Lately I have noticed both on Dakkadakka and at some Gaming stores that people seem to really have a strong distaste for Forge World stuff. Any idea where that might come from?

People have a strong dislike of expensive LoW stuff. I haven't really seen anyone hating on FW stuff in general. People have been loving my DKOK even if it's taking me an eternity to do them

People also tend to not like what they don't understand. I can imagine someone might be apprehensive about playing against an army when they know nothing about how it plays.

I've been seeing the opposite.

FW has always had a general distaste from most people until the last year when its gained more tournament acceptance.

Huh.

I had a guy insult me for running a "broken FW list"

After he beat me badly.

The guy began the game refusing to listen to my attempts to explain the differences of an HH list to a normal SM list and than spent the whole game complaining about the rules he refused to let me explain to him before playing. He ended saying I shouldn't have bought the HH book (something I waited a while to get) and just gotten a land raider. I know people are trying to "help" you when giving you advice but its annoying when the help involves berating you for your choices.

FW is common in my group and no one has any problems with it. Thats a good thing since I use a lot of FW models and the HH list. I dont however use LoW unless we agree to both of us playing one and even then its Konrad who while lethal is still only one close combat guy.

Bonus Story: complained loudly to the whole room about how all "the kids" just have crappy 1k point lists. In front of me. The only person under 20 in the room (at the time.) I might just be over sensitive but I felt like quitting 40k after that one horrible experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I hate LoWs personally.

IMO what happens is people get comfortable with the codex-only game most people start with, figure out how to win games, and build the perfect winning army. So why would they want to let in anything that could change the game and cost them victories? This is one of those things that really depends on where you play. Some places people are reasonable and you can use anything you like, some places are full of WAAC players and you have to build your army the way they want if you want to play any games.

I think the stigma comes from the days when FW was permission only and tended to have horribly broken, overpowered units that were the domain of collectors or special games. And Armorcast before that; I remember in the days of 2nd edition that Armorcast made things like Titans (and also things that didn't exist in the proper game yet like Falcons).

People hate LoW due to their extreame firepower and durability.

FW happens to supply 90% of the LoW unit type, (baneblades, titans, etc)

FW also has its own series of units and rules. some can be...... off.....

Like sometimes a unit can have a low cost but be powerful, or the other way around.
most FW units/upgrades (at least in my experience with the IG) are sidegrades or upgrades with decent pricing like bolting an autocannon to a Chimera or the Manticore Rockets instead of Storm Eagle (default codex rockets) on the Manticore launcher.

but those that are generally considered bad (I think one is a special Tau suit, but Im not certain) give the rest of FW a bad reputation which leasts to a large quanitity of people not bothering to actually try out the FW stuff and hating it without facts.

 Engine of War wrote:
People hate LoW due to their extreame firepower and durability.

Too bad most LoW don't actually have extreme firepower or durability. With the exception of a small number of units (titans, c'tan) LoW are way too expensive for what you get, and the main reason to take one is "huge tanks are awesome" not "I want to win".

Like sometimes a unit can have a low cost but be powerful, or the other way around.

You could say the same thing about everything else GW publishes, including codex rules.

(I think one is a special Tau suit, but Im not certain)

Speaking of not having the facts...

(The Riptide variant has been severely nerfed since the original experimental rules, and is mediocre at best.)

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Any idea where that might come from?

At lot of it comes down to attitude. I'm pro-Forge World, but when this topic comes up I frequently find myself judging some pro-Forge World players as total jerks who I'd never want to play against due to their attitude to other players, and that attitude winds up putting the other players backs up and reinforcing THEIR attitude towards Forge World and any player who want to use it.

There was also (until recently) a logical argument against Forge Worlds legality, but I won't go into it because most of the pro-Forge World camp preferred to twist the argument so they could dismiss it rather than actually come up with an answer to it, which again put the backs up of a lot of other players.

Personally, I plan on playing non-FW lists, at least for the foreseeable future. but if someone wanted to use FW models against me I'd be fine with that. It's all a matter of taste, but IMO you shouldn't let your own tastes interfere with someone else's (I mean, if they demanded to use a LoW when you really didn't want to go against one, that's one thing)

Sounds like the OP was running a Horus Heresy SM list against a regular list. I'm a massive fan of Forge World and can't think why anyone would refuse to play against it under normal conditions. Having said that it''s quite a stretch to expect to be allowed to play what is really a different game system [in terms of balance between different army selections] without a lot of discussion beforehand. I don't have a clue how all of the different Horus Heresy units work. Personally I'd play it because I'm pretty much an anything goes type of player, but I can definitely see why someone would be a little unhappy.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Having said that it''s quite a stretch to expect to be allowed to play what is really a different game system [in terms of balance between different army selections] without a lot of discussion beforehand.

It isn't a different game system, it's just a different army list. Now that LoW are part of standard 40k the difference between a 30k army and a 40k army is no more than the difference between two 40k armies.

I don't have a clue how all of the different Horus Heresy units work.

Then read their rules, just like you'd do in your first game against a 40k army you haven't played against before. Nothing in the 30k rules is all that complicated, if you're familiar with MEQ armies already you should be able to figure out how everything works pretty quickly.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Lately I have noticed both on Dakkadakka and at some Gaming stores that people seem to really have a strong distaste for Forge World stuff. Any idea where that might come from?

A big part is simple ignorance. For some reason many people think FW is all hideously broken "Pay to Win" stuff, when the vast majority is, if anything, the opposite, FW units have historically generally been notably inferior to most Codex equivalents. Their balance really isn't any worse than the Codex stuff, and most people, once challenged, have trouble coming up with something specific that is truly worse than something in a codex.

Others often think it automatically means trying to run a Reaver Titan in a 1500pt game. A lot of people also have gotten burned by people running stuff incorrectly with with incorrect rules, or flat out cheating (often with proxies) and that ruins their experience without checking into what really should have happened. Most of it is ignorance that they never take the time to rectify.

Some people see it as a "rich man's" thing, something beyond what they can ever get into and hate it because of that. That may have had a point a decade ago, but most FW books can be had at near (or under) Codex prices now, and many new GW plastic kits are coming out at, or very near, FW unit prices. For example, Dire Avengers and Tempestus Scions cost as much as Death Korps Grenadiers, and Ork Mek Gunz cost roughly as much as Thudd Guns with crew. Most GW character models now are almost identical in price to most FW character models.

Some of it is because people just don't want to add more stuff into the game, typically because they don't want a change in a metagame they are already comfortable with and don't want anything to upset that. At this point however, with multiple detachments, allies, formations, unbound, dataslates, sub-faction books, etc, it seems rather absurd to hate on FW specifically.

A big reason for stores to not like it is that they can't make money off of it so they just ban it.

Some people often also for some reason think Forgeworld is some 3rd party knock-off making what amount to "house rules", as opposed to a GW department making official products for use in normal play that either aren't profitable to do in plastic (Titans, Leman Russ variant hulls, differentiated IG regiments, ported over Epic models, etc) or just aren't appropriate for a normal Codex (Atlas support tanks, niche sub-factions, etc).

Forge World is unfamiliar.

People hate things that are unfamiliar until they become familiar.

That's all it is- and it's a thing that exists in every aspect of life. That 40K is a competitive game only compounds that issue, as you now bring in the feeling of "I don't know what some of the stuff in this guy's army does, and I'm losing/just lost. Did I lose because this guy's new stuff is broken?"

The problems is also rules. You can't check them yourself and opponents are only forced to show what is printed, not which printing of the book they have and which printing is now legal.

It gives a huge edge to people who can buy stuff online over those who can't. It is enough that they can buy those 4-5 serpents, which are hard to get at a store, but when they suddenly get units no one knows rules for and the only way to check those rules are a book, you don't know and have no option to check, if it is still legal or a pdf , which may be changed, few people will want to play against people with FW rules.

Also maybe in other areas it is different, but here the FW units that people talk about being used, are the OP ones.

 Peregrine wrote:

Then read their rules, just like you'd do in your first game against a 40k army you haven't played against before. Nothing in the 30k rules is all that complicated, if you're familiar with MEQ armies already you should be able to figure out how everything works pretty quickly.

Difference is that I've had years of playing against all of the armies in 40k so I know what to expect. Letting Orks get into CC is a bad idea, as is standing back and letting Tau shoot you. I also have lots of experience playing against the different weapons in 40k so I have a good idea of how effective they will be in different situations. 30k marines? Not a clue. Its a big ask to expect your opponent to buy 3 very expensive books just so you can field you new shines, or have to sit through 15 minutes of having the rules explained to you before the game begins. Finally, I would be very disappointed if the marines weren't 30k models. Having said that I would play it because I'm not competitive, but I can definitely understand someone who is more competitive being a bit peeved. AFAIK there is no tournament that allows 30k vs. 40k.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Bonus Story: complained loudly to the whole room about how all "the kids" just have crappy 1k point lists. In front of me. The only person under 20 in the room (at the time.) I might just be over sensitive but I felt like quitting 40k after that one horrible experience.

You should have filled the room with uppercuts.

There are a variety of reasons.
These include...
1. Seeing them (this is purely opinion based and differs between models/units)as being OTT in power.
2. Players seeing it is elitism from the players who have more money to spend and if they dont or are unable to spend as much they will be at a disadvantage.
3. Not understanding all of the rules.
The list goes on and I am not agreeing or disagreeing. Look for this thread to get closed as all of the other ones have been. Some forums are able to have perfectly calm and reasonable discussions on that topic, but I have yet to see it happen here. lol

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Huh.

I had a guy insult me for running a "broken FW list"

After he beat me badly.

The guy began the game refusing to listen to my attempts to explain the differences of an HH list to a normal SM list and than spent the whole game complaining about the rules he refused to let me explain to him before playing. He ended saying I shouldn't have bought the HH book (something I waited a while to get) and just gotten a land raider. I know people are trying to "help" you when giving you advice but its annoying when the help involves berating you for your choices.

This is just a case of trying to play a game against an donkey-cave.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Then read their rules, just like you'd do in your first game against a 40k army you haven't played against before. Nothing in the 30k rules is all that complicated, if you're familiar with MEQ armies already you should be able to figure out how everything works pretty quickly.

Difference is that I've had years of playing against all of the armies in 40k so I know what to expect. Letting Orks get into CC is a bad idea, as is standing back and letting Tau shoot you. I also have lots of experience playing against the different weapons in 40k so I have a good idea of how effective they will be in different situations. 30k marines? Not a clue. Its a big ask to expect your opponent to buy 3 very expensive books just so you can field you new shines, or have to sit through 15 minutes of having the rules explained to you before the game begins. Finally, I would be very disappointed if the marines weren't 30k models. Having said that I would play it because I'm not competitive, but I can definitely understand someone who is more competitive being a bit peeved. AFAIK there is no tournament that allows 30k vs. 40k.

Why is that different? Welcome to every new player's experience ever. I've been playing 40K for two years and I'm still unfamiliar with how some of the factions work.

