

The current Metagame should exist side by side a FW influenced Metagame, not be replaced by it as many are advocating in the dozens of FW threads on Dakka. The idea that FW should be (or already is by the decree of GW) core game legal and must be accepted everywhere, especially competative events is a lie propagated by people with an agenda and should be resisted at every opportunity.

I guess since I'm the only Ork player calling for our unit reviews I'll do it in true Ork fasion (louder). "EH YOU GITS WAAAAAAAGH, GET TO DA GREEN SKIN BITS OR I START KRUMPIN 'EADS"!!!!

Grimgob wrote:I guess since I'm the only Ork player calling for our unit reviews I'll do it in true Ork fasion (louder). "EH YOU GITS WAAAAAAAGH, GET TO DA GREEN SKIN BITS OR I START KRUMPIN 'EADS"!!!!

Thats because you forgot that orks are a terrible codex

@Grimgob and Azgrim

Orks next! And yea, Orks are such a bad codex, hahaha, the internet makes me laugh sometimes. Tell that to the top 10 at BAO, 3 of which were Orks! Orks are great....and the FW units aren't nearly as scary as people think they are.

nkelsch wrote:The idea that FW should be (or already is by the decree of GW) core game legal and must be accepted everywhere, especially competative events is a lie propagated by people with an agenda and should be resisted at every opportunity.

What? Are you really proposing that there is a conspiracy by those of us that like FW units and would like to see them more widely used? You can't be serious.



Here's your tin foil hat!

I'm just teasing of course.

It honestly isn't like that. It isn't an us vs. you thing either, unless you choose to make it that way. I have no problem playing either way, and our team doesn't either. We asked the community if they wanted IA units, and they were pretty much split on it, but like you, a lot of the nos were viscerally against it, while a lot of the yays were pretty much indifferent.

We said, OK, let's not do it. Seriously, no agenda here.

As for people not being able to get FW rules or models. Come on. Anyone with an internet connection can get the rules, the books are sold on the GW website, stores and FLGS' can carry them. We sell them at our store.

We like playing with lots of different toys, and are confident enough in our skill as players to not think any one model will beat us and our whole army. Not everyone thinks that way. And that wasn't a backhanded insult either, that was my honest assessment of this situation.

But, it sounds like your mind is made up. So we can agree to disagree on this one.

nkelsch wrote:Some people simply have zero access to Forgeworld models. Not everyone has the ability to purchase internationally and people are sometimes limited by what is actually available for retail in their country or region. It still becomes an issue of the HAVES vs the HAVE NOTS.

OCCUPY FORGEWORLD!!!

Reecius wrote:
@Yakface & nklesch
We approached this book as different because it is different in a lot of people's minds.

I understand fully the points you both make, but if we are going to make head-roads into the hearts and minds of tournament gamers, we need to start somewhere. The 40K approved stamp, as flimsy as it is, is a start and the point from which we are starting.

It is somewhat arbitrary, but it is a start.

But Reece, its more than somewhat arbitrary, its totally and completely arbitrary.

Again, the stamps don't say '40K approved', they just say 'Warhammer 40,000'. Those stamps in no way make those rules any more 'approved' or 'official' than any of the other Imperial Armor rules. Again, that is even backed up by the rest of the Introduction of IAA 2nd edition which says that these rules are as official as any other Forgeworld rules and tells you to go use Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2 (and the rest of the IA books) to find more model rules.

So the real big problem with assuming that the 'stamp' equals some sort of 'new' status is that Forgeworld and GW don't see it that way. As far as they're concerned, the rules in Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2 are equally as valid as those in Imperial Armor Apoc 2nd edition and that means it could easily be another 5 or even 10 years before they bother to redo any of those model rules again with the 'stamp' on it.

Do you see the issue with assigning a different level of 'officialness' to the books that use a stamp when GW and Forgeworld don't see any difference in 'officialness' between a FW book with or without stamps?

To give a you an example of how crazy this attitude is, it would be like a year ago if you all of a sudden decided that the Codexes that use the 'newer' 5th edition style (with the unit rules split off from the army list in the back of the book) where clearly what was 'official', while those codexes that still had the old 3rd/4th edition style were now 'unofficial' and therefore shouldn't be included in a tournament for that reason. So all of a sudden (back then) Necron, Templars, Witch Hunters, etc, would all be deemed 'unofficial' simply because of the formatting of their book.

Obviously the analogy is different because we're talking about whole armies as opposed to IA expansion books, but my point is this: You're taking a bit of formatting in the newer books (i.e. using stamps to clarify which units are apoc and which units are regular 40K) and assigning some measure of 'officialness' to those stamps, when the authors clearly say in the book that the rules presented are just as official as any other IA book.

If the stamp said 'official' or something on it (like the ones in White Dwarf do) you might have a valid leg to stand on (ignoring of course what the intro in the book says), but it doesn't. All the stamps show is what units are for Apoc and what units are for 40K...they don't mean anything for what is 'official' and what isn't 'official'.

Ya'll are gonna make me back up yak by quoting the damn book again, aren't you?

The stamps do not make anything more or less official. They just make it easier for you to pick out things that can potentially be used in 40k and things that are clearly designed for Apocalypse. Some of these are quite obvious, but sometimes you need to point out the obvious.

But the introduction in the book pretty much says what everything else says. In summary 'Yes, in a sense they are official. But ask for your opponents' permission first as they may not be familiar with the rules.'

Hahahaha, holy crap, guys!

We're getting beat up by the people who don't want FW units to go mainstream AND by the guys who do want FW units to go mainstream!

And you wonder why no one wants to champion this cause?

Look, we're FULLY aware of the lack of authority that little stamp has (and sorry, I misspoke when I said it was 40K approved, not just 40K, that was an error) but you have to start somewhere, right? Better to dip your toe into the water than jump right in to the deep end with a touchy subject.

Yes, this is an arbitrary starting point. We know. We have nearly all the books. This just seemed like as good of a starting point as any with all the attention the book was getting.

That's all.

For crying out loud, hahaha, if you want to see these units become more accepted, let's do it one step at a time!

@nklesch
See, our big conspiracy is pretty crappy when we fight with each other over the stupid subject! hahaha

Reecius wrote:Hahahaha,

Look, we're FULLY aware of the lack of authority that little stamp has (and sorry, I misspoke when I said it was 40K approved, not just 40K, that was an error) but you have to start somewhere, right?

Strictly speaking, no you don't.

Edit: Wait, why am I baiting Reece, I like Reece. I just don't like the IA book because it mucks around with the vehicle damage chart which is already plenty shaky in 5th edition.

theironjef wrote:

Strictly speaking, no you don't.

Edit: Wait, why am I baiting Reece, I like Reece. I just don't like the IA book because it mucks around with the vehicle damage chart which is already plenty shaky in 5th edition.

Fair enough. I suppose I WANT to start somewhere, certainly don't have to.

And no offense taken, I have very thick skin. I understand that some people really don't like FW, and that is their right. I don't take any counter arguments personally, at all.

Yeah, and ultimately I get where you're headed. Personally I love some of the cool designs in the IA2 book (the Tantalus is gorgeous and Contemptor dreads are certainly cool to look at), but I think it falls short as a rulebook because it by and large just copies units out of the regular codices, adds unwarranted buffs and occasionally cost increases, and calls it a day. Trygon? You'd look great in the necron codex for no good reason, especially if we threw some random buffs at you and added 5 points to your cost! Eldar vehicles? Retire! There's a new thing called a Caestus, and it's you but better! There's a lot of codex swapping but not a whole lot of originality in there.

And again, I don't think the vehicle damage chart is in a good place for units to be getting bonuses on it. That die roll is already the reason that 5th edition is going to be remembered as the story of the metal boxes, and adding even more resilience to it seems poorly thought out to me.

Naturally these are just my own opinions on the subject, and they aren't necessarily the right ones. Lucky for me the book isn't real official or 100% official or GW-stamp-approved-notarized official so I can just pick and choose my tournaments.

The vehicle damage chart really isn't the issue.

Nobody complains about gun-tanks. Gun tanks are very easy to neutralize. You don't see people having issues with predators, hellhounds, leman russ tanks, vindicators, hammerheads, fire prisms, doomsday arks, annihialtion barges, etc.

It's transports that people complain about.

The problem with the achilles is that it's both a gun tank and a transport that's even tougher and has a bypass mechanism to avoid what shuts down most gun tanks

That said, it costs nearly as much as 10 rhinos.

Ultimately things being expensive isn't an excuse to justify bad game design.

Reecius wrote:We're getting beat up by the people who don't want FW units to go mainstream AND by the guys who do want FW units to go mainstream!

Could mean you're doing something right, too- i.e., you're getting everyone's attention. In something like this, everyone is going to weigh in on where they want the line to be, especially if you say or imply where you want it to be in the articles. But I'd view this as a good thing, as you're shifting the conversation... or at least, getting it out there in the conversation.

Still not sure where I stand on the whole thing yet, but I think it's cool to be talking about it.

nkelsch wrote: lots of stuff

My respone to your point #1

1) What about places where FW is the cheaper option then standard GW pricing? I would NEVER buy another GW army, but honestly I love those HH-era marks of SM PA..... I can buy a Forgeworld SM army exclusively from FW. I can get rhino's, preds, Land Raiders, Dreads, Sorce out some old RT-era grav vehicles and that could be a blast doing. The ability to use different rule sets can make for some interesting games. I do not play in tournies personally but if I wanted to I could almost any rule set for it. I can add almost any units to it. It would be a great modeling army, a great painting lession for myself (what works and what doesn't) and I am shure most people would rather play againsted that army then "Grey deth legion SM army (ie unpainted SM army #425654 that is probley bound for E-Bay soon).