In the past, FW was most well-known for releasing overpowered units. Which wasn't true, actually, as most of their releases are underpowered, but some examples were ridiculously over the top (e.g. Thudd) and those stood out.

In 7th, however, GW has officially stated that they do not want the game to be balanced and purposefully removed every last trace of balance 40k ever had. As a consequence, you might throw in anything by anyone, including FW, in your games. It just doesn't matter anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:


The guy began the game refusing to listen to my attempts to explain the differences of an HH list to a normal SM list and than spent the whole game complaining about the rules he refused to let me explain to him before playing. He ended saying I shouldn't have bought the HH book (something I waited a while to get) and just gotten a land raider. I know people are trying to "help" you when giving you advice but its annoying when the help involves berating you for your choices.

Tbf, I would not play a HH list with SM list either. Not because of any difference in power level, but playing 30k vs. 40k is just stupid to me as it completely breaks with any logical background story and takes immersion away.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Tbf, I would not play a HH list with SM list either. Not because of any difference in power level, but playing 30k vs. 40k is just stupid to me as it completely breaks with any logical background story and takes immersion away.

You mean like the hello kitty marines or the armies based on football teams or the drop pod army based on the smurfs where the pods are done up as mushroom houses. i've been told these armies dont exist but I've seen the pictures.
The new trend is leading me back towards "for fun" games with buddies and away from competitive games. I wouldnt mind a 30k army vs a 40k army.

Who plays 7th and can say that he plays the game "competitively" with a straight face?

I use a 30k list against a 40k list. I just think it's better to represent my favourite legions and characters the way they were meant to be played rather than proxy them In with C:SM

I wouldn't play 30K vs. 40K either. Mostly because the 30K army would be at an inherent disadvantage up until about 2500 points.

 Sigvatr wrote:
In the past, FW was most well-known for releasing overpowered units. Which wasn't true, actually, as most of their releases are underpowered, but some examples were ridiculously over the top (e.g. Thudd) and those stood out.

Actually the thudd guns aren't a very good example. In 4th/5th edition (when they were first created) they were a mediocre unit at best, the old artillery rules made them incredibly easy to kill and their only redeeming quality was that they were cheaper than the far superior Griffon. Then 6th edition arrived and brought the sheer idiocy of the new artillery rules, where all of the meatshield crew are T7. All FW did was replace AV 10/10/10 with T7 W2 in the stat line just like the other artillery units (the codex TFC, for example), and even then it took quite a while for people to figure out what had happened.

There's no hate in my gaming group and people accept FW. Id sum up the general attitude as follows: "Guys, these days I looked at the FW models at their website and so wanted to buy a <insert any army's big stuff here>. But I stopped when I had 450 Euro in the shopping cart. Ah well, some day..."

Actually it's not that I couldn't free the money for it now that I work fully since years. It's more about realizing you will pay 500 Euro for a heap of resin, of which the sheer worth of materials is at 30 Euro maximum.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Who plays 7th and can say that he plays the game "competitively" with a straight face?

Anyone who paid for a trip to a tournament or sign up at a tournament.

Makumba wrote:
Anyone who paid for a trip to a tournament or sign up at a tournament.

The point is that "competitive" 40k is a joke. The game is laughably bad in a competitive context: strategy is pretty much limited to seeing who can spend the most money on GW's most recent balance mistakes, random dice are more important than player decisions, etc. You can try obsessively to win as much as you can and call it a "tournament", but if you want real competition you need to find a better game.

Makumba wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Who plays 7th and can say that he plays the game "competitively" with a straight face?

Anyone who paid for a trip to a tournament or sign up at a tournament.

You are paying to play with other people from different areas in a tournament. 40k 7th is as far from being a "competitive" game as Yahtzee.

Does one have to sign up for it ? yes. Does one have to met a criteria to join? yes. do the winner get stuff. yes. It is is compatitive. Now if the game itself is bad is a totaly separate thing. It is bad, but it is also bad on a casual level too.

And the find other tournaments ain't easy, as other systems are hard to get here.

If I could play tournament infinity , I totaly would. If I could get my hand on a stormwall or play cygnar without it, I would play warmachine for tournaments alone.

If we go by the mere word "competitive", then every game of 40k is competitive, even when I play with a friend of mine while being totally drunk.

"Competitive" in this context means a competition of skills. And in a game, where win or loss is mostly decidided by the list you bring and the stuff you roll, "competitive" is a shallow term.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I wouldn't play 30K vs. 40K either. Mostly because the 30K army would be at an inherent disadvantage up until about 2500 points.

Actually a 1500-2000 does quite well as some of the 30k players I've seen, they just have issues with certain armies just as 40k ones do.

Any army can do well against any other army with good generalship, etc. That doesn't really change the fact that most of the units and abilities in 30K are overpriced for what they bring to the table. 150 points for a 10-man tactical squad that can't take any heavy or special weapons and lacks ATSKNF, 250 points for a 10-man assault squad with no upgrades, 225 points for a 10-man Breacher squad, etc.

Any army can do well against any other army with good generalship, etc

I think you mean luck. Becuase no skills is going to save you when your opponent has an army with superior rules.

Forgeworld is 100% accepted in my club. A lot of people run forgeworld units (not all the time). I think its a lot of fun playing against the awesome models and using them on my own.

Why would we ban ourselves out of an opportunity to field awesome models? I dont get it tbh.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Lately I have noticed both on Dakkadakka and at some Gaming stores that people seem to really have a strong distaste for Forge World stuff. Any idea where that might come from?

People are afraid of things they don't understand. People are afraid of losing.

Throw FW into the mix - something most people don't know anything about - and you have every reason why people speak out against it.

This thread is actually about using 30k vs. 40k as that's what the OP was using, and that was the problem his opponent had. I can see how lots of people would have a problem playing against 30k (fluff reasons, lack of familiarity with units/weapons etc.) I would play 40k vs. 30k but would be very disappointed if they rocked up with HH books and 40k models. If you want to use them, buy the right models.

I actually quite like Forge World models being in a game. Adds some of the more interesting 40K tech (or 30K) into the pot like volkites, doomy doom lasers etc. Sure it hurts like hell when you're on the receiving end of it, and may reduce you to tears in some cases. But if you're a good sport (I appreciate not everyone is) you'll take it on the chin and come back for anuvva go!

Yeah reading this thread made me realize I should probably stop bringimgy FW stuff in. I already feel anxious enough going in to my FLGS and I feel like people are judging me in some way. Don't need FW stuff since they might actually judge me and it wouldn't just be paranoia.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Any army can do well against any other army with good generalship, etc. That doesn't really change the fact that most of the units and abilities in 30K are overpriced for what they bring to the table. 150 points for a 10-man tactical squad that can't take any heavy or special weapons and lacks ATSKNF, 250 points for a 10-man assault squad with no upgrades, 225 points for a 10-man Breacher squad, etc.

Typically it's mostly given that their heavy/elite support generally makes up for the more expensive troops, though typically the units will have special rules as a given due to legion ruless and typically aren't to be min-maxed and built at a higher squad (since the tac marines are 10 points apiece afterwords).

HH are simply a different list. I do not force a narrative upon other players. I love the list, I love that the rules actually reflects the fluff of my Night Lords and not the generic crap in the codexinobots. I am the only person in my group that plays a 30k army so I am forced to play against 40k armies. It is not two different games, its just a different list. The only real huge benefit of 30k lists are that there is no one way to play. I have enough to play 8k and some change, without allies, so my options are fairly unlimited when it comes to army lists so I can feasibly play a different list every time, which aside from my normal DA opponent and a chaos guy, most of the other guys in the group are really limited on the force structure they play. That is not a hit on FW though, every player out there can suffer that no matter which faction they play. Aside from Deathwing, its very easy to get outnumbered and out gunned as a Legion player. I would love to play against an elder player, I see major issues for a 30k list against the normal Serpent list or even a guardian heavy list.

 Sigvatr wrote:
In the past, FW was most well-known for releasing overpowered units. Which wasn't true, actually, as most of their releases are underpowered, but some examples were ridiculously over the top (e.g. Thudd) and those stood out.

To be fair, the Thudd Gun was simply a re-release of a unit that existed in RT and 2nd edition, and nobody considered it "ridiculously over the top" when it was re-released in 4E through 5E until 6E changed the core artillery rules, and even then only really when the army was built heavily around spamming them and supporting them with allies and lots of HQ support, and nobody talks about it anymore in 7E.

Then GW does what is usually does, and comes out with an even better version in the codex, in the form of the Wyvern, that did largely the same thing but better and without the need for all those support units (reducing S from 5 to 4 but giving it inherent Twin Linked, Rerolling failed wounds, and Ignores Cover, along with mobility and no need to worry about Morale)

Because wargaming is played by man children who have a teary about everything.

It can be so annoying at times

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Yeah reading this thread made me realize I should probably stop bringimgy FW stuff in. I already feel anxious enough going in to my FLGS and I feel like people are judging me in some way. Don't need FW stuff since they might actually judge me and it wouldn't just be paranoia.

First off don't be paranoid at all.

Your opponent was an arse.

My advice is don't play agsint him/her, if he asks why, just tell him the issues you have with him/her then say he/she was just plainly unsportmanlike then just say that you don't have to put up with said opponent.

If your opponent talks again just shurg your shoulders and say your unsympathetic to whatever he/she has to say.

You paid money for that FW. Play aginst other opponents with it, if people judge then just show them the rules and get 'em educated

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
This thread is actually about using 30k vs. 40k as that's what the OP was using, and that was the problem his opponent had. I can see how lots of people would have a problem playing against 30k (fluff reasons, lack of familiarity with units/weapons etc.) I would play 40k vs. 30k but would be very disappointed if they rocked up with HH books and 40k models. If you want to use them, buy the right models.

fluff reasons for not playing against the legions? tell yourself they dissapeared into the warp and have just shown back up etc. aand thats all the fluff you need.

people who hate fw have a few reasons usually. but the biggest is simply fear of the unknown, which becomes no excuse because how do they know about say Gk day 1 of codex coming out.. look at the rules.
people in the past have as said before as well cheated with FW... use something for a proxy then cheat the rules, that leaves people sour.

but really if you have the rules their, then it shouldnt be a problem.

and a 30k list isnt so fearsome.

also actually, with the quoted. Use the right models?
im sorry i thought a marine was a marine? do you know the difference between a kitbash and a FW one? the power armor variants make stuff all difference in looks and a bolter is a bolter... its wysiwyg all the way.

There is nothing recent about certain subsets of players having distaste for FW units. For.... oh, hell, *years* now, there's been a vibe in some clubs and playgroups that FW units are, one and all, OP, badly-balanced and broken as hell.

This, of course, is not true, but all it took was one or two units to be OTT a decade ago to somewhat poison the well for all FW stuff from then on. Then, of course, new people get into the game, meet older players who don't like FW (for whatever reason) and all they hear is that FW stuff is broken, and so they adopt that same stance, not knowing any better.

Of course, if you set down a 30K list against a 40K list without telling the opponent first, that's kind of a dick move, as even the rules state that 30K stuff is not really meant to be played in a 40K setting.

Yeah, I'm a big fan of FW and think a lot of the old arguments against it are pretty much invalid in 7th (Too many books to keep track of? Welcome to 7th!).

However, I'd say that running a HH list against a regular 40k list might be pushing it. They're not really designed for the same game. I wouldn't have any problem with you using the HH models and the rules for Relic vehicles in 40k, but I think playing a 30k list against a 40k is bound to cause problems.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:


The guy began the game refusing to listen to my attempts to explain the differences of an HH list to a normal SM list and than spent the whole game complaining about the rules he refused to let me explain to him before playing. He ended saying I shouldn't have bought the HH book (something I waited a while to get) and just gotten a land raider. I know people are trying to "help" you when giving you advice but its annoying when the help involves berating you for your choices.

Tbf, I would not play a HH list with SM list either. Not because of any difference in power level, but playing 30k vs. 40k is just stupid to me as it completely breaks with any logical background story and takes immersion away.

30K marines got lost in the warp, popped out 10,000 years later. Happens all the time in 40k.

30k shouldn't be used against 40k because the point costs are radically different and its basically its own game that uses the same ruleset(but different point costs)

You'll notice that 30k marines are cheaper than identical 40k marines.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

30K marines got lost in the warp, popped out 10,000 years later. Happens all the time in 40k.

It's up to everyone himself on how much you want to forge your narrative

 Grey Templar wrote:
30k shouldn't be used against 40k because the point costs are radically different and its basically its own game that uses the same ruleset(but different point costs)

You'll notice that 30k marines are cheaper than identical 40k marines.

And also have different wargear and no ATSKNF, also that they have a higher base cost and different "legion rules"

Just think of them as another subset of MEQ that has different rules, like CSM and all that.

I wouldn't play where people don't allow FW despite the fact I don't use anything from them.

I play a marine player quite often who runs a contemptor and my weekly Tau opponent is just adding some remoras to his army.

I would be a tad miffed if someone turned up with a fireraptor or something in a 1000 pt friendly but then people take knights in 1k games and they are tougher than a lot of FW models, hell I have seen people take duel riptides at 1k!

If someone wants to spend that kind of money on a model and paint it then they get my respect, to be that into the hobby is a good thing.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
This thread is actually about using 30k vs. 40k as that's what the OP was using, and that was the problem his opponent had. I can see how lots of people would have a problem playing against 30k (fluff reasons, lack of familiarity with units/weapons etc.) I would play 40k vs. 30k but would be very disappointed if they rocked up with HH books and 40k models. If you want to use them, buy the right models.

I let a guy use his normal Salamander as 30k Salamanders for a game. It was ok, wouldn't want to do that on a regular basis though.

30k can be done on the cheap with standard GW plastic though, there are a couple mk 6 and a mk 5 suits in the normal Tac squad box. Just mix and match with your friends and you should be able to scrape together a few tactical squads. Intermix them with some FW resin , add in a vehicle every so often and you should be good to go.

30k armies can also be written up using the two smaller HH books, they have all the units to out together any crusade legion list and the other book has all the flavor you need to flesh out one of the 11 legions they have covered already. The best part of those two books is that they are no more expensive than a standard codex.

To be fair, the only post heresy model of power armour was the Mk8, so in the tactical squad box that only stops you from using one torso...
MK 6 and 7 were not pre heresy though but heresy era, so they were around prior to Isstvan 3 and the siege of Terra respectively. Just for those who give a dam about using the "right" models. Just cut off the aquilas..

 sierra 1247 wrote:
To be fair, the only post heresy model of power armour was the Mk8, so in the tactical squad box that only stops you from using one torso...
MK 6 and 7 were not pre heresy though but heresy era, so they were around prior to Isstvan 3 and the siege of Terra respectively. Just for those who give a dam about using the "right" models. Just cut off the aquilas..

Not all the legions during that period had MK 6 and 7, mostly Traitor legions did because of them setting the supply lines for themselves, for example Ultramarines had to improvise their own armor at that time.

30k marines the same as normal marines? Umm no.
Loss of ATSKNF is a biggie. Tacticals only come with bolters and you have to pay extra points to give them CCWs. So yeah they are cheaper in large numbers, but more expensive when you only use ten.
Same game, different army list.

Competative games are ones where you play to win as much as you play for fun. Usually because of a prize. Therefore it is still just as competative as before. The mistake many are making is confusing competative with skill needed to play and win. Heck, you have competative rock paper scissors matches but doesnt take much skill to win.

In my local area, I've found that the atmosphere has changed some. Where before at tournies and so forth you usually saw a set group of players who played. Now, you see a different group taking part more and playing in tournies more. This new group is the louder and mouthier players (this is just our local area, not what might be the norm in other areas) who have more cash to spend buying titans and super heavies and so forth. this is because they had enough to build their armies, build extra armies and buy all that beforehand while the rest of us had struggled to build a single army without the titans and such so the "richer" players had a HUGE head start in 7th edition. Now, given time as more players save up or convert, this may change.
But like I said, this is just my local area but i think you may find the same sort of situation in many other areas as well.
Personally, I like forgeworld and have no problem facing it if you have the rules. Some of the stuff, I do like to have advance notice of though asa preference. For example if I have a 1850 TAC army (this is going away with the wildly different army options out there now) and you have a reaver titan, I will likely play someone else instead because I would simply not be equiped to deal with it. Nothing personal and I'd love to check out the model, I'm just realistic enough to know I wouldnt stand a chance and would opt for a more even game. Now if I know ahead of time to prepare some, I'd be tickled to play you just to see it in action.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 sierra 1247 wrote:
To be fair, the only post heresy model of power armour was the Mk8, so in the tactical squad box that only stops you from using one torso...
MK 6 and 7 were not pre heresy though but heresy era, so they were around prior to Isstvan 3 and the siege of Terra respectively. Just for those who give a dam about using the "right" models. Just cut off the aquilas..

Not all the legions during that period had MK 6 and 7, mostly Traitor legions did because of them setting the supply lines for themselves, for example Ultramarines had to improvise their own armor at that time.

Dude, I'm not saying it was standard issue, just they were about. Prototype suits were implemented into some of the Legions, just not in great numbers. So if someone wants to use 40k tactical marines as legion marines I don't care.
Hell it's what I do.

 sierra 1247 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 sierra 1247 wrote:
To be fair, the only post heresy model of power armour was the Mk8, so in the tactical squad box that only stops you from using one torso...
MK 6 and 7 were not pre heresy though but heresy era, so they were around prior to Isstvan 3 and the siege of Terra respectively. Just for those who give a dam about using the "right" models. Just cut off the aquilas..

Not all the legions during that period had MK 6 and 7, mostly Traitor legions did because of them setting the supply lines for themselves, for example Ultramarines had to improvise their own armor at that time.

Dude, I'm not saying it was standard issue, just they were about. Prototype suits were implemented into some of the Legions, just not in great numbers. So if someone wants to use 40k tactical marines as legion marines I don't care.
Hell it's what I do.

Eh I'm not faulting ya for it is what I'm saying, just mostly teasing. Know people who whole sale conversion armies.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Sounds like the OP was running a Horus Heresy SM list against a regular list. I'm a massive fan of Forge World and can't think why anyone would refuse to play against it under normal conditions. Having said that it''s quite a stretch to expect to be allowed to play what is really a different game system [in terms of balance between different army selections] without a lot of discussion beforehand. I don't have a clue how all of the different Horus Heresy units work. Personally I'd play it because I'm pretty much an anything goes type of player, but I can definitely see why someone would be a little unhappy.

I agree with this. HH army lists are above and beyond just another FW list. It is specifically made to be played against other HH lists. It isn't like the DKOK or Deff Dredd lists.

While true that they were INTENDED to be used with other 30k lists, it does not mean they mix all that bad when pitted with 40k lists.

They mix quite well actually, except admech who I still have doubts about.

I've been using a Taghmata Omnissiah list from 30k for a long-ass time now (basically since release) to represent my Forge World in the 41st Millenium.

It has some pretty significant strengths, including list durability, speed, and force density (has great force concentration).

It also has some pretty significant weaknesses, such as force density (can't really spread out without becoming super thin), close combat (majority WS3 and I3 or even I2), and target priority (a variety of units available to the army means that every enemy unit is a threat to -something-).

It isn't so bad.

I’ve been running my 30k army quite happily with the locals. In fact it’s rather weak compared to the power builds out there. With that, there’s still a local hater and we won’t play because of it.

Right now I’m running 28 terminators in Spartan, 2 landraiders and a stormeagle at 2500 points.

I'm personal fine with 40k forgeworld, but I don't know whether I would play against 30k. I guess it depends on the comparative power level.

 sierra 1247 wrote:
To be fair, the only post heresy model of power armour was the Mk8, so in the tactical squad box that only stops you from using one torso...
MK 6 and 7 were not pre heresy though but heresy era, so they were around prior to Isstvan 3 and the siege of Terra respectively. Just for those who give a dam about using the "right" models. Just cut off the aquilas..

Actually Mark 7 was only issued to those legions who were on Terra for the siege. Quote from Lexicanum "While the final battle for Mars was underway, the Imperium realised the planet would eventually be lost. Armour development teams were transferred to Earth to continue, incorporating their latest work into the armour type that would become Mark 7. As Mars fell to Horus, the new armour began reaching the Space Marines on Terra and Luna."

So, only Imperial Fists, Blood Angels and White Scars would have this armour during The Heresy. During The Scouring yeah, but then you've moved into a different era and into post-Heresy.

I still think it's a pretty douche move bringing 30k to a 40k fight without prior agreement and discussion, although I think rule of cool applies in this situation. If you've got a beautifully painted force of FW 30k models then game on. If you rock up with standard GW marines then it smacks of attempting to gain an advantage without paying the model tax. I am in favour of Lords of War, but would never bring a counts as titan and expect to be able to use it. I'll bring my FW Warhound

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 sierra 1247 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 sierra 1247 wrote:
To be fair, the only post heresy model of power armour was the Mk8, so in the tactical squad box that only stops you from using one torso...
MK 6 and 7 were not pre heresy though but heresy era, so they were around prior to Isstvan 3 and the siege of Terra respectively. Just for those who give a dam about using the "right" models. Just cut off the aquilas..

Not all the legions during that period had MK 6 and 7, mostly Traitor legions did because of them setting the supply lines for themselves, for example Ultramarines had to improvise their own armor at that time.

Dude, I'm not saying it was standard issue, just they were about. Prototype suits were implemented into some of the Legions, just not in great numbers. So if someone wants to use 40k tactical marines as legion marines I don't care.
Hell it's what I do.