Tl;dr -- You don't play 40k the same way as I do so you are doing it wrong.... Stop doing it wrong!!!

FabricatorMike, I couldn't quite catch the point of your post... (even with the summary). Is FW cheaper than standard GW pricing for anywhere... except, I guess, Australia? (Assuming that's what you're implying)

Personally, I don't think price should have anything to do with the argument- if anything, availability is more of an issue, with Forgeworld needing to be ordered and not available in shops.

theironjef wrote:Ultimately things being expensive isn't an excuse to justify bad game design.

Yup,and if you've seen my earlier posts on the subject I agree completely that it's a stellar instance of poor game design, but I think in this case for most opponents, it's cost coupled with the nerf to it's ability not working on glancing hits makes it reasonable *enough* to play in a competitive setting, given the other silly stuff the core design studio puts into this game

RiTides wrote:FabricatorMike, I couldn't quite catch the point of your post... (even with the summary). Is FW cheaper than standard GW pricing for anywhere... except, I guess, Australia? (Assuming that's what you're implying)

Personally, I don't think price should have anything to do with the argument- if anything, availability is more of an issue, with Forgeworld needing to be ordered and not available in shops.

FW stuff is pretty much at the same price level as "normal" GW in Sweden. Some stuff is a little cheaper, some stuff is more expensive.

The availability issue is solved by the fact that you can order FW stuff from GW stores and have them delivered to the store.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:The availability issue is solved by the fact that you can order FW stuff from GW stores and have them delivered to the store.

Only if you have a GW store nearby... not that I think this should be the make-or-break issue, but I do see it as much more significant than price. The fact that anyone in another country has to order models from the UK in order to use them makes those models much less accessible to many people.

RiTides wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:The availability issue is solved by the fact that you can order FW stuff from GW stores and have them delivered to the store.

Only if you have a GW store nearby... not that I think this should be the make-or-break issue, but I do see it as much more significant than price. The fact that anyone in another country has to order models from the UK in order to use them makes those models much less accessible to many people.

Or you stroll down to your local library and use a computer there to order stuff from ForgeWorld for no additional cost. Dunno how that works in the US, but IIRC all Swedish municipalities are required to have a library by law.

Right... although most people would order it from home or work instead of a public computer (if you have the money to buy forgeworld, you likely have an internet connection ). My point is simply that it is more of a factor in my opinion than cost... not that it should be considered the dominant factor in whether or not FW units are allowed in a more widespread gametype.

RiTides wrote:Right... although most people would order it from home or work instead of a public computer (if you have the money to buy forgeworld, you likely have an internet connection ). My point is simply that it is more of a factor in my opinion than cost... not that it should be considered the dominant factor in whether or not FW units are allowed in a more widespread gametype.

If neither price nor availability is an issue, what's left? "OP units"? The only borderline things I've seen so far is the Caestus and the Lucius Pod. The Caestus because it can dump off a load of Terminators in your deployment zone turn 1. Guess what, though? Shrike can already do that, cheaper. Lucius Pods, while really good, are counterable with some deployment tricks.

I feel like we're missing each other here . My point is that availability IS an issue. However, I don't know if it is enough of one to matter, and I agree with you (at least, what I think you're saying) that game balance would be the primary one.

My argument is not that FW units should be disallowed (or allowed) in more events. I haven't made up my mind... however, I would lean towards allowing them in more (but not all) events, as long as it were well-advertised ahead of time. Still thinking it through, though

In that case, yes, we're missing eachother. Let's agree to agree?

RiTides wrote:

Reecius wrote:We're getting beat up by the people who don't want FW units to go mainstream AND by the guys who do want FW units to go mainstream!

Could mean you're doing something right, too- i.e., you're getting everyone's attention. In something like this, everyone is going to weigh in on where they want the line to be, especially if you say or imply where you want it to be in the articles. But I'd view this as a good thing, as you're shifting the conversation... or at least, getting it out there in the conversation.

Still not sure where I stand on the whole thing yet, but I think it's cool to be talking about it.

Yeah, perhaps you're right. Either way, it is obviously a hot topic and one that should be discussed further.

I have always like using FW stuff, and at our game club in San Diego (when I lived there) we used it regularly. We found it really helped make the game more interesting and boost weaker armies.

Perhaps that repeated exposure to it for a long time is why I scratch my head when people get so upset about it. I personally am used to it and really don't think of it as a big deal at all.

Something already said ... nvm.

Boosting weaker armies isn't something I've found it to actually do, because if there's one thing FW does right, it's stick to the current standards of pricing for each codex, so eldar stuff in the IA books seems way overpriced, but that's just because the Eldar book is currently pretty dang old (I think it's the oldest book now, right?). When (arguably, I know) the top three armies are IG, GK, and SW, looking at a Forge World catalog doesn't inspire weaker armies, since the first 3/4s of the book are for IG and marines. Poor IG codex only has like 40 tanks in it, we desperately need forge world so they can have another 40 or so.

theironjef wrote: since the first 3/4s of the book are for IG and marines. Poor IG codex only has like 40 tanks in it, we desperately need forge world so they can have another 40 or so.

That's mainly because originally Forgeworld was made up of a bunch of treadheads that wanted to make alternate IG vehicles, so for the first few years, that's what they made. While they still do make IG stuff, it's mostly superheavies like the Malcador variants. Their non-IG stuff is quickly expanding, it just has a lot of catching up to do. The reason they're doing a lot of Space Marine stuff is, quite simply, it sells. I doubt GW even got involved - once they made the older mark power armour models, I'm sure they saw a huge influx of sales. Much like GW, they likely keep making Space Marines now to fund other projects.

They do have quite a lot of stuff for other armies. You can't argue that they don't pay attention to other armies when two of their biggest kits are xeno kits (the Manta and Phantom Titan). Again, though, these armies are still catching up with the early years of pumping out nothing but IG tanks.

Thank goodness they make that Manta. A $2000+ model the size of a wheelchair that takes a small team to lift is a sure sign of love for tau gameplay. Maybe not the best examples (I'd probably throw in that they just plain make a crapload of tau stuff instead of going by size), but your point is still taken. However, it is notable that anytime people haul out the OP arguments, it's always about IG or SM stuff. No one gives a crap about the Eldar Hornet, or the Malanthrope, or Shas'O O'Ryleh. So when I hear it said that the IA materials help boost the weaker armies, I immediately think about what the cost of that is. Hey, Tyranids get a marginal Carnifex upgrade! And all it costs is giving IG a Hades Breaching Drill!

There's definitely OP stuff in the range for xenos. Look at the endless bitching about the Heirophant. I realize it's an Apocalypse unit, but that thing is far underpriced.

theironjef wrote:Boosting weaker armies isn't something I've found it to actually do, because if there's one thing FW does right, it's stick to the current standards of pricing for each codex, so eldar stuff in the IA books seems way overpriced, but that's just because the Eldar book is currently pretty dang old (I think it's the oldest book now, right?). When (arguably, I know) the top three armies are IG, GK, and SW, looking at a Forge World catalog doesn't inspire weaker armies, since the first 3/4s of the book are for IG and marines. Poor IG codex only has like 40 tanks in it, we desperately need forge world so they can have another 40 or so.

I will give FW credit for the Hornet though, it seems like a -great- buy, and the points drop for R'alai (though they kinda teabagged Tau players by also removing IC to "balance" him, making his stubborn almost useless.).

-Loki- wrote:There's definitely OP stuff in the range for xenos. Look at the endless bitching about the Heirophant. I realize it's an Apocalypse unit, but that thing is far underpriced.

Except that it's-...ah, okay. Well, that's pretty much the only awesome thing Nids get. In Apoc, a Greater Daemon would wreck a Hierophant.

It supports what I wanted to say, though: so many people are stuck in the mindset of "Forgeworld = Apocalypse", at least how I see it. For some of the Space Marine and IG stuff, the "OP" argument holds water=but that's because SMs have SO DAMN MANY GOOD TOYS ALREADY! In all honestly, the Space Marine section of Forgeworld should be the smallest given how well-supported they are by GW. They're broken/OP because they basically have to make up a new use for an army(s) that can already do everything (and then some for non-vanilla Marines). IG...the IG choices are neat, and not bad by any means; it just all suffers from the Vendetta-being-so-damn-cheap problem. otherwise, I'd LOVE to see Tauroses out on the boards!

I've noticed in recent years that Forgeworld has been moving away from "here's uber units for Apocalypse", and has become more of "here's cosmetic enhancements for your army, and some neat expansions". That's really what IA:A 2nd Ed. opens the door for Forgeworld to become: an expansion to Warhammer 40,000, like an expansion to a video game. it opens up new options and ways to play. yes, it changes how the game is played-but that's a GOOD thing, people! we've been stuck in 5th Edition for the past few years; change is good! I bet half of the people out here who whole-heartedly shoot down anyone who's supported Forgeworld models is simply talking out their asses and has yet to even -try- games with Imperial Armour models-jus tlike people whom rail against Finecast and yet never tried buying one themselves!