Eh I'm not faulting ya for it is what I'm saying, just mostly teasing. Know people who whole sale conversion armies.

Sorry man, I wasn't in the best of moods when I saw it and immediately thought "insult!!! Must be douchey!"

I played against 4 legion lists and had a blast going up against them. first time I ended up winning against the army in a zone mortalis game, but ended up losing in a pitched battle, about a year later I played another HH army and ended up just barley winning, and then the next time I lost completely. I can safely say it's fun and even a little underpowered compared to 40k stuff.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 sierra 1247 wrote:
To be fair, the only post heresy model of power armour was the Mk8, so in the tactical squad box that only stops you from using one torso...
MK 6 and 7 were not pre heresy though but heresy era, so they were around prior to Isstvan 3 and the siege of Terra respectively. Just for those who give a dam about using the "right" models. Just cut off the aquilas..

Actually Mark 7 was only issued to those legions who were on Terra for the siege. Quote from Lexicanum "While the final battle for Mars was underway, the Imperium realised the planet would eventually be lost. Armour development teams were transferred to Earth to continue, incorporating their latest work into the armour type that would become Mark 7. As Mars fell to Horus, the new armour began reaching the Space Marines on Terra and Luna."

So, only Imperial Fists, Blood Angels and White Scars would have this armour during The Heresy. During The Scouring yeah, but then you've moved into a different era and into post-Heresy.

I still think it's a pretty douche move bringing 30k to a 40k fight without prior agreement and discussion, although I think rule of cool applies in this situation. If you've got a beautifully painted force of FW 30k models then game on. If you rock up with standard GW marines then it smacks of attempting to gain an advantage without paying the model tax. I am in favour of Lords of War, but would never bring a counts as titan and expect to be able to use it. I'll bring my FW Warhound

I meant mk6 was around just prior to Isstvan 3 and mk7 right on the siege of Terra, or is that what your inferring?

But attempting to gain an advantage without paying the model tax? That seems harsh. If you can afford to splash out on a full 2000pts HH list in a month then fair enough, but a lot of people don't have the cash to do that all in one go, I play pre heresy World Eaters with a good part of the tactical squads mixed up with 40k tactical marines, as well as some heresy era patterns. I don't see how it's that bad, in most games HH lists are at a big disadvantage against many 40k lists because they are designed to work above 2000pts. Obviously arrange this beforehand otherwise it is a bit of a dick move, but then so is expecting every single person who wants to play HH lists to have to only use the 30k models. If your on a budget, what choice do you have? Just represent them as late heresy Astartes. I don't see a problem with this.

 sierra 1247 wrote:

I meant mk6 was around just prior to Isstvan 3 and mk7 right on the siege of Terra, or is that what your inferring?

Mark 7 was only available to the loyalist legions who were actually on Terra. Not sure about how widely available it was for traitor legions, can't find anything in the fluff. However, as it has a big Imperial eagle on the chest I doubt it was very popular with the traitor legions which makes me think it was loyalist only. So, only Scars, Fists and Blood Angels would be wearing Mark 7 during The Heresy [possibly traitor legions too but without the eagle?], although it became widespread afterwards.

But attempting to gain an advantage without paying the model tax? That seems harsh. If you can afford to splash out on a full 2000pts HH list in a month then fair enough, but a lot of people don't have the cash to do that all in one go, I play pre heresy World Eaters with a good part of the tactical squads mixed up with 40k tactical marines, as well as some heresy era patterns. I don't see how it's that bad, in most games HH lists are at a big disadvantage against many 40k lists because they are designed to work above 2000pts. Obviously arrange this beforehand otherwise it is a bit of a dick move, but then so is expecting every single person who wants to play HH lists to have to only use the 30k models. If your on a budget, what choice do you have? Just represent them as late heresy Astartes. I don't see a problem with this.

I'm only applying the same standards I would to any other FW models. If I want my opponent to play against my FW stuff the expectation is that I stump up the money. Maybe it's just my gaming group but counts as FW is a real no-no. I expect my opponent to be flexible, he expects me to pay for the correct model. As I said, I would never plonk down a Hello Kitty cuddly toy and use it as a counts as Warhound. I'm obviously exaggerating but using counts as Forge World is pushing it for me.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm personal fine with 40k forgeworld, but I don't know whether I would play against 30k. I guess it depends on the comparative power level.

It's the point level that matters. The 30k lists scale weirdly next to normal 40k lists. A lot of 30k units for example only really shine at max unit strength of 10 or 20 marines with full kit and costing 300-400pts for example and really feel designed for 2500pt games, while 40k codex marine units usually come out at ~150-200pts and usually play 1500-2000pts.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm personal fine with 40k forgeworld, but I don't know whether I would play against 30k. I guess it depends on the comparative power level.

It's the point level that matters. The 30k lists scale weirdly next to normal 40k lists. A lot of 30k units for example only really shine at max unit strength of 10 or 20 marines with full kit and costing 300-400pts for example and really feel designed for 2500pt games, while 40k codex marine units usually come out at ~150-200pts and usually play 1500-2000pts.

It's a bit due to the lack of minmaxing in 30k lists, starting at 10 units and going up with cheaper costs means you want to build "Horde" armies at times.

Though 30k lists make up for it with more powerful tech on elites and heavy units (Also the Paragon blade is pretty much mandatory on most Praetors, Dark Age of Technological Perfection indeed)

Fluffwise the original source (WD129) for the armour fluff said that when the legions were broken up during the 2nd Founding for the most part the armour available was a mix of Mk6 & Mk7 with a smattering of older types which is pretty much what you get in the plastic box, so I think the regular marines are fine for a late-Scouring force, which I think would be better suited to the 30k list than the (post-Codex Astartes) modern 40k lists.

Forge Worlds official word on the subject is that the lists are 'broadly compatible' but you may get issues. They suggest you may want to increase opposing armies maximum squad size. I don't really think that's necessary but I do think you should avoid using volkite weaponry against the likes of Orks, Guard and Tyranids.

 Gashrog wrote:
Fluffwise the original source (WD129) for the armour fluff said that when the legions were broken up during the 2nd Founding for the most part the armour available was a mix of Mk6 & Mk7 with a smattering of older types which is pretty much what you get in the plastic box, so I think the regular marines are fine for a late-Scouring force, which I think would be better suited to the 30k list than the (post-Codex Astartes) modern 40k lists.

Forge Worlds official word on the subject is that the lists are 'broadly compatible' but you may get issues. They suggest you may want to increase opposing armies maximum squad size. I don't really think that's necessary but I do think you should avoid using volkite weaponry against the likes of Orks, Guard and Tyranids.

Why? It's just weaker Tesla that has a cost (Cause an unsaved wound, deal an automatic hit that does not cause more automatic hits)

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Why? It's just weaker Tesla that has a cost (Cause an unsaved wound, deal an automatic hit that does not cause more automatic hits)

Weaker? The closest unit for unit comparison is an Immortal squad with Tesla Carbines vs a Tactical Support Squad with Volkite Calivers.

A maxed out squad of the former comes in at 170pts and lays down 10 shots at 24"
For ten points less* the latter will lay down 12 shots with higher strength and better AP at 30" and the Deflagrate rule will consistently generate more additional wounds against most Guard, Nid and Ork infantry than the Tesla Carbines will.

* if you go ten points the other way and it goes up to 14.

The Volkite's point costs (Caliver costs 1/3rd as much as a Plasma Gun) make perfect sense for their lack of effectiveness in a marine vs marine game, but it really doesn't reflect its ability to go through the aforementioned armies rank and file like a hot knife through butter.

Weaker? The closest unit for unit comparison is an Immortal squad with Tesla Carbines vs a Tactical Support Squad with Volkite Calivers.

A maxed out squad of the former comes in at 170pts and lays down 10 shots at 24"
For ten points less* the latter will lay down 12 shots with higher strength and better AP at 30" and the Deflagrate rule will consistently generate more additional wounds against most Guard, Nid and Ork infantry than the Tesla Carbines will.

Pointing out:

The Caliver isn't the match to Tesla Carbine, Caliver is more equivalent to Tesla Cannons, S6 H2 for the Caliver, S6 A2 for the latter.

However the Caliver is pretty much still an S6 AP5 bolter, it's basically a heavy bolter that can't penetrate good saves and cover will have the deflagrate rule gaining far less traction then the equivalent Roll to hit of 6 of tesla with + 6" range.

There's also the fact that Immortals come with Reanimation protocols, and don't require another squad to come with. You have two take two basic troops choices before you can take a Legion Tactical Support Squad, so on top of the Calivers and squad you are paying a minimum 300 points before buying said support legion, it sounds nice in theory but if you really need more anti-horde after Double Tapping with Fury of the Legion you might be having a bit of an issue.

I don't really like FW as I feel everything about it is bothersome. Rules spread over multiple books which are not all up to date and buying the stuff is a hassle.

If GW won't sell it at their stores, won't let you ship it there, and you're officially not allowed to use it in store either. I'm not sure why I should be anymore accommodating...


That said if a player brings the models ( preferably knockoffs) and shares a copy of the relevant army entries upfront I'm more than happy to play against them. I would only play against a 30k list in arranged games.

 Antario wrote:
I don't really like FW as I feel everything about it is bothersome. Rules spread over multiple books which are not all up to date and buying the stuff is a hassle.

If GW won't sell it at their stores, won't let you ship it there, and you're officially not allowed to use it in store either. I'm not sure why I should be anymore accommodating...


That said if a player brings the models ( preferably knockoffs) and shares a copy of the relevant army entries upfront I'm more than happy to play against them. I would only play against a 30k list in arranged games.

who says your not allowed to use it in store?

to be honest i think you just have an axe to grind, as covered with your hoping they bring knockoff models.
its hardly bothersome, i mean if i want to play anything in 40k i have to bring the relevant rules, be it FW stuff or my chaos marines, and if your not familiar you are 100% allowed to read the rules just as i am with yours.
how you find internet shopping to be a hassle, and bothersome i do not know. its far simpler than going to your local store, just less of the Instant gratification

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Antario wrote:
I don't really like FW as I feel everything about it is bothersome. Rules spread over multiple books which are not all up to date and buying the stuff is a hassle.

If GW won't sell it at their stores, won't let you ship it there, and you're officially not allowed to use it in store either. I'm not sure why I should be anymore accommodating...


That said if a player brings the models ( preferably knockoffs) and shares a copy of the relevant army entries upfront I'm more than happy to play against them. I would only play against a 30k list in arranged games.

who says your not allowed to use it in store?

to be honest i think you just have an axe to grind, as covered with your hoping they bring knockoff models.
its hardly bothersome, i mean if i want to play anything in 40k i have to bring the relevant rules, be it FW stuff or my chaos marines, and if your not familiar you are 100% allowed to read the rules just as i am with yours.
how you find internet shopping to be a hassle, and bothersome i do not know. its far simpler than going to your local store, just less of the Instant gratification

The local GW manager told me it was against company policy to have it in the store as they don't want to complicate games for new players or scare off potential entrants. That is a fairly ambivalent stance toward a par of their own company.

As for bothersome: the rulebooks aren't the most pleasant to navigate, nor is there a digital version by BL. The basic game has already enough rules bloat with formations and supplements to add on a another range of books.

Internet shipping by FW is expensive and a hassle due to domestic courier/mail-service issues. I find it amateurish that FW cannot be shipped to a GW store for free like normal 40K mail orders as those are send from the same facility.


Forgive my spite but I would like to see them feel a bit of consumer backlash so they get their house in order.

Makumba wrote:
The problems is also rules. You can't check them yourself and opponents are only forced to show what is printed, not which printing of the book they have and which printing is now legal.

It gives a huge edge to people who can buy stuff online over those who can't. It is enough that they can buy those 4-5 serpents, which are hard to get at a store, but when they suddenly get units no one knows rules for and the only way to check those rules are a book, you don't know and have no option to check, if it is still legal or a pdf , which may be changed, few people will want to play against people with FW rules.

Also maybe in other areas it is different, but here the FW units that people talk about being used, are the OP ones.

Given FW don't do digital versions, ask to see the actual rule book if you have doubts? No hard copy - no play?

 Antario wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Antario wrote:
I don't really like FW as I feel everything about it is bothersome. Rules spread over multiple books which are not all up to date and buying the stuff is a hassle.

If GW won't sell it at their stores, won't let you ship it there, and you're officially not allowed to use it in store either. I'm not sure why I should be anymore accommodating...


That said if a player brings the models ( preferably knockoffs) and shares a copy of the relevant army entries upfront I'm more than happy to play against them. I would only play against a 30k list in arranged games.

who says your not allowed to use it in store?

to be honest i think you just have an axe to grind, as covered with your hoping they bring knockoff models.
its hardly bothersome, i mean if i want to play anything in 40k i have to bring the relevant rules, be it FW stuff or my chaos marines, and if your not familiar you are 100% allowed to read the rules just as i am with yours.
how you find internet shopping to be a hassle, and bothersome i do not know. its far simpler than going to your local store, just less of the Instant gratification

The local GW manager told me it was against company policy to have it in the store as they don't want to complicate games for new players or scare off potential entrants. That is a fairly ambivalent stance toward a par of their own company.

As for bothersome: the rulebooks aren't the most pleasant to navigate, nor is there a digital version by BL. The basic game has already enough rules bloat with formations and supplements to add on a another range of books.

Internet shipping by FW is expensive and a hassle due to domestic courier/mail-service issues. I find it amateurish that FW cannot be shipped to a GW store for free like normal 40K mail orders as those are send from the same facility.


Forgive my spite but I would like to see them feel a bit of consumer backlash so they get their house in order.

Then the manager is lying through his teeth. All the gws in my area, around four or so, see regular use of FW models and their rules and no one says a thing.

Makumba wrote:


1) The problems is also rules. You can't check them yourself and opponents are only forced to show what is printed, not which printing of the book they have and which printing is now legal.

2) It gives a huge edge to people who can buy stuff online over those who can't. It is enough that they can buy those 4-5 serpents, which are hard to get at a store, but when they suddenly get units no one knows rules for and the only way to check those rules are a book, you don't know and have no option to check, if it is still legal or a pdf , which may be changed, few people will want to play against people with FW rules.

Also maybe in other areas it is different, but here the FW units that people talk about being used, are the OP ones.

This is utter nonsense.

1) Not everyone buys every codex, ergo not everyone has access to everyone's rules. As for which printing is now legal, thats also silly for the same reason.

2) Anyone can buy stuff online because anyone can get a credit card, or ask a friend who has one to buy it for you and you give them cash. The only way to check the rules for those 5 Wave Serpents is to check a book. What if the store keeps all the books shrink wrapped or you can only get books by special order?


Forge World is just as accessible as codices. Its just a little more expense in an already expensive hobby.

 Antario wrote:
I don't really like FW as I feel everything about it is bothersome. Rules spread over multiple books which are not all up to date and buying the stuff is a hassle.

How is this different than codex books?

If GW won't sell it at their stores, won't let you ship it there, and you're officially not allowed to use it in store either. I'm not sure why I should be anymore accommodating...

GW stores don't sell it on the shelf because it's a specialist product. They also don't sell Sisters of Battle without special orders either but nobody seems to begrudge them for that reason. When Battle Bunkers were still a thing they certainly carried FW stuff.

If your GW store manager isn't allowing it, report them to their regional manager, they're basically just not wanting to advertise sales that don't apply to their metrics.

Hoenstly, GW didn't create FW and hire people to staff it just for players not to use the stuff....

 Antario wrote:


As for bothersome: the rulebooks aren't the most pleasant to navigate

That's mighty subjective. Many say the same of normal codex books.

nor is there a digital version by BL.

Since when did that become a requirement? How did people play this game before midway through 6E?

The basic game has already enough rules bloat with formations and supplements to add on a another range of books.

FW has been around much longer than most of that other stuff...

Internet shipping by FW is expensive and a hassle due to domestic courier/mail-service issues.

While true, why is this not an issue people bring up with stuff like Sisters of Battle or other online-only/specialist items?

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Lately I have noticed both on Dakkadakka and at some Gaming stores that people seem to really have a strong distaste for Forge World stuff. Any idea where that might come from?

Availability is always the biggest reason, and gaming stores don't make money on FW stuff. But it's eased up more in recent years so I don't think it's quite as bad as it used to be.

I think there has always been a general distaste of FW stuff as often you have to order it, their supplies are limited, and it really only adds things for imperials which already have a lot of things so its kind of boring for most of the xenos players.

That coupled with FW generally being slower to update their rules means often their things are either overcosted and underpowered, or terribly more efficient than they were meant to be when a new edition changes something in the core rules.

FW stopped all rules updating. They changed to just re-releasing the books.

 Sigvatr wrote:
FW stopped all rules updating. They changed to just re-releasing the books.

Those re-releases are updates though.

Yep. Charging for mandatory updates is just ridiculous.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yep. Charging for mandatory updates is just ridiculous.

Just like codex books do. It sucks, but it's consistent with GW's other sales models.

People will argue to the death that not only is it legal to play forgeworld, but that you have to accept that. You don't. Just like if someone brings a transcendent ctan, you can say you don't want to play against it.

There are many problems with forgeworld.

Their rules are spread out, multiple copies of them exist, and if you don't know, someone can bring an earlier more advantageous set to the game, like the old contemptor rules. Yes the armies have rulebooks, but anyone who plays the actual game knows what basic army books are on what edition and how updated they are/what is next to be released. They are also discussed like units are on this board constantly, so even without a physical copy you know the jist of it. The only forgeworld units you are likely to know about are the ones someone brings regularly. Which brings you to point number 2.

Cheeze. Oh forgeworld makes balanced units you say, or even underpowered? Lets take a look across the boards and see how many of them are on there. Oh look, all of none. Forgeworld is statted and point priced to sell. If you want someone to pay 60,000 dollars for a luxury car, it damn well better be superior to the 20,000 dollar model next to it. As much as forgefriends like to defend it as being as balanced as the rest of the game, you will never, ever, ever, ever see thses units. Instead you will see superior land raider variants, experimental rules riptides who were CLEARLY bait and switched to move plastic, cheap options for armies who should not have them for balance reasons such as saber platforms. If someone just wanted death korps of kreig models because they look far superior to the other guard, more power to them. Stand in models like that for regular ones make the game more interesting. But people are straight faced lying to you if they tell you because GW decided to be lazy and just break what little of their game remained, that forgeworld units have no balance issues whatsoever.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the game is on the way out, 7th being able to use anything, and thus having to buy more and more powerful units to compete with your friends elder army supplemented with an imperial knight lance is just the company pulling the string on its golden parachute, trying to artificially inflate the value of the company so some sucker like Hasbro buys it before it fails.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yep. Charging for mandatory updates is just ridiculous.

Just like new codexes then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Oh forgeworld makes balanced units you say, or even underpowered? Lets take a look across the boards and see how many of them are on there. Oh look, all of none.

This would be a lie. Or do you really want to argue that these are OP:





FW makes a lot of varied things with some things focused solely on fluff and others being more crunchy, but they aren't a full line of cheesy gak. To claim otherwise is just slander.

 Orock wrote:
People will argue to the death that not only is it legal to play forgeworld, but that you have to accept that. You don't. Just like if someone brings a transcendent ctan, you can say you don't want to play against it.

There are many problems with forgeworld.

Their rules are spread out, multiple copies of them exist, and if you don't know, someone can bring an earlier more advantageous set to the game, like the old contemptor rules. Yes the armies have rulebooks, but anyone who plays the actual game knows what basic army books are on what edition and how updated they are/what is next to be released.

I'd argue this really. People who frequent boards like this might know that. Such players are a minority. Most players don't necessarily know what armies were released when or what's next or what subfactions have books and whatnot. Yeah, FW stuff isn't quite as well known, but that's why if you're running FW stuff you're expected to bring your rules, and cheating with different/older rules isn't any different than cheating any other way.

Cheeze. Oh forgeworld makes balanced units you say, or even underpowered? Lets take a look across the boards and see how many of them are on there. Oh look, all of none. Forgeworld is statted and point priced to sell. If you want someone to pay 60,000 dollars for a luxury car, it damn well better be superior to the 20,000 dollar model next to it.

Most people looking for tactical advice on an internet message board like this are probably looking to build competitive lists, and thus will use the most competitive units, FW or no.

As much as forgefriends

Are we really coming up with derogatory names now?

like to defend it as being as balanced as the rest of the game, you will never, ever, ever, ever see thses units.

Says you. I run many routinely. I've been running a DKoK Assault Brigade army list almost exclusively for a while here, and, aside from a couple of the artillery units, I'd hardly consider most of the units, especially infantry units, in the list to be exactly a bargain.

Instead you will see superior land raider variants,

such as?

experimental rules riptides who were CLEARLY bait and switched to move plastic

that's 100% speculation on your part, and they always were clearly marked as Experimental and subject to change from day 1.

cheap options for armies who should not have them for balance reasons such as saber platforms.

Sabre platforms can't shoot at ground targets anymore except for snapshots, they're hardly the handy replacement they were for a grand total of 18 months after GW changed the Artillery unit type rules.

If someone just wanted death korps of kreig models because they look far superior to the other guard, more power to them. Stand in models like that for regular ones make the game more interesting. But people are straight faced lying to you if they tell you because GW decided to be lazy and just break what little of their game remained, that forgeworld units have no balance issues whatsoever.

Nobody said that all FW stuff is perfect, only that there's relatively few straight up broken things, and that, on the whole, it's hard to make the case that it's worse than codex books.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yep. Charging for mandatory updates is just ridiculous.