TL;DR: Shut up and play games with Forgeworld models BEFORE approving/denying them, instead of talking out your ass!

-Loki- wrote:There's definitely OP stuff in the range for xenos. Look at the endless bitching about the Heirophant. I realize it's an Apocalypse unit, but that thing is far underpriced.

Much of the apocalypse stuff is grossly underpriced. Pretty much anything larger than a Baneblade is grossly undercosted. 2500pts for a Warlord titan that can wipe out 4000pts of stuff a turn? 2000pts for a Manta? 4000pts for an Emperor titan that can probably engage and destroy almost that many points of leman russ tanks or land raiders each turn? Most of those are GW studio prices.

Why is this still in tournament discussion?

I guess because people are under the impression that FW models are now legal in all games and tournaments because of a 40k stamp in the book. lol

I'm in favor of FW stuff being allowed always in regular 40k.

My reasons are thusly:

1) They are fun overall. One bad apple (the Achilles) should not invalidate the entire bunch - and there is still some debate as to whether the Achilles is a bad apple!

2) Price - Forge World is not that expensive and has a surprising resell value. I can get the new Macharius Omega plasma tank, or I can buy two and a half Land Raiders. I know many players who have more than 2.5 Land Raiders worth of stuff.

3) Balance - I don't think anything disrupts the balance too badly. Even the Achilles, which is effectively unspammable (limit 3) is not so bad because 975 points (which is 3) would cripple the fighting capability of the rest of the army.

4) Fun Factor - I cannot stress enough how fun Forge World models are. I always smile to myself as a Vanquisher with a co-axial weapon engages a Contemptor's assault-cannon variant in an armored duel to the death, for example.

5) Competitive 40k is silly 40k. I know that this may rub people the wrong way, but if they want to invest about $100 on a single "unkillable" Land Raider so that they can win a few tournaments, this is not terribly different from investing in an FotM army. Both are new and scary, and both are easily dealt with as the meta evolves.

/end rant

I'm fine with there being a relatively even mix of Open (FW allowed) and Standard (FW prohibited) tournaments on the scene. I just don't want to see FW become the standard for all tournaments. While at the moment, it's debateable that certain 40k approved FW do not imbalance the game, it would be very easy for that to change in the future. GW is already pushing costs to the limit of what many gamers can handle, and if a situation develops where FW models that cost twice what a similar (and better optioned) GW kit does become standard to try and compete, it's going to drive us right out of the game.

I like FW, and I'm more than happy to play friendly games with them, and even the occasional tournament, however I want a buffer to ensure that they cannot end up dominating the game.

Maelstrom808 wrote: GW is already pushing costs to the limit of what many gamers can handle, and if a situation develops where FW models that cost twice what a similar (and better optioned) GW kit does become standard to try and compete, it's going to drive us right out of the game.

Depending on where you live, standard GW prices are already about on par with what FW costs however (e.g. Australia, NZ, Japan, etc), and if GW keeps up the rate of price increases they've been going with the last 5 years, the rest of us will be there in about 4 or 5 years.

There's also plenty of opportunity for scratch building or converting. A Drop Pod isn't that hard to turn into a Dreadclaw, for example.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:There's also plenty of opportunity for scratch building or converting. A Drop Pod isn't that hard to turn into a Dreadclaw, for example.

That's a no-no. You missed the first several pages where it was clearly established that one needs to have the actual FW model before it can be used in games using the FW rules. Part of the argument is that people will proxy or make poor substitutes in order to spam the few OP units.

Cruentus wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:There's also plenty of opportunity for scratch building or converting. A Drop Pod isn't that hard to turn into a Dreadclaw, for example.

That's a no-no. You missed the first several pages where it was clearly established that one needs to have the actual FW model before it can be used in games using the FW rules. Part of the argument is that people will proxy or make poor substitutes in order to spam the few OP units.

...NO WHERE in the rules does it say that you need to have the ACTUAL model to use the rules. And people proxy and make poor susbtitutes already (flavor of the month anyone?), so that's an issue with the player base/tourney scene rather than Forge World units.

Vaktathi wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote: GW is already pushing costs to the limit of what many gamers can handle, and if a situation develops where FW models that cost twice what a similar (and better optioned) GW kit does become standard to try and compete, it's going to drive us right out of the game.

Depending on where you live, standard GW prices are already about on par with what FW costs however (e.g. Australia, NZ, Japan, etc), and if GW keeps up the rate of price increases they've been going with the last 5 years, the rest of us will be there in about 4 or 5 years.

At that point, they can do whatever they want, because I'll be long gone from the game by then.

Yeah, over here, some are actually cheaper. FW Hive Tyrant? Cheaper than the GW Tyrant. Winged Hive Tyrant? About $5au more. Stone Crusher Carnifex complete kit, which includes the entire Carnifex kit and the Stonecrusher parts? Cheaper than a standard Carnifex.

Unit1126PLL wrote:1) They are fun overall. One bad apple (the Achilles) should not invalidate the entire bunch - and there is still some debate as to whether the Achilles is a bad apple!

It is. An invincible tank is not "balanced", you can't simply make something like that more expensive to "balance" it. Maybe you could argue that anyone who wastes 300+ points taking the damn thing is a fool anyway, but either way, it's a poorly-designed unit that has no place on the table.

And apparently that "one bad apple" rule doesn't work for regular 40k, because whenever anyone talks crap about FW, half a dozen people come out and yell "GREY KNIGHTS!", like that alone is justification for making more gak that's not properly balanced.

Unit1126PLL wrote:2) Price - Forge World is not that expensive

lol, are you serious?

Okay, "two and a half land raiders" isn't expensive...for you. For me, a single land raider already costs way too damn much, and now you're trying to tell me that I should be perfectly okay with buying one tank that costs 2.5x as much? I still haven't bought a third ravager for my DE because I don't feel like dropping $50 on another fething tank right now, so no, the thought of spending almost $200 on a FW tantalus of questionable usefulness that I can only really use in stupidly large Apoc games (that I don't play) doesn't appeal much to me. Especially when other races get better rules for their money.

Honestly sir I think you have no right to dictate to me what's expensive and what isn't. For a lot of people GW hobbies in general cost too damn much, and FW units are the most expensive of them all, and by all rights should remain optional. It's hard enough trying to keep up with the game as it is without adding another ridiculously expensive element via the FW arms race, which most races besides SM and IG automatically lose since FW sticks to the tried and true GW tradition of hating the gak out of xenos. And despite what some people think, they are not that "easy" to get, either. Real easy to go online and max out a credit card buying two models, sure, but I'd argue that anything that costs that damn much, that I have to have shipped from outside the country by definition is not "easy" to get. Regular GW models I can drive an hour to my local store and take home today (I don't have a GW store in my state so don't even bother suggesting I buy the gak from there, if you even can), FW I have to pay a premium for, pay extra cash to have it shipped from the UK, and then wait twice as long for it to show up in the mail.

GW units are too expensive. FW is even worse, and the last thing I want is for 40k to become even more god-damned expensive to play by making expensive FW models the new "auto-includes". FW prices were always "justified" because they were meant as collector pieces and not really balanced for gaming, and that's the best way to keep it in my opinion: optional pieces for collectors, who have stuff like Apocalypse already if they want to use them in games that badly. Trying to shoehorn them into the game with FW's typical derpy rules-writing that is somehow even worse than GW's is not going to be good for anyone who doesn't have a six-figure salary (sadly I am not as blessed as some of you apparently are).

Unit1126PLL wrote:3) Balance - I don't think anything disrupts the balance too badly. Even the Achilles, which is effectively unspammable (limit 3) is not so bad because 975 points (which is 3) would cripple the fighting capability of the rest of the army.

You don't think it affects balance...good for you. I think after reading point #5 on your list your opinion on game balance means absolutely nothing anyway.

Unit1126PLL wrote:4) Fun Factor - I cannot stress enough how fun Forge World models are. I always smile to myself as a Vanquisher with a co-axial weapon engages a Contemptor's assault-cannon variant in an armored duel to the death, for example.

This is getting kinda old. "I think ____, so you should too." Well in my opinion it's not "fun" to lose games against people simply because they can afford ridiculously expensive FW models that I can't, who force me to play with them because a stamp somehow makes them "official" and means they no longer need permission to be used in games (and because these people desperately need to find some excuse to justify buying their stupidly-expensive toys that are even more stupidly-expensive than GW toys normally are). That's basically what it comes down to, people like you are trying to force me to "have fun", almost sounding as if you know better than me what I do or don't have fun doing, and that's not a strategy that's going to work very well in your favor. Especially when the two armies I play don't get anything special from FW. For Tau the best thing I get is probably commander R'alai, who they kinda nerfed in this book anyway, and as far as I'm concerned Dark Eldar don't really get anything worth noting. The reaper is a laughable joke, underpowered and overpriced, and the tantalus is a big expensive boat that doesn't do enough for it to be worth using. I have better, more cost-effective options in my codex already. I gain practically nothing from allowing you to use this book, except the "fun" of being frustrated at unkillable tanks (which you can't simply "ignore", unless Space Marines have Phase Out now and lose everything else that makes them competitive, so the comparison to the old Necron monolith is actually accurate) and other bs available only to the armies I don't play.

Unit1126PLL wrote:5) Competitive 40k is silly 40k.

You really know how to win people over, don't you? Congrats, you just invalidated whatever point you were trying to make, and guaranteed that I won't be willing to listen to anything more you have to say on the topic.