Just like new codexes then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Oh forgeworld makes balanced units you say, or even underpowered? Lets take a look across the boards and see how many of them are on there. Oh look, all of none.

This would be a lie. Or do you really want to argue that these are OP:





FW makes a lot of varied things with some things focused solely on fluff and others being more crunchy, but they aren't a full line of cheesy gak. To claim otherwise is just slander.

Better watch out for the power lifter sentinel cheeze it'll get ya

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yep. Charging for mandatory updates is just ridiculous.

Just like codex books do. It sucks, but it's consistent with GW's other sales models.

Codices get FAQ updates to work with recently released editions. FW books do not. That's the problem. They used to get updated in 6th, but FW has been hit with the lazy bat.

The FAQs for SM units ("updates" now apparently) are minor minor changes or rewording rules. FW charges for "mandatory updates" in the same way GW does.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yep. Charging for mandatory updates is just ridiculous.

Just like codex books do. It sucks, but it's consistent with GW's other sales models.

Codices get FAQ updates to work with recently released editions. FW books do not. That's the problem. They used to get updated in 6th, but FW has been hit with the lazy bat.

While true, GW's 7E FAQ's are hardly worthy of the name, it's not like their updates have been exactly extensive or useful, and the core rulebook still doesn't have an FAQ. GW as a whole, not just FW, have been really bad with updates.

As I mentioned earlier, this thread and my last experience running a FW list makes it clear that if I don't want to be judged in some way at my FLGS (or anywhere for that matter) I really just shouldn't bring it. People will have the perception I am either A) cheating through some kind of update trickery B) using super OP units, regardless of how legal it is to actually run it. Thanks for the help though

That is, basically, it, and it's been that way for a really, really long time, no matter how many times it's demonstrated that the vast majority of FW units are in-line with (and sometimes underpowered in comparison to) core-GW units.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yep. Charging for mandatory updates is just ridiculous.

Just like new codexes then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Oh forgeworld makes balanced units you say, or even underpowered? Lets take a look across the boards and see how many of them are on there. Oh look, all of none.

This would be a lie. Or do you really want to argue that these are OP:





FW makes a lot of varied things with some things focused solely on fluff and others being more crunchy, but they aren't a full line of cheesy gak. To claim otherwise is just slander.

way to not read the statement. They EXIST, however nobody, including yourself, uses them. They only buy and use the OP crap, or use things like these to stand in for something else.

I only play an HH list because I like CC weapons on Tac squads. But again as Orock has pointed out, many people either A) run FW for OP stuff or more commonly B) are perceived to do so.

The only Forgeworld model I have seen used at all is the Wraithseer. People at my store don't mind playing against FW stuff, but they don't feel justified spending large quantities of cash on said product.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really find the Wraithseer to be OP.

 Orock wrote:
way to not read the statement. They EXIST, however nobody, including yourself, uses them. They only buy and use the OP crap, or use things like these to stand in for something else.

And how is that any different than codex units? The same people that only use the few overpowered FW units are also only using the overpowered codex units. So ban codex rules!

Forgeworld is broken at a certain point. one guy at my gw runs minotaurs with literally all the FW flyers and almost all the big awesome tanks. PEople dont wanna play him now.


one person at the store runs raptors and uses issodon and a keylek executioner. it's good, but he can still lose easily.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orock wrote:
way to not read the statement. They EXIST, however nobody, including yourself, uses them. They only buy and use the OP crap, or use things like these to stand in for something else.

And how is that any different than codex units? The same people that only use the few overpowered FW units are also only using the overpowered codex units. So ban codex rules!

Because there is already enough overpowered crap in the game, so why not trim it out, especially since you cant buy it through your LFGS to support them. Its all good for people who play in their friends basements, but that 200 FW unit could be spent at the place where you play instead, giving them some profit, rather than nothing. Also, on the tournament boards they agree for the most part, it simplifies the game and streamlines it, making pickup games and organizing tournaments that much easier.

Really if they had just stuck to making recasts and alternate models nobody would have anything to complain about.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yep. Charging for mandatory updates is just ridiculous.

Just like codex books do. It sucks, but it's consistent with GW's other sales models.

Codices get FAQ updates to work with recently released editions. FW books do not. That's the problem. They used to get updated in 6th, but FW has been hit with the lazy bat.

FW still FAQs things (and answers rules questions via email, like regarding the By This Seal rule for Red Hunters, which they said to ignore). They're just not as fast at it because they don't have a lot of people to do these sort of things so the FAQs are slower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
way to not read the statement. They EXIST, however nobody, including yourself, uses them. They only buy and use the OP crap, or use things like these to stand in for something else.

So it's just like every other army then. I mean Repentia are useless, GKSS are bunk, a lot of Tyranids aren't that good, so they don't get used. To claim this is a FW exclusive problem is still bunk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Really if they had just stuck to making recasts and alternate models nobody would have anything to complain about.

Except they've been making rules for years. IA1 (the original one) is older than most of their alternate models. Hell IA1 and IA2 had intros by Jervis Johnson saying that they were official additions to the game.

 Orock wrote:


Because there is already enough overpowered crap in the game, so why not trim it out

And who determines what is "overpowered crap"? There's a very small handful of FW units that can be considered anything like the powerful codex units, but there's lots of "good" stuff that isn't anything near OP but isn't bad either.

What exactly would you consider on the same level as the Wave Serpent, or 2++ rerollable shennanigans or the like?



And besides, all this stuff exists in the 40k universe, and not every FW unit is something they made up themselves out of nowhere by any means. Why shouldn't it all be portrayed?

especially since you cant buy it through your LFGS to support them. Its all good for people who play in their friends basements, but that 200 FW unit could be spent at the place where you play instead, giving them some profit, rather than nothing.

You can't buy Sisters of Battle off the shelf either, they have to special order them at a much lower profit margin (if any) and can't sell you a rulebook for them at all. Why would this line of thinking not apply to them as well?

What if you game at a club and not at a FLGS?

Also, on the tournament boards they agree for the most part, it simplifies the game and streamlines it, making pickup games and organizing tournaments that much easier.

Except most of them allow FW now...

Really if they had just stuck to making recasts and alternate models nobody would have anything to complain about.

They've been making they're own stuff or creating rules for units that didn't get main-line models (e.g. Hydra, Manticore from EPIC) since 2000 and 3rd edition, there isn't anything recent about them.

 Orock wrote:
Because there is already enough overpowered crap in the game, so why not trim it out

This isn't a very convincing argument unless you're also willing to "trim out" overpowered codex stuff, and only ban the specific overpowered FW units.

but that 200 FW unit could be spent at the place where you play instead, giving them some profit, rather than nothing.

A game store is a business, not a charity. If they can't compete with FW for my $200 then they don't get my money. I'm have no obligation to "support" them by making my purchase decisions based on what will help their profits.

Also, on the tournament boards they agree for the most part, it simplifies the game and streamlines it, making pickup games and organizing tournaments that much easier.

You know what would also simplify the game? Banning everything but C:SM.

Really if they had just stuck to making recasts and alternate models nobody would have anything to complain about.

Yeah, why have more diversity when you can have nothing but alternate tactical squad models...

If you buy forge world for the models thats one thing, but requiring people to play you using forgeworld rules is something else.

most people can get the normal game rules/codex from their FLGS, they cannot with FW. It is much easier to ID which books are current for the normal games system, for FW it is not unless you are already familiar with it.

Yes there are some very few units in FW which are not good, but most of them are superior to what you can purchase from the normal codexes.

RAW forge world is not legal, as they are not citadel models which are the only things you are allowed to select when building an army according to the rulebook. This also puts some people off from playing with or against it.

blaktoof wrote:
If you buy forge world for the models thats one thing, but requiring people to play you using forgeworld rules is something else.

You can argue the same thing for every codex, every rule and everything else. It's a given that to play the game you and your opponent(s) need to agree on the game. Any claim that anyone can or will force anything is just an accusation against their ethics.

blaktoof wrote:
If you buy forge world for the models thats one thing, but requiring people to play you using forgeworld rules is something else.

No it isn't. FW rules are part of the game just like codex rules, formations, etc. The idea that they're some separate thing that deserves special treatment is an idea invented by certain anti-FW players, not by GW.

most people can get the normal game rules/codex from their FLGS, they cannot with FW.

So? It's 2014, ordering stuff online is part of life. If you want FW rules all you have to do is go online and buy them.

It is much easier to ID which books are current for the normal games system, for FW it is not unless you are already familiar with it.

This would be a much more convincing argument if people were actually familiar with codex armies they don't play. In my experience I've had just as many questions and arguments about my codex IG units as my FW units. And really, if you're so paranoid about someone cheating with an old version of the rules then why are you playing with them?

Yes there are some very few units in FW which are not good, but most of them are superior to what you can purchase from the normal codexes.

This is not even close to true. Most FW units are average at best, and a lot of the "better than codex" ones are only better because the codex unit sucks (rough riders vs. death riders, for example).

RAW forge world is not legal, as they are not citadel models which are the only things you are allowed to select when building an army according to the rulebook.

This is RAW stupidity on the same level as the old "RAW you can't shoot or charge with models with helmets" nonsense. It might be true by the strictest interpretation of RAW, but nobody ever plays it that way. Everyone understands that "Citadel miniatures" really means "40k models, whatever parts they're composed of", and scratchbuilt models/third party conversion parts/etc are legal.

blaktoof wrote:
If you buy forge world for the models thats one thing, but requiring people to play you using forgeworld rules is something else.

most people can get the normal game rules/codex from their FLGS, they cannot with FW. It is much easier to ID which books are current for the normal games system, for FW it is not unless you are already familiar with it.

How's that different than a new codex, or a codex that simply isn't available in a store (e.g. Sisters of Battle?).

Yes there are some very few units in FW which are not good, but most of them are superior to what you can purchase from the normal codexes.

Whoever claims forgeworld only makes OP stuff obviously never read IA3 unit entries
Some of the tau units (kroot are the glaring point) were so godly bad throught every incarnation for years now that they stopped producing them as the sales were that low it was more expensive to store the molds then the sales earned.
I'm talking about things like a drone armed with TLBC for 40 points in a HS slot, or "assault" units with about the attack power of an assault marine, the defenses of rough riders and the price of terminators.
Out of all units within the current IA3 the ones that are semi-competetive are the tetra and barracuda alone (and they are a wash compared to codex units, making them more of a tune than an upgrade), with Ralai, Rmyr and Remora being fine for casual play, and everything else is actively hurting yourself to take them over codex unit of similar roles, sometimes even by as far margines as 50% less efficient than codex unit. nearly everything is overpriced and underpowered. and I'm sure this holds true to many other books too.
(not counting manta, who I honestly can't rate, or orca who got updated from then, and the updated cost is quite good)


As for whoever mentioned issodon, he is currently the most powerful SM IC in the game, no questions asked.
However, he was written in 6th, and what made him this powerful is a BRB change in 7th of the warlord trait, not his own rules (who are good, but not nearly as much)
His fixed warlord trait is the one that turned from "meh, not bad" to "omgwtfbbq this is broken as hell"-master of ambush-that most reasonable players houserule it to be like CSM's "master of deception" even if you got it by rolling on the strategic table because that rule is outright bonkers (3 units of infiltrating gravcenturion anyone?). with that houserule he becomes fair as its at least limited in what he can infiltrate, and he isn't assured 3 (averages on 2) can still work with gravcents though, they ARE infantry, but not assured to have 3 squads doing it.