"40k is already broken!" is not a good enough excuse to break it even more. GW needs to be spending more time updating the rest of the codices and trying to fix the imbalance that's mostly caused by having old armies trying to compete with new ones, not haphazardly throwing FW models into the mix in a cheap attempt to try and make quick cash, and potentially skewing the balance even more in the favor of armies that don't really need any more assistance.

Kepora wrote:...NO WHERE in the rules does it say that you need to have the ACTUAL model to use the rules.

If I've learned anything from forums it's that what's "in the rules" don't actually matter to a lot of people that play this game. It's the unwritten rules that everyone holds sacred, which dictate that all players should use the official models, that no player should use the options in their codex that are actually worth using or be shunned by the community, that no one should ever play in tournaments or even consider the thought of actually trying to win a game, etc.

Sidstyler wrote:
lol, are you serious?

Okay, "two and a half land raiders" isn't expensive...for you. For me, a single land raider already costs way too damn much, and now you're trying to tell me that I should be perfectly okay with buying one tank that costs 2.5x as much? I still haven't bought a third ravager for my DE because I don't feel like dropping $50 on another fething tank right now, so no, the thought of spending almost $200 on a FW tantalus of questionable usefulness that I can only really use in stupidly large Apoc games (that I don't play) doesn't appeal much to me. Especially when other races get better rules for their money.

Honestly sir I think you have no right to dictate to me what's expensive and what isn't. For a lot of people GW hobbies in general cost too damn much, and FW units are the most expensive of them all, and by all rights should remain optional. It's hard enough trying to keep up with the game as it is without adding another ridiculously expensive element via the FW arms race, which most races besides SM and IG automatically lose since FW sticks to the tried and true GW tradition of hating the gak out of xenos. And despite what some people think, they are not that "easy" to get, either. Real easy to go online and max out a credit card buying two models, sure, but I'd argue that anything that costs that damn much, that I have to have shipped from outside the country by definition is not "easy" to get. Regular GW models I can drive an hour to my local store and take home today (I don't have a GW store in my state so don't even bother suggesting I buy the gak from there, if you even can), FW I have to pay a premium for, pay extra cash to have it shipped from the UK, and then wait twice as long for it to show up in the mail.

GW units are too expensive. FW is even worse, and the last thing I want is for 40k to become even more god-damned expensive to play by making expensive FW models the new "auto-includes". FW prices were always "justified" because they were meant as collector pieces and not really balanced for gaming, and that's the best way to keep it in my opinion: optional pieces for collectors, who have stuff like Apocalypse already if they want to use them in games that badly. Trying to shoehorn them into the game with FW's typical derpy rules-writing that is somehow even worse than GW's is not going to be good for anyone who doesn't have a six-figure salary (sadly I am not as blessed as some of you apparently are).

A few points.

First, this assumes that a ton of FW units become "Must have" and become instantly spammed by well off players, which isn't necessarily true.

Second, this game already has a huge income gap. Imperial Guard, Ork and Sisters of Battle armies routinely cost twice or more what Space Marine armies cost for instance, hell even a half built out IG infantry platoon for one Troops FoC slot costs more than many SM lists and Sisters armies now cost as much or more than Krieg lists, should they be "optional" merely because they cost so much more? Are you going to refuse games against armies you can't afford to collect?

Third, depending on where you live, FW isn't much more expensive (if at all) compared with general GW kits, and if GW keeps their price increases over the last 5 years consistent into the next 5 years, it'll be irrelevant as plastic Cadians will cost as much or more than Elysians and Krieg guardsmen no matter where you live.


As to FW rules being worse than GW's? Have you somehow missed Vendettas, Pyrovores, Purifiers, Lictors, Long Fangs, Deathstrikes, Triarch Praetorians, Draigo, Mephiston, Psybolt Autocannons, or any number of the ridiculous thing the core studio lets out? FW's rules generally are much better. Yeah they *do* muck up, but rarely. At worst, you might be able to argue they're on par.

And how is ordering from FW any harder from ordering anything else online? You hop on a computer, you select what you want, you put in the card information, and that's it. You don't even have to drive anywhere, takes 3 minutes. Sounds a lot easier than driving for two hours round trip, and that's assuming they've got what you want on the shelf, and I hope you aren't playing Sisters of Battle because the store probably won't have it unless they special ordered them paying full MSRP themselves.

TL;DR, Complaining that FW shouldn't be allowed because it costs money isn't a valid reason for not allowing it.

I gain practically nothing from allowing you to use this book

So, spite pretty much?

Sidstyler wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:1) They are fun overall. One bad apple (the Achilles) should not invalidate the entire bunch - and there is still some debate as to whether the Achilles is a bad apple!

It is. An invincible tank is not "balanced", you can't simply make something like that more expensive to "balance" it. Maybe you could argue that anyone who wastes 300+ points taking the damn thing is a fool anyway, but either way, it's a poorly-designed unit that has no place on the table.

And apparently that "one bad apple" rule doesn't work for regular 40k, because whenever anyone talks crap about FW, half a dozen people come out and yell "GREY KNIGHTS!", like that alone is justification for making more gak that's not properly balanced.

I disagree, obviously. I think the Achilles argument has already been fought out though, so I'll drop it. As an aside about your second part - the 'bad apple' rule obviously DOES work, because we all still play DESPITE "Grey Knights!"

Sidstyler wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:2) Price - Forge World is not that expensive

lol, are you serious?

Okay, "two and a half land raiders" isn't expensive...for you. For me, a single land raider already costs way too damn much, and now you're trying to tell me that I should be perfectly okay with buying one tank that costs 2.5x as much? I still haven't bought a third ravager for my DE because I don't feel like dropping $50 on another fething tank right now, so no, the thought of spending almost $200 on a FW tantalus of questionable usefulness that I can only really use in stupidly large Apoc games (that I don't play) doesn't appeal much to me. Especially when other races get better rules for their money.

Honestly sir I think you have no right to dictate to me what's expensive and what isn't. For a lot of people GW hobbies in general cost too damn much, and FW units are the most expensive of them all, and by all rights should remain optional. It's hard enough trying to keep up with the game as it is without adding another ridiculously expensive element via the FW arms race, which most races besides SM and IG automatically lose since FW sticks to the tried and true GW tradition of hating the gak out of xenos. And despite what some people think, they are not that "easy" to get, either. Real easy to go online and max out a credit card buying two models, sure, but I'd argue that anything that costs that damn much, that I have to have shipped from outside the country by definition is not "easy" to get. Regular GW models I can drive an hour to my local store and take home today (I don't have a GW store in my state so don't even bother suggesting I buy the gak from there, if you even can), FW I have to pay a premium for, pay extra cash to have it shipped from the UK, and then wait twice as long for it to show up in the mail.

GW units are too expensive. FW is even worse, and the last thing I want is for 40k to become even more god-damned expensive to play by making expensive FW models the new "auto-includes". FW prices were always "justified" because they were meant as collector pieces and not really balanced for gaming, and that's the best way to keep it in my opinion: optional pieces for collectors, who have stuff like Apocalypse already if they want to use them in games that badly. Trying to shoehorn them into the game with FW's typical derpy rules-writing that is somehow even worse than GW's is not going to be good for anyone who doesn't have a six-figure salary (sadly I am not as blessed as some of you apparently are).

To be quite honest, it is unfortunate that 40k is so hard to fund in your financial situation (and honestly I sympathize; I was a college student once), but capitalism is here to stay and you're going to be sorely disappointed if you think you won't have to pay more money for things of more value, such as Forge World models.

Sidstyler wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:3) Balance - I don't think anything disrupts the balance too badly. Even the Achilles, which is effectively unspammable (limit 3) is not so bad because 975 points (which is 3) would cripple the fighting capability of the rest of the army.

You don't think it affects balance...good for you. I think after reading point #5 on your list your opinion on game balance means absolutely nothing anyway.

A fair dismissal - it's true, I don't think game balance matters anyways. For that matter, apparently neither do the game designers.

Sidstyler wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:4) Fun Factor - I cannot stress enough how fun Forge World models are. I always smile to myself as a Vanquisher with a co-axial weapon engages a Contemptor's assault-cannon variant in an armored duel to the death, for example.

This is getting kinda old. "I think ____, so you should too." Well in my opinion it's not "fun" to lose games against people simply because they can afford ridiculously expensive FW models that I can't, who force me to play with them because a stamp somehow makes them "official" and means they no longer need permission to be used in games (and because these people desperately need to find some excuse to justify buying their stupidly-expensive toys that are even more stupidly-expensive than GW toys normally are). That's basically what it comes down to, people like you are trying to force me to "have fun", almost sounding as if you know better than me what I do or don't have fun doing, and that's not a strategy that's going to work very well in your favor. Especially when the two armies I play don't get anything special from FW. For Tau the best thing I get is probably commander R'alai, who they kinda nerfed in this book anyway, and as far as I'm concerned Dark Eldar don't really get anything worth noting. The reaper is a laughable joke, underpowered and overpriced, and the tantalus is a big expensive boat that doesn't do enough for it to be worth using. I have better, more cost-effective options in my codex already. I gain practically nothing from allowing you to use this book, except the "fun" of being frustrated at unkillable tanks (which you can't simply "ignore", unless Space Marines have Phase Out now and lose everything else that makes them competitive, so the comparison to the old Necron monolith is actually accurate) and other bs available only to the armies I don't play.

I never said you should think like that! I just said how I thought. Just a question: do you feel "forced" to play with, say, Thunderfire Cannons? Because they're in the Codex. Suddenly, so are Contemptor Dreadnoughts. Think of it as more goodies in the codices.

As to what you get out of it, I'm sorry. It's funny that you see all Forge World units as underpowered except for one "unkillable" tank. I don't quite understand what would be bad about allowing it then? Also, I would note that 100% more durable, while an AMAZING improvement, isn't "unkillable," just twice as durable.

Sidstyler wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:5) Competitive 40k is silly 40k.

You really know how to win people over, don't you? Congrats, you just invalidated whatever point you were trying to make, and guaranteed that I won't be willing to listen to anything more you have to say on the topic.

"40k is already broken!" is not a good enough excuse to break it even more. GW needs to be spending more time updating the rest of the codices and trying to fix the imbalance that's mostly caused by having old armies trying to compete with new ones, not haphazardly throwing FW models into the mix in a cheap attempt to try and make quick cash, and potentially skewing the balance even more in the favor of armies that don't really need any more assistance.

Fair enough, but I am not trying to 'break it more.' I'm not trying to break it at all. I'm just simply trying to have fun with my models, and let anyone else have fun with their models, instead of being hamstrung into the rather bland (compared to earlier editions when White Dwarf was awesome, for example) current rules-set.

Vaktathi wrote:

I gain practically nothing from allowing you to use this book

So, spite pretty much?

There might be something here. Someone made a huge post on 40k general about Forgeworld which amounted to 'I can't afford the models, so I won't let you use them against me'.

Yeah, that went about as expected. I guess I'm just "too poor" to play your fething game, then.

Personally I think it's telling that the guys who push FW so hard are the ones who admittedly don't give a feth about fair play, and try to justify the horrible game balance because "That's capitalism for you, pay to win or play a different game!"

That's a tad hyperbolic.

No one is saying that, but saying the opposite (you can't use them either because I can't afford them) comes off as, well, a tantrum.

Yeah, they're expensive. That should never be an argument against allowing their use.

I mean, GW produce a Fantasy unit more expensive on a model by model basis than any unit Forgeworld have produced so far. But I don't see anyone refusing to allow Blood Knights in games.

As for terrible balance - entire armies with force weapons, blood talons, jaws of the world wolf, thunderhammer terminators... GW produce more broken stuff in each codex as FW has in its whole range.

Sidstyler wrote:Yeah, that went about as expected. I guess I'm just "too poor" to play your fething game, then.

Given that I bought my FW army on a college's students part time job budget, I find it a poor excuse. And if you're going to apply it to FW stuff, it applies equally to half the GW range, and if you're not excluding that stuff, then well, it's a hypocritical stance.

That said, this stuff all exists in the 40k universe, it has rules, it has a place on the table.

Personally I think it's telling that the guys who push FW so hard are the ones who admittedly don't give a feth about fair play, and try to justify the horrible game balance because "That's capitalism for you, pay to win or play a different game!"

Given that the vast majority of FW rules are far better balanced than the core studio's rules, I find that difficult to swallow, especially when you are making the very silly assertion that balance/competitiveness equates in any way with cost. Methinks you will find many models and kits both GW and FW do not conform to this at all.

When you have to resort to attacks like this and swearing, the rationality of the arguments is likely wearing thin.

Reecius wrote:Hahahaha, holy crap, guys!

We're getting beat up by the people who don't want FW units to go mainstream AND by the guys who do want FW units to go mainstream!

And you wonder why no one wants to champion this cause?

Look, we're FULLY aware of the lack of authority that little stamp has (and sorry, I misspoke when I said it was 40K approved, not just 40K, that was an error) but you have to start somewhere, right? Better to dip your toe into the water than jump right in to the deep end with a touchy subject.

Yes, this is an arbitrary starting point. We know. We have nearly all the books. This just seemed like as good of a starting point as any with all the attention the book was getting.

That's all.

For crying out loud, hahaha, if you want to see these units become more accepted, let's do it one step at a time!

Well, I'm certainly not trying to beat you up in any way!

I think you guys are doing a great thing by reviewing the units out in the open and trying to shine a light on the ludicrous concept that these rules somehow 'break' the game.

I just think it is dangerous to imply that the 'stamp' in the newer books somehow sets some sort of different standard of 'officialness' then other IA books, when the books themselves don't support that assertion (and in fact clearly state the opposite).

The reason I say its dangerous is because its not just you guys. Several other people have picked up on this phantom difference and have started to act like IAA 2nd edition is somehow 'different' than previous IA books and that assertion will naturally freak people out who are against Imperial Armor and haven't actually read the book (to see that they do say that the rules are just as official as before).

So I definitely think you should keep reviewing IA units/books to dispel the myths based in ignorance in fear, I just really hope you cut out and reference in the reviews indicating that the new book is somehow more official than other IA books.


But the #1 thing that needs to be done is exactly what you are doing: Shine a light on the rules and prove that in actual games, the rules don't 'break' the game. IA rules continually suffer from a a kind of the 'new codex' syndrome, where people always think the new codex is the end of the world and totally broken, but once they actually play some games against it they realize how to beat or at least minimize the advantages of the new codex. But since so few people regularly play against IA rules, they have this perception like these units are stupidly broken just like a 'new codex', but the big difference being that they aren't forced to play against the rules so they never get over that false assumption and forever live in a state of fear against the bogey-man that doesn't really exist.


So kudos to you guys. Keep it up! And remember, the hot button issues are also the ones that will drive traffic to your site!

And "GW does it too!" is a rational argument?

I shouldn't have posted in this thread in the first place, but I might as well at least try to finish what I started.

Vaktathi wrote:First, this assumes that a ton of FW units become "Must have" and become instantly spammed by well off players, which isn't necessarily true.

Why not? That already happens in the game now as it is, have you ever seen anyone whine about "spam" armies that always look the same? You honestly don't see people looking for the best FW units and spamming them if they had the chance?

It would cause the same problems we have now. It might add a little to the game, but the majority of FW units kinda suck and you're not going to see this plethora of weird and crazy stuff hit the tables just because it's legal now, which is what some of you are assuming. You might see people experiment with things, like people do with units like mandrakes or ogryns now and then in regular 40k, but people who want to win games (the majority of people who play games, since no one ever really plays to lose) are going to use what's best. I don't see people spamming gak like the achiilles obviously, but I'd be surprised if it didn't happen with some of these units.

Vaktathi wrote:
Second, this game already has a huge income gap. Imperial Guard, Ork and Sisters of Battle armies routinely cost twice or more what Space Marine armies cost for instance, hell even a half built out IG infantry platoon for one Troops FoC slot costs more than many SM lists and Sisters armies now cost as much or more than Krieg lists, should they be "optional" merely because they cost so much more? Are you going to refuse games against armies you can't afford to collect?

You're preaching to the choir, I'm a xenos player so I know full well the pain of trying to build a non-SM army. It's taken me over a year to collect my DE army, buying whatever I can one box at a time. This is also not an equal comparison because you're assuming that the huge expensive horde armies have a considerable advantage over smaller, elite armies, and they don't. It wouldn't be "paying to win" so much as "paying considerably more for an army that's about on par or slightly worse (in the case of Orks and Sisters) than the others". I'm not saying they should be more expensive, I've bitched just as hard as anyone about GW cutting down the number of models in a box and charging twice as much for them, so I sympathize with people who play larger armies like that.

But no, I wouldn't refuse games against them because I assume GW has attempted to balance them. Whether or not they've succeeded is always up for debate, but personally I think GW does a slightly better job than FW, and that a lot of the bitching and whining people do over GW rules is mostly because of the imbalance caused by having half the armies in the game at any one point being horribly out of date. It's only "broken" because the newer armies have newer ideas and army-wide rules in them that older books don't have yet. There's also the fact that GW rules aren't permission-based like FW rules are (and always have been), so it's not quite the same.

Vaktathi wrote:Third, depending on where you live, FW isn't much more expensive (if at all) compared with general GW kits, and if GW keeps their price increases over the last 5 years consistent into the next 5 years, it'll be irrelevant as plastic Cadians will cost as much or more than Elysians and Krieg guardsmen no matter where you live.

Well, it is here. A regular rhino from GW costs $33, a "deimos pattern" rhino (which from what I can tell is just a regular rhino designed to look like the old heresy-era one) costs about $50. Regular Tau crisis suits are $25, FW hazard suits are about $45. And GW doesn't put out a kit yet that can compare to the $160 DE tantalus, I guess maybe the plastic baneblade since I imagine it's similar in size, but even then there's still a $60 difference.

GW is expensive, and FW continues to hold its reputation for being even pricier. True, maybe in another five years they'll be about on par, but at that point I'll probably be forced to find a new hobby anyway.

Vaktathi wrote:
And how is ordering from FW any harder from ordering anything else online? You hop on a computer, you select what you want, you put in the card information, and that's it. You don't even have to drive anywhere, takes 3 minutes. Sounds a lot easier than driving for two hours round trip, and that's assuming they've got what you want on the shelf, and I hope you aren't playing Sisters of Battle because the store probably won't have it unless they special ordered them paying full MSRP themselves.