For the record, I hate the 2+ rerollable, wave serpent spam, and all the other cheese in the game. I wish tournaments could all somehow get together and decide on a uniform banned and restricted list for everything 40k, the only place bans and restrictions matter. But since GW threw the floodgates open with unbound and all the other issues the last few editions, I really doubt many players will be interested in playing competativley anymore. If army comp somehow made a difference anymore, many problems would be solved. And of course in friendly or pickup games as long as you agree everything is ok.

Taudar was amongst the, if not *the*, top-tier competitive builds last edition, which predates Unbound. That did not seem to change who did and did not play in tournies.

 BoomWolf wrote:


As for whoever mentioned issodon, he is currently the most powerful SM IC in the game, no questions asked.
However, he was written in 6th, and what made him this powerful is a BRB change in 7th of the warlord trait, not his own rules (who are good, but not nearly as much)
His fixed warlord trait is the one that turned from "meh, not bad" to "omgwtfbbq this is broken as hell"-master of ambush-that most reasonable players houserule it to be like CSM's "master of deception" even if you got it by rolling on the strategic table because that rule is outright bonkers (3 units of infiltrating gravcenturion anyone?). with that houserule he becomes fair as its at least limited in what he can infiltrate, and he isn't assured 3 (averages on 2) can still work with gravcents though, they ARE infantry, but not assured to have 3 squads doing it.

it isn't three but he has used it pretty well with one. still, I agree it is almost too good.

 Peregrine wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If you buy forge world for the models thats one thing, but requiring people to play you using forgeworld rules is something else.

No it isn't. FW rules are part of the game just like codex rules, formations, etc. The idea that they're some separate thing that deserves special treatment is an idea invented by certain anti-FW players, not by GW.

most people can get the normal game rules/codex from their FLGS, they cannot with FW.

So? It's 2014, ordering stuff online is part of life. If you want FW rules all you have to do is go online and buy them.

It is much easier to ID which books are current for the normal games system, for FW it is not unless you are already familiar with it.

This would be a much more convincing argument if people were actually familiar with codex armies they don't play. In my experience I've had just as many questions and arguments about my codex IG units as my FW units. And really, if you're so paranoid about someone cheating with an old version of the rules then why are you playing with them?

Yes there are some very few units in FW which are not good, but most of them are superior to what you can purchase from the normal codexes.

This is not even close to true. Most FW units are average at best, and a lot of the "better than codex" ones are only better because the codex unit sucks (rough riders vs. death riders, for example).

RAW forge world is not legal, as they are not citadel models which are the only things you are allowed to select when building an army according to the rulebook.

This is RAW stupidity on the same level as the old "RAW you can't shoot or charge with models with helmets" nonsense. It might be true by the strictest interpretation of RAW, but nobody ever plays it that way. Everyone understands that "Citadel miniatures" really means "40k models, whatever parts they're composed of", and scratchbuilt models/third party conversion parts/etc are legal.

Each player in a Warhammer 40,000 battle commands an army. An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures, and can consist of any number of models.

it may be raw stupidity but it is RAW.

FW is not part of citadel miniatures and vice versa, until FW produces Citadel miniatures or they merge departments technically FW is not legal for normal 40k, and is permission only.

There's a lot of RAW stupidity, like invisibility, but hey that's the rules.

I love FW! The Tau Manta is amazing! Their Horus Heresy Figure collection is amazing as well.

blaktoof-where have you gotten the conclusion that forgeworld is not citadel miniatures? because they are.

Games Workshop Group PLC

Games Workshop has expanded into several divisions/companies producing products related to the Warhammer universe.

Games Workshop now produces the tabletop wargames, Citadel miniatures, and the Specialist Games range.

Forge World makes complementary specialist resin miniatures and conversion kits. Forge World is also responsible for the Warhammer Historical line of historical wargames rules, including Warhammer Ancient Battles, all of which were previously published by as a component of Black Library.

BL Publishing is the fiction, board game and roleplaying game publishing arm of Games Workshop. They comprise several separate imprints; The Black Library, Black Flame and Solaris Books. Warp Artefacts used to produce merchandise based on Games Workshop's intellectual property; they are now folded into BLP as BL Merchandise.[26]

my guess is that I got the idea because they are two separate companies held by the same PLC.

And that FW products do not list "citadel miniatures" anywhere on them

and if you collect citadel models, and follow the sites like:

http://www.solegends.com/citadel/index.htm

which lists citadel models, obviously FW is not there because they are not citadel models.

FW isn't a separate company, it's a separate department from the main studio, that's all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Solegends isn't a GW based site. You can't use it as proof of really anything in this situation.

its a separate division/company from citadel.

they are not citadel models, that's all.

http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

yeah its a separate site, but its a site that lists collection of citadel models, no FW things are on there because fw=/=citadel.

when you buy a blisterpack, or box set from GW it will say citadel model or citadel miniatures on it, does it say that on FW kits? the answer is no, because FW is not citadel, they are different.

FW is not a distinct company, they're just a different sales channel (like Black Library). All their employees are GW employees at GW HQ, their books have big GW stamps on them with GW copyrights, etc.

GW didn't set this group up just for people not to buy and use the stuff...


Ultimately, if we're having to get into corporate structure to determine who's little plastic army men can be used, the argument has done too far.

I agree, but then why would they put into the rulebook "armies are made up of citadel models"

when they could have said

"armies are made up of games workshop models"

fairly certain no one can prove that FW models are citadel models, since they are not.

FW has been doing well for a long time, and their models were never official although most reasonable people are okay with a large part of the range. So obviously the mere fact they are sold is not proof they are citadel models, or do not require permission from opponent. Given the current climate of 40k the basic rules seem to require permission from your opponent these days with unbound, LoW, unlimited detachments, etc being issues for some players.

 Orock wrote:
People will argue to the death that not only is it legal to play forgeworld, but that you have to accept that. You don't. Just like if someone brings a transcendent ctan, you can say you don't want to play against it.

There are many problems with forgeworld.

Their rules are spread out, multiple copies of them exist, and if you don't know, someone can bring an earlier more advantageous set to the game, like the old contemptor rules. Yes the armies have rulebooks, but anyone who plays the actual game knows what basic army books are on what edition and how updated they are/what is next to be released. They are also discussed like units are on this board constantly, so even without a physical copy you know the jist of it. The only forgeworld units you are likely to know about are the ones someone brings regularly. Which brings you to point number 2.

Cheeze. Oh forgeworld makes balanced units you say, or even underpowered? Lets take a look across the boards and see how many of them are on there. Oh look, all of none. Forgeworld is statted and point priced to sell. If you want someone to pay 60,000 dollars for a luxury car, it damn well better be superior to the 20,000 dollar model next to it. As much as forgefriends like to defend it as being as balanced as the rest of the game, you will never, ever, ever, ever see thses units. Instead you will see superior land raider variants, experimental rules riptides who were CLEARLY bait and switched to move plastic, cheap options for armies who should not have them for balance reasons such as saber platforms. If someone just wanted death korps of kreig models because they look far superior to the other guard, more power to them. Stand in models like that for regular ones make the game more interesting. But people are straight faced lying to you if they tell you because GW decided to be lazy and just break what little of their game remained, that forgeworld units have no balance issues whatsoever.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the game is on the way out, 7th being able to use anything, and thus having to buy more and more powerful units to compete with your friends elder army supplemented with an imperial knight lance is just the company pulling the string on its golden parachute, trying to artificially inflate the value of the company so some sucker like Hasbro buys it before it fails.

+1. When I ask for guidance on ways to use underpowered codex units, a good portion of the responses is always "check out the Forge World alternative."

- Riders of Krieg versus Rough Riders
- Saber Platforms versus Heavy Weapons Squads
- Talons versus Valkyries

Forge World is like DLC in a multiplayer video game. A percentage of the hardcore gamers will buy it and wreck house. These models and sets are made to sell well above the base 40k prices, which are already high. It is an extra level of investment above and beyond the already high cost of entry and participation for this hobby. It is hard enough just keeping all of the core rules and codices straight, adding in the plethora of Forge World rules makes it impossible to keep up.

It's ok when people bring these things to casual games, annoying when they bring them to pick-up games, and I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.

I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.

You cant. But forgefriends will tell you that the house is already burning, whats a few more gallons of gas on the flame.

Wow.

This thread turned from a logical discussion to a venomous snake pit of misanthropy. I understand not liking FW but some of you people seem to have a burning vendetta against FW and anyone who uses it.

blaktoof wrote:
fairly certain no one can prove that FW models are citadel models, since they are not.

Just grabbing a few books off my shelf for this:
From the Citadel Warhammer 40,000 Escalation book there are the following Lords of War that only have models from FW: Thunderhawk, Revenant Titan,Tiger Shark.
From the Citadel Warhammer 40,000 Pandorax Apoc Expansion: Great Brass Scorpion of Khorne, Marauder Bomber, Warhound Titan.
From the Citadel Warhammer 40,000 Damocles Apoc Expansion: Thunderhawk (again).
From the Citadel Warhammer 40,000 Damos Apoc Expansion: Deathstorm Drop Pod, Necron Pylon.

These are Forge World models in Citadel marked books. I think it's safe to say that they mean to include FW under the "Citadel" umbrella there even if they don't explicitly state it. And even if you want to argue that they're still not, we still have books that are up to date and actively being released that support their use in 40k. So yeah, legit, even if you don't like it.

Also we shouldn't be policing the exact wording of vague policies. If BL and other GW books are anything to go by GW has horrible grammar.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Wow.

This thread turned from a logical discussion to a venomous snake pit of misanthropy. I understand not liking FW but some of you people seem to have a burning vendetta for FW and anyone who uses it.

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought this.

Seriously, it's a game to have fun. People like forge world and think it's fun! Maybe, If someone brings out a list with a lot of cheese just ask for a different list to play against. If they say no find a different opponent! Maybe, just maybe, enjoy the hobby? Between this and other threads I'm thinking that 40k isn't the only thing filled with eternal hate and suffering

Seriously. The kind of people who treat this game as some kind of battle for honor are the same kind that spend whole games berating children.

blaktoof wrote:
I agree, but then why would they put into the rulebook "armies are made up of citadel models"

Because GW wants to take every opportunity possible to use their brand names and present the gaming hobby as the GW Hobby™. Saying "GW models" could be interpreted as "game models that happen to be made by GW", while "Citadel™ Miniatures™" makes it clear that there's something special about these models that you can't get anywhere else. Remember, this statement is written by the same company that has openly claimed that the thing their customers love most about the hobby is getting more opportunities to buy GW products.