Fine, whatever. I'm getting tired of trying to argue about it, especially since everyone up and decided that prohibitive pricing wasn't a good enough excuse, even though it very much is so. I can barely justify buying the damn models at GW prices, so paying FW prices is not something I want to do. If it ever becomes something I have to do I won't be playing 40k anymore.

Sidstyler wrote:And "GW does it too!" is a rational argument?

...

Fine, whatever. I'm getting tired of trying to argue about it, especially since everyone up and decided that prohibitive pricing wasn't a good enough excuse, even though it very much is so. I can barely justify buying the damn models at GW prices, so paying FW prices is not something I want to do. If it ever becomes something I have to do I won't be playing 40k anymore.

For your first point: Yes, it is a rational argument because GW makes the fragging game.

For your second point: You're still trying to force your idea of "I can't afford it, therefore it shouldn't be legal". As has been said many times before (and far more eloquently), many of the IA units are decidedly not broken, and only add to the game-spicing it up, so to speak. A couple of them are rather spooky (Like the Caestus, Achilles, and Dread Drop Pods, which-like I said earlier-were made for an army(s) that already have everything and them some), but as stated further above on this page, it's one of those things where it looks scarier until you've actually played aganst it. I've squeezed in a couple of games where I crammed a couple of Hell Blades and a Nurgle Contemptor w/ Butcher Cannon, and I can say with all certainty that they're far from game-breaking, but instead add new fluff-supported options to an army that, otherwise, everyone knows all the tricks for.

P.S.: I'm a Xenos player, too, and I need to nitpick and say that comparing XV8s and XV9s is most -definitely- an apples-to-oranges situation.

Kepora wrote:For your second point: You're still trying to force your idea of "I can't afford it, therefore it shouldn't be legal".

I'd like to point out that this isn't specifically my idea, FW themselves have always said that their models aren't "official" and that you should ask for permission before using them. If anyone is forcing anyone to do anything here, it's you guys forcing me to accept FW when even FW themselves say it's not something I should be forced to accept in the first place. They aren't legal or there wouldn't be a need to for them put the disclaimer on it.

Which everyone keeps ignoring because "40k STAMP MEANS OFFICIAL!"

Kepora wrote:many of the IA units are decidedly not broken

Who made that decision? And what gives them the authority? Nothing against Reecius or anyone else, but none of us are really game designers last I checked, so it's really just one random gamer's opinion versus another. And we've all seen how wildly different those opinions can be, so I'd argue that nothing can be "decidedly" anything when talking about 40k.

Kepora wrote:I've squeezed in a couple of games where I crammed a couple of Hell Blades and a Nurgle Contemptor w/ Butcher Cannon, and I can say with all certainty that they're far from game-breaking, but instead add new fluff-supported options to an army that, otherwise, everyone knows all the tricks for.

Because you're not using the broken crap, that's why it doesn't seem game-breaking. You're using hell blades and a contemptor, both overpriced models for what they do. You're doing what everyone does, "I played with the sub-par stuff, so that means all of it is good!", you're holding up the gak as an example of all FW rules and trying to pretend that there aren't any broken units when there clearly are.

Kepora wrote:and I need to nitpick and say that comparing XV8s and XV9s is most -definitely- an apples-to-oranges situation.

Why? They're both battlesuits and similarly-sized. The hazards might look a little better, but not $45 each better.

Sidstyler wrote:Because you're not using the broken crap

I've used "broken FW crap" in several tourneys and lots of friendly games, and I can testify to the Hades drill and AC chimeras being very nice and competitive choices, but they are hardly broken. There have been no real complaints from any of my opponents about it and no bitching on forums afterwards. Chimera-spam and SW razorspam have instigated much more internet drama in my community. For me, it has been a cool, fluffy and competitive list choice as I have a mining-world regiment.

Reecius wrote:For crying out loud, hahaha, if you want to see these units become more accepted, let's do it one step at a time!

In about a year, the tourney scene in Norway has gone from NO FW EVAR!!!! to FW units being allowed in all of the largest tourneys. There are still restrictions (which I personally believe makes it more enjoyable - spam is always boring), but they seem to get lighter and lighter. The first tourney was pretty strict with FW, but it allowed an armoured company list, and I got to play with a hades (barely). Several units (such as the dreadpod) were outright banned, all FW were 0-1 choices (except for FW lists), and you need permission to use them.

Now, about a year after the first "FW allowed" tourney, another tourney, which has traditionally been afraid of "powergaming" has allowed FW, with the only stated restriction being that you need to notify the TO's about what FW units you want to use and get permission. The original FW-allowing tourney has now dropped restrictions to 0-1 choice and no FW special characters (both limits removed if you play a FW list)

I think it is wise to ease FW into the tourney scene by starting with some restrictions, and then, as the FW-syndrome starts to lessen, loosen up on those restrictions. If some of the most popular US tourneys started allowing it (f.ex: Nova), it will spread. More players will buy those FW units they've always wanted, and they will want to use them in other tourneys too - putting pressure on their local TO's etc. As you say - do it one step at the time.

Or we can just hope that GW writes that FW is allowed in the 6th ed rules

@Illumini
I hope that is the case in the USA. Like I have said many times, and you have experienced, I have played with these units, not just talked about them. Like you have seen, they really aren't that big of a deal.

@Yakface
I understand what you are saying, and perhaps we were using the stamp as a shield, too much.

We already decided to move into the Apoc 2 book units after this as they are awesome, too.

We'll open this door, slowly but surely. I honestly just want to use more, and cooler toys in my games! Haha, that is my sole motivation for it.

@Thread
Orks added!

I think it is wise to ease FW into the tourney scene by starting with some restrictions, and then, as the FW-syndrome starts to lessen, loosen up on those restrictions. If some of the most popular US tourneys started allowing it (f.ex: Nova), it will spread.

AdeptiCon has allowed Forgeworld models in the majority of our events for the better part of 8 years. So welcome to the party. : ) I’ve heard all the arguments for and against Forgeworld unit inclusion. It has been hotly debated at the AdeptiCon staff level at multiple times, across multiple editions of 40K and now WFB, and scads of event formats. We have generally felt that the positives of allowing Forgeworld models outweigh the negatives associated. As Yakface can attest there is a good amount of time and resources devoted to support Forgeworld model inclusion so for us it is not a simple matter to allow or disallow Forgeworld. Each IA book brings about items that need to be addressed, and with each release you run the risk of a rule, a misprint or editing mistake getting thrown in that messes up the works. But we also run that risk with standard releases.

Frankly, the cost of the hobby is the cost of the hobby. I’ve seen people dump thousands of dollars in 1k of standard codex marines and I have seen people build on the cheap, 2k armies that included Forgeworld models and expensive kits sourced from ebay and other sources. GW prices and Forgeworld prices are in many cases comparable these days. Regardless, the real cost of this hobby for a lot of us is actually time not dollars. So why I understand people are in different financial circumstances, we are also under different time and real life obligations. All of which have an effect on how we all enjoy this hobby.

Adepticon allows FW in the team tournament, which for some reason is taken less seriously than the singles event. I have made the pilgrimage to Adepticon several times and I agree, FW units are fun to include.

I agree with your points, and think Adepticon is a great example for the nay Sayers to look at and see that FW units alreayd integrate well into tournaments. The Adepticon TT is the biggest tournament in the USA, and now the World, I believe (since the UKGT is defunct).

For 2012: Forgeworld is allowed in the 40K Team Tourney, the 40K Friendly, 40K Gladiator and we allow FW Chaos Dwarves, etc .. on the WFB side.

We allowed Forgeworld in the Championship through 2009 but in 2010 with the end of the GT Tourney circuit we combined the short lived Invitational format and Championship format and decided to keep the Invitational Forgeworld restriction.

Back on topic ... IA11 continues the identification standards implemented and brings some other interesting topics to this discussion. So hopefully, you plan to continue your reviews : ) ... great stuff

Thanks Reece! I've seen alot of those units and it nice to hear what they do. They all seam kind of OK except the grot tanks/mega tank (meka dread would be cool in a dread mob fluff wise and Liftadroppa in a SAG way). Speaking from the fluff perspective I love me some grots and hope someday you could build an entire army from them. Competitively I would loose a deff kopter for the Mega tank easy and would also swap a 5 man loota unit for the grot tanks shooting. both seam like a fun alternative. Still don't know if I'd like to see them in tournys though.

Allowing the FW army lists in the team event would be a decent way to pry open the door. That's meant to be the "for fun" event, right? I would love to paint up some Eldar corsairs and beat up a Dkok team! It would be like a whole new game!

I'd run a squadron of Warkoptaz (2), a unit of Grot Baby Tanks, and 2 Grot Megatanks if I could. I think they're amazing units! The rest didn't appeal to me much but I'm obsessed with how cool those 3 units are. Granted if FW models were required I'd be out since I'd want the models to fit my Ork theme which is entirely looted imperial

I like the squiggoth. One of those rare cases where FW makes a unit that isn't horribly bad or way too good. I don't know why you're talking about grots though, seems like an obvious place to put your lootas (unless you fill up on grot tanks! lol).

The warkopta looks cool, but:

Reecius wrote:It doesn’t say what FOC slot it takes up

... I thought you guys said FW did it better than GW? lol

And from what I've heard this isn't the only unit in IAA 2 that doesn't fit in the FOC, either. Sloppy...how much does this book cost again? $40? :I

The dread and liftawagon aren't really worth mentioning, the grot tanks though...I'm kind of on the fence about. I want to say they sound a little too good, but at the same time Orks could kinda use the boost, so...I dunno. It makes me uneasy, I guess, I don't like the idea of facing a wall of grot tanks, lol.

Reecius wrote:Adepticon allows FW in the team tournament, which for some reason is taken less seriously than the singles event.

People really shouldn't take team games that seriously, in my opinion. 40k was made more for two players, and even then it's not perfectly balanced, so there's a lot of potential for broken army combinations that GW either wouldn't have anticipated, or just weren't too worried about since the game is meant to be 1vs1 anyway. So I'm not too opposed to FW showing up in a team game since if I'm playing a team game I'm already accepting the fact that this is going to be "just for fun".

muwhe wrote:GW prices and Forgeworld prices are in many cases comparable these days.

There are only a couple of cases where the FW options aren't much more expensive than GW's, like Tau broadsides which have always been about equal to the cost of the ugly GW ones, or the new DE reaper which is only $10 more than a ravager (but is complete and utter garbage and you should really just use a ravager). But the majority of FW models still come with a premium (at least in the US anyway, can't speak for anyone else), like the achilles land raider which is only about $20 shy of being twice the price of a regular one (like it should be, bs tank is bs).

I don't mind FW being there for people who have the money for it, I'm just afraid of the game turning into "whoever has more money for FW wins". Which I admit is a long way off, since FW units suck more often than not, but it's always those one or two stupid models that put me off it. And people can say "Oh it won't be like that.", but I know there are people out there who will take full advantage of FW's bad rules writing, and honestly it's hard enough as it is to put up with GW's bad rules writing (even though I personally think those cases are fewer than other people believe...seriously, pyrovores "broken"?).

Still wouldn't mind having a tantalus one day, even if all it did was sit on a shelf and look pretty.

In any case I think I overreacted a tad the other night. Still not entirely sure why, guess I was just in a sour mood and I took a couple posts the wrong way, lol.

@Muhwe
Ah yes, I forgot about the Gladiator, although that one was pretty obvious! Hah.

I actually didn't know the Championships had allowed FW units, that is news to me. Thanks for pointing that out.

@Hulk
I agree, there are quite a few options open there that I like!

@Sid
When did we say they did anything better?

Besides making better models, FW lags behind on the rules side often, although they are getting better, much better. No need for facepalms and such considering you tend to hyperbole already.

I never said that, and I agree that it is sloppy and doesn't help their case when they forget things like that in the book.

@Sid

It is certainly fair criticism of some Forgeworld materials that they have suffered from some editing mistakes . See IA11, for some prime examples. The rule work Forgeworld does is highly dependent on the authors. Much like the how "good" a codex is .. seems highly dependant on the GW author.

However, they do a number of things that I wish GW Design Studio would do -

1. They post pdf experimental rules of models prior to the release of the book, and as evident by some changes made to the final printed rules take feedback from customers on the rules. This is a proactive approach in many cases that fixes model rule issues prior to them making print.

2. They are also very responsible to post FAQ updates for books and models. This not only includes updates for FW publications but also model rule updates when a new GW codex comes out to bring the model rules in line with the current releases. How responsive? When the Space Marine codex was updated, they spent the time to update via pdf all the entries from IA2. Or that a number of GK and INQ material is available for download when the Grey Knight codex was released. Heck there is already an FAQ to clean up some of the IA11 editing mistakes.

So why we all wish editing mistakes would not happen, and no one likes to spend 40+ dollars on a book that has typos. Forgeworld is pretty on the spot to correct them and provide after the purchase support for materials and models. Good things in my mind but I'm a resin addict.

Mortis contemptor you are my sunshine my only sunshine when you don't mown down orks my skies are grey

I really like that mega tank i would max out on them since it only 450ish points for 15 rokkitz or 15 grotzookaz adding in a few Battlewagons full of boyz and you have a half decent army

wrong thread...

Reecius wrote:I never said that, and I agree that it is sloppy and doesn't help their case when they forget things like that in the book.

I was more talking to the thread at that point and not specifically you, since a couple people did imply FW was "better".

Reecius - any new additions?

Still waiting on the Tyranid stuff.

I'm a little afraid of bringing this up again, but can we all agree that the Land Raider Achilles is completely broken under the rumored 6th edition rules?

Hull Breach makes it pretty reasonable still.

@Sid

No worries, and I didn't mean to call you out or anything, just making a counter point.

@Thread

With all the the 6th ed news and Vamps, we fell behind on this, I will get the new review out this week.

Sorry for the wait, guys.

Eldar added pg.1

Dok wrote:Hull Breach makes it pretty reasonable still.

I'm behind on my 6th ed rumors, what effect would it have on the Achilles (and what is "hull breach")?

RiTides wrote:

Dok wrote:Hull Breach makes it pretty reasonable still.

I'm behind on my 6th ed rumors, what effect would it have on the Achilles (and what is "hull breach")?

According to the maybe-6th-ed-PDF that leaked, "hull breach" would upgrade everything above and including "stunned" one step on the damage table if you've already suffered that result once that round. For example, stunning a vehicle that was already stunned would cause a weapon damaged, getting immobilized on a vehicle that is already immobilized would count as wrecked and so on. The exception is weapon damaged, which requires you to have no weapons left to fire to be upgraded to immobilized.

Exactly. It makes taking down tough vehicles much easier.

Interesting to read the eldar commentary. I agree that hornet, warp hunter are both excellent vehicles. It actually occurred to me to use the hornet with 2 pulse lasers rather than the usual weapon options. 125 pts, which is expensive for an AV11 vehicle, but it can outflank - I think it almost seems as good as a vendetta as a gunship.

That is an excellent point. My mind instantly went to the Scatter Lasers as they are such fantastic weapons, but pulse lasers are definitely a solid choice, too.

Plus the models are really cool looking. I may have to pick some up in addition to the Wraithseer.

Good read

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:Interesting to read the eldar commentary. I agree that hornet, warp hunter are both excellent vehicles. It actually occurred to me to use the hornet with 2 pulse lasers rather than the usual weapon options. 125 pts, which is expensive for an AV11 vehicle, but it can outflank - I think it almost seems as good as a vendetta as a gunship.

You also get the advantage (compared to the Vendetta) of not being on a "I'M UP HERE SHOOT ME!" flyer stand.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:Interesting to read the eldar commentary. I agree that hornet, warp hunter are both excellent vehicles. It actually occurred to me to use the hornet with 2 pulse lasers rather than the usual weapon options. 125 pts, which is expensive for an AV11 vehicle, but it can outflank - I think it almost seems as good as a vendetta as a gunship.

You also get the advantage (compared to the Vendetta) of not being on a "I'M UP HERE SHOOT ME!" flyer stand.

Trudat, I'd say that balances well against the lower AV and lack of EA/spirit stones.

Sounds like some pretty cool stuff.

As far as the cost of FW goes - if you can afford it great, if not, scratch build. I'd love to use lots of this stuff, but would be highly unlikely to ever buy the actual forgeworld models.

kestral wrote:As far as the cost of FW goes - if you can afford it great, if not, scratch build. I'd love to use lots of this stuff, but would be highly unlikely to ever buy the actual forgeworld models.

Except some people think that if you can't afford the actual models, you can't use the rules.

Sidstyler wrote:

kestral wrote:As far as the cost of FW goes - if you can afford it great, if not, scratch build. I'd love to use lots of this stuff, but would be highly unlikely to ever buy the actual forgeworld models.

Except some people think that if you can't afford the actual models, you can't use the rules.

Then those people can, pardon the expression, go hug a Grox. While I think that IA stuff should be allowed, there's no reason whatsoever to not let people scratchbuild it.

I've got nothing against scratch building, but put some effort into it. My brother has an entire Baneblade company made of papercraft Baneblades. No effort put into putting proper hatches, rivets, anything that'll make it stand out. Just straight from a template papercraft Baneblades.

He doesn't get to use them. If he put the effort in, I'd say have a blast.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

kestral wrote:As far as the cost of FW goes - if you can afford it great, if not, scratch build. I'd love to use lots of this stuff, but would be highly unlikely to ever buy the actual forgeworld models.

Except some people think that if you can't afford the actual models, you can't use the rules.

Then those people can, pardon the expression, go hug a Grox. While I think that IA stuff should be allowed, there's no reason whatsoever to not let people scratchbuild it.

I think it's when people do a bad scratchbuild and expect it to be allowed is when this happens. I mean, would you let a cardboard box with guns attached to it be used as a Land Raider in a regular game?

People do cool scratchbuilds of FW stuff all the time which I'm sure nobody would mind allowing to be used as a stand in. Hell, I think in the P&M forums here alone we have at least 3-4 Titan/Thunderhawk projects that are ongoing that look awesome.

Is there a fluff reason why so much of the ork stuff gets invuln saves? Seems weirdly incongruous, there are very few invulns in the regular ork codex, but here they're given to a dred, an MC, and all the grot tanks! What's the deal?

Snarky wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

kestral wrote:As far as the cost of FW goes - if you can afford it great, if not, scratch build. I'd love to use lots of this stuff, but would be highly unlikely to ever buy the actual forgeworld models.

Except some people think that if you can't afford the actual models, you can't use the rules.

Then those people can, pardon the expression, go hug a Grox. While I think that IA stuff should be allowed, there's no reason whatsoever to not let people scratchbuild it.