 Orock wrote:
I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.

You do it the same way you work codex rules into a competitive scene. If you can handle all the stupid broken codex stuff you can handle FW rules.

 TheSilo wrote:
+1. When I ask for guidance on ways to use underpowered codex units, a good portion of the responses is always "check out the Forge World alternative."

- Riders of Krieg versus Rough Riders
- Saber Platforms versus Heavy Weapons Squads
- Talons versus Valkyries

You know why? Because those units suck. This isn't a case of FW releasing something overpowered, those codex units are utter trash that nobody ever uses unless they're deliberately crippling their own lists to go easy on a newbie. That advice isn't pointing you in the direction of an overpowered auto-win unit, it's just saying "if you really want to use that kind of unit here's something that's at least marginally playable instead of an easy way to lose the game". Taking away the FW units doesn't make the codex units more appealing, it just changes the advice you get from "here's a decent alternative that keeps the same theme" to "don't even bother trying".

(Also, nobody is arguing that Valkyrie Sky Talons are better than Valkyries, they're two completely different units.)

Forge World is like DLC in a multiplayer video game. A percentage of the hardcore gamers will buy it and wreck house.

Just like a percentage of the hardcore gamers will buy codex rules and wreck house. In fact the WAAC players are the ones who benefit the least from including FW rules since they're already crushing everyone effortlessly and have no incentive to allow anything that might change the game and force them to adapt.

blaktoof wrote:
its a separate division/company from citadel.

they are not citadel models, that's all.

http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

yeah its a separate site, but its a site that lists collection of citadel models, no FW things are on there because fw=/=citadel.

when you buy a blisterpack, or box set from GW it will say citadel model or citadel miniatures on it, does it say that on FW kits? the answer is no, because FW is not citadel, they are different.

the rule book also states that i can take models that have rules in ANY games workshop publication. be it codex, white dwarf or any other. how do you explain that?

Are we seriously having the "Is Forgeworld Legal?" argument again?
This is quite entertaining.

i know i thought that it had been buried with 7th edition... but hey apparently its "still" a thing to say NO FW its not legal, but run 30 single oblits if you want is, cos the BRB says it explicitly...

stupidity

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Wow.

This thread turned from a logical discussion to a venomous snake pit of misanthropy. I understand not liking FW but some of you people seem to have a burning vendetta against FW and anyone who uses it.

So with posts from your history, visible to all, like forgeworld-come see the brighter side, you had no clue that your thread would pretty much be flamebait?

Sure buddy. This wasent a troll thread from the start, Im sure you have never seen this thread in your time here, multiple times even.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
i know i thought that it had been buried with 7th edition... but hey apparently its "still" a thing to say NO FW its not legal, but run 30 single oblits if you want is, cos the BRB says it explicitly...

I thought the "FW isn't legal" arguement died when they put FW units in Escalation and then said it was part of the normal game (and again when they then said those Lords of War were legal in normal armies in the LoW slot in 7th).

But once again I'm proven wrong and this dead horse rises from the grave once more to gallop forth into the night.

I dont see why people dont just say its as legal as your opponent says. Thats all it comes down to.

If that doesnt suit your tastes find someone who calls it legal and game.

Its really that simple. Its clear to see why people are against and for it.

Who cares. Really. Besides the person you are playing with.

There's increasingly a disconnect between what GW says is legal and what the community actually does.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
i know i thought that it had been buried with 7th edition... but hey apparently its "still" a thing to say NO FW its not legal, but run 30 single oblits if you want is, cos the BRB says it explicitly...

I thought the "FW isn't legal" arguement died when they put FW units in Escalation and then said it was part of the normal game (and again when they then said those Lords of War were legal in normal armies in the LoW slot in 7th).

But once again I'm proven wrong and this dead horse rises from the grave once more to gallop forth into the night.

no no did you see, its the MODELS arent legal, the rules might be though but you cant use the model cos its not made my "citadel"

 Swastakowey wrote:
I dont see why people dont just say its as legal as your opponent says. Thats all it comes down to.

that's what every game of 40k comes down to. The fact that people feel they need to dictate some kind of community wide rule about legality, based on what they don't want to play with, is just silly and I wish it'd stop. Play whatever you and your opponent agree on and that's it. Problem solved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
no no did you see, its the MODELS arent legal, the rules might be though but you cant use the model cos its not made my "citadel"

That's the kind of rules lawyering that kets people bricked in the head with a Warhound.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I dont see why people dont just say its as legal as your opponent says. Thats all it comes down to.

that's what every game of 40k comes down to. The fact that people feel they need to dictate some kind of community wide rule about legality, based on what they don't want to play with, is just silly and I wish it'd stop. Play whatever you and your opponent agree on and that's it. Problem solved.

Im a bit offended that my profile picture is not correct in your quote

Not really.

But yea I agree, it solves everything related to whats allowed. Should be standard to simply ask before you play, but of course only if you and your opponent agree.

 Orock wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Wow.

This thread turned from a logical discussion to a venomous snake pit of misanthropy. I understand not liking FW but some of you people seem to have a burning vendetta against FW and anyone who uses it.

So with posts from your history, visible to all, like forgeworld-come see the brighter side, you had no clue that your thread would pretty much be flamebait?

Sure buddy. This wasent a troll thread from the start, Im sure you have never seen this thread in your time here, multiple times even.

The whole purpose of this thread was to see of their was an anti forge world climate in the 40k community. I now see that this is a redundant thread, as the mere mention of the word "Forge World" sends people into blood thirsty rages that abandon all sense of human decency. I have seen people loudly complain about FW but never a thread addressing the FW hate climate. I don't mind people who dislike FW. That is easily understandable. What I mind is donkey caves running around loudly insulting people for a choice they made.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I dont see why people dont just say its as legal as your opponent says. Thats all it comes down to.

that's what every game of 40k comes down to. The fact that people feel they need to dictate some kind of community wide rule about legality, based on what they don't want to play with, is just silly and I wish it'd stop. Play whatever you and your opponent agree on and that's it. Problem solved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
no no did you see, its the MODELS arent legal, the rules might be though but you cant use the model cos its not made my "citadel"

That's the kind of rules lawyering that kets people bricked in the head with a Warhound.

haha not using my warhound for that, i might grab a cinderblock though.

and yeah every game is what your opponent will/wont allow.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Are we seriously having the "Is Forgeworld Legal?" argument again?
This is quite entertaining.

Oooooh you have no idea...

 TheSilo wrote:


- Riders of Krieg versus Rough Riders

Entirely irrelevant, since you can't field Death Riders in a standard IG list.


Also, my FLGS is cool, I've brought my FW list since day one, never had issues or complains.

 TheSilo wrote:


+1. When I ask for guidance on ways to use underpowered codex units, a good portion of the responses is always "check out the Forge World alternative."

- Riders of Krieg versus Rough Riders

Is that a case of FW being broken...or of normal RR's just being awful and FW just making them useable? (they're also only available for use within DKoK army lists, you can't just use them in a normal IG army as their own choice)

- Saber Platforms versus Heavy Weapons Squads

See above again. Normal heavy weapons squads are both absurdly easy to remove from the board and curiously overcosted, and most competitive IG armies don't bother with them in the first place. Keep in mind Sabres were originally AV10 "glance-it-once-it-dies", then GW changes to core artillery rules in 6E, and now in 7E they can only engage ground targets with snapshots.

- Talons versus Valkyries

Sky Talons? This thing? Really?

Forge World is like DLC in a multiplayer video game. A percentage of the hardcore gamers will buy it and wreck house. These models and sets are made to sell well above the base 40k prices, which are already high.

Have you seen modern GW prices? In many instances FW isn't at all any more expensive anymore. GW prices the Tempestus Scions at the same price as Death Korps Grenadiers, and many Characters are now practically identical in cost to FW characters. Those new plastic Ork Mek Guns? They're on par with DKoK Heavy Mortar and Thudd Guns units with crews.

It is an extra level of investment above and beyond the already high cost of entry and participation for this hobby. It is hard enough just keeping all of the core rules and codices straight, adding in the plethora of Forge World rules makes it impossible to keep up.

And how many people keep up with every codex, formation, dataslate, supplement, or WD release? Singling out FW here on its own feels rather disingenuous.

It's ok when people bring these things to casual games, annoying when they bring them to pick-up games, and I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.

Nothing about 40k, in any way, shape, or form, is intended, designed, or built around competitive gaming. GW has openly said as much. If you're trying to do competitive with 40k, you're hamfisting a paradigm onto a system that it was never intended for, and have to accept that. It's not like the basic codex books don't have their own share of vast internal and external balance issues.

 Vaktathi wrote:

It's ok when people bring these things to casual games, annoying when they bring them to pick-up games, and I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.

Nothing about 40k, in any way, shape, or form, is intended, designed, or built around competitive gaming. GW has openly said as much. If you're trying to do competitive with 40k, you're hamfisting a paradigm onto a system that it was never intended for, and have to accept that. It's not like the basic codex books don't have their own share of vast internal and external balance issues.

Just because GW suck at making a balanced and competitive game doesn't mean it's wrong when players want to try and make it more balanced and competitive... just sometimes they tend to do it out of ignorance of the units rather than a good understanding of them. But the desire to make the game balanced and competitive isn't wrong even if GW completely fail to do it.

A-they don't "suck" at making a competitive game-they are not even trying. just take a look at all the random tables, they are obviously not made with anything competitive in mind.

B-even if you WERE right that the game needs to be competitive (not every game has to be), it does not change to fact that forgeworld models are by no method superior to "core GW" models, and are in fact usually inferior to them rule-wise, and at best they are sidegrades, with a select few notable exceptions when you compare them to utterly unplayable models, or in cases of old rules interacting with new edition and creating an unexpected-something that happens in codecies all the time, be definition, and cannot be avoided unless you stop making new editions.

C-the vast majority of "overpowered FW" complaints are usually referring to either experimental rules, aka "beta test-we have no idea if this is fine, and thins should not be taken seriously" rules or to rules that are no longer even applicable as they got updated, and in odd cases rules that never existed at all and someone made up/got totally wrong.

D-its not even logical to call it "pay to win" even if it WAS stronger, considering FW prices are hardly any higher than "GW site" prices, and some all-FW armies can be built cheaper than all-"GW site" ones.

So to sum things up, your point, if it even exists, is not rational and merely the result of a compulsive desire to find issues where there aren't any.

 BoomWolf wrote:
A-they don't "suck" at making a competitive game-they are not even trying. just take a look at all the random tables, they are obviously not made with anything competitive in mind.

Random tables are bad for everything But either way who cares if they were trying or not, the fact is it's not. They failed to create balanced rules, "they weren't trying" does not change the fact they failed. It sounds like some kid on the school yard "well I wasn't trying, I