I think it's when people do a bad scratchbuild and expect it to be allowed is when this happens. I mean, would you let a cardboard box with guns attached to it be used as a Land Raider in a regular game?

People do cool scratchbuilds of FW stuff all the time which I'm sure nobody would mind allowing to be used as a stand in. Hell, I think in the P&M forums here alone we have at least 3-4 Titan/Thunderhawk projects that are ongoing that look awesome.

I think that's the "real" issue: How do you decide if a scratch-built model looks "good enough"? Maybe I should've added a caveat stating that I'm okay with scratchbuilding as long as you've put effort into it.

Final Verdict: A good tank that costs a boat load of points. I think it is completely fairly priced and in no way breaks the game.

So uh, if im playing dark eldar, or grey knights, how do i keep this thing from ripping my army a new donkey-cave with shooting?

Eidolon wrote:

Final Verdict: A good tank that costs a boat load of points. I think it is completely fairly priced and in no way breaks the game.

So uh, if im playing dark eldar, or grey knights, how do i keep this thing from ripping my army a new donkey-cave with shooting?

Psycannons, glancing with Psyflemen, Might of Titan, lascannons and Daemonhammers for Grey Knights. Haywire Grenades and a Chaos Dreadnought in a sock if you're Dark Eldar.

Awesome reviews, sir. I have all the eldar ones except the firestorm, as like you said it's way overcosted. The warphunter and wraithseer are sweet, just never played a game with them yet. They look pretty damn good just sitting on the shelf though.

Eidolon wrote:

Final Verdict: A good tank that costs a boat load of points. I think it is completely fairly priced and in no way breaks the game.

So uh, if im playing dark eldar, or grey knights, how do i keep this thing from ripping my army a new donkey-cave with shooting?

Apparently by "playing around it", which I still have no idea what that means. Kinda hard to just "play around" something that's not going to die and will keep shooting gak at you the entire game, most likely while camped on an objective.

Eidolon wrote:

Final Verdict: A good tank that costs a boat load of points. I think it is completely fairly priced and in no way breaks the game.

So uh, if im playing dark eldar, or grey knights, how do i keep this thing from ripping my army a new donkey-cave with shooting?

Heh, if the "leaked" rules cary over to 6ed all "Tanks" will have -1 on the damage table for beeing tanks. The Achilles will then have an inherent -2 to the damage table

You could take a DE Reaper and completely bypass the dark lance invulnerability.

For the cost of one achilles, hell you can take three! (Although in money terms, you can afford to buy two reapers for the cost of one achilles!)

Plus I'm sure you could kitbash one from a ravager quite easily, I mean, it's a raider with a giant dark lance...

Eidolon wrote:

Final Verdict: A good tank that costs a boat load of points. I think it is completely fairly priced and in no way breaks the game.

So uh, if im playing dark eldar, or grey knights, how do i keep this thing from ripping my army a new donkey-cave with shooting?

Or Tyranid. Realistically the only gun Nids have to hurt it costs 265 pts for 2 BS3 shots/turn.
Zoeys have an 18" range, and lose the Lance ability, Hive Guards can only Glance...

The Thunderfire Cannon scares me a lot.

rigeld2 wrote:

Eidolon wrote:

Final Verdict: A good tank that costs a boat load of points. I think it is completely fairly priced and in no way breaks the game.

So uh, if im playing dark eldar, or grey knights, how do i keep this thing from ripping my army a new donkey-cave with shooting?

Or Tyranid. Realistically the only gun Nids have to hurt it costs 265 pts for 2 BS3 shots/turn.
Zoeys have an 18" range, and lose the Lance ability, Hive Guards can only Glance...

The Thunderfire Cannon scares me a lot.

Zoeys are still S10 AP1 though, aren't they? So you have T-Fex and Zoanthropes, just like a normal Land Raider...

Speaking of ketchup, how do Dark Eldar players deal with BT LRCs with Blessed Hull? Surely those darned LRCs are the most broken things ever, right?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Zoeys are still S10 AP1 though, aren't they? So you have T-Fex and Zoanthropes, just like a normal Land Raider...

Speaking of ketchup, how do Dark Eldar players deal with BT LRCs with Blessed Hull? Surely those darned LRCs are the most broken things ever, right?

The Blessed Hulls cant be OP they are in an "codex"

Blessed Hull doesn't affect Monstrous Creatures, right? They still get the extra die? I think the Achilles strips that extra die. So you can't use the two DE MCs. Additionally, the Blessed Hull rule doesn't add a -1 penalty to Pens, meaning that Haywire grenades are significantly more useful.

However, you are welcome to go on equating the two and pretending that it's the location of the rules that makes the Achilles a design concept turd instead of the rules themselves.

Actually MC do get the 2d6 vs armor penetration. Page 30 of IAA Second Edition.

vhwolf wrote:Actually MC do get the 2d6 vs armor penetration. Page 30 of IAA Second Edition.

yep, the achilles isn't invulnerable to everything, it's just that the meta game is so geared towards killing transports that that the things that people can use to kill the achilles is probably seen as "uncompetitive".

theironjef wrote:Blessed Hull doesn't affect Monstrous Creatures, right? They still get the extra die? I think the Achilles strips that extra die. So you can't use the two DE MCs. Additionally, the Blessed Hull rule doesn't add a -1 penalty to Pens, meaning that Haywire grenades are significantly more useful.

However, you are welcome to go on equating the two and pretending that it's the location of the rules that makes the Achilles a design concept turd instead of the rules themselves.

DE things that deal with LRCs with Blessed Hull: Haywire Grenades, Heat Lance, MCs.

DE things that deal with LRAs: Haywire Grenades, MCs.

OH NO, NOT THE HEAT LANCES!

I'm not saying that the Achilles isn't a piece of turd, it is. It's just not as bad as people claim, but it's IA so it's the Devil by default.

DE things that deal with LRCs with Blessed Hull: Haywire Grenades, Heat Lance, MCs.

Heatlances vs. a Blessed Hull LRC have little chance of penetrating unless you get lucky. More likely you'll fall short of doing any damage...or simply glance it. Run the numbers. With out the assistance of the lance rule, Heat lances aren't that great.

Raiders with shock prows are always a good way to attempt to kill stuff like this. The advantage being that ramming ignores things like smoke launchers and cover. Sure you run the risk of destroying your transports...but sometimes you got to sacrifice them. Just make sure they are empty..LOL.

I know HLs aren't very good, but the notion of them penning an LRC isn't *too* far-fetched. It's also why I made the "ohnoez mah HLs" comment.

Since I have no idea, do people actually pay for shock prows in competitive lists? That could indeed be a way to kill an LRA.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I'm not saying that the Achilles isn't a piece of turd, it is. It's just not as bad as people claim, but it's IA so it's the Devil by default.

And this is where you and I part ways. I don't care where you found a poop! Put it down! It's a poop! Poop you found in the Museum of Metropolitan Art is exactly as fecal as poop found in an alley behind a bar! They are equally poop! Some of the IA stuff is neat, some of it is ill-conceived (seriously why does all the ork stuff have invuln saves, can someone who's read the book explain this), but the stuff that is ridiculously bad design should be vilified. Not because it's unfair or overpowered, but because it's bad design!

Poop! From a butt!

theironjef wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I'm not saying that the Achilles isn't a piece of turd, it is. It's just not as bad as people claim, but it's IA so it's the Devil by default.

And this is where you and I part ways. I don't care where you found a poop! Put it down! It's a poop! Poop you found in the Museum of Metropolitan Art is exactly as fecal as poop found in an alley behind a bar! They are equally poop! Some of the IA stuff is neat, some of it is ill-conceived (seriously why does all the ork stuff have invuln saves, can someone who's read the book explain this), but the stuff that is ridiculously bad design should be vilified. Not because it's unfair or overpowered, but because it's bad design!

Poop! From a butt!

Vilified because it is bad? Yes. Vilifying all of IA because some stuff is a bit silly? No. To continue with your poop analogy, should you shut down all pubs in the country because you found poop in an alley next to one, but still keep the Museum of Metropolitan Art open, despite finding a turd there?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

theironjef wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I'm not saying that the Achilles isn't a piece of turd, it is. It's just not as bad as people claim, but it's IA so it's the Devil by default.

And this is where you and I part ways. I don't care where you found a poop! Put it down! It's a poop! Poop you found in the Museum of Metropolitan Art is exactly as fecal as poop found in an alley behind a bar! They are equally poop! Some of the IA stuff is neat, some of it is ill-conceived (seriously why does all the ork stuff have invuln saves, can someone who's read the book explain this), but the stuff that is ridiculously bad design should be vilified. Not because it's unfair or overpowered, but because it's bad design!

Poop! From a butt!

Vilified because it is bad? Yes. Vilifying all of IA because some stuff is a bit silly? No. To continue with your poop analogy, should you shut down all pubs in the country because you found poop in an alley next to one, but still keep the Museum of Metropolitan Art open, despite finding a turd there?

Well ultimately i want the people at FW to say (and yes this is basically just idle dreaming) "whoops, we jolly well bodged that job what what!" (in my idle dreams they are extra british). Then they realize that you can't justify a poorly-designed unit just by making it more point-heavy, and they rewrite the thing to strip one or two of it's endless list of superfluous defenses down a peg, and everyone is happy and they get to do drink tea with a Vicar and a ... I dunno, a chimneysweep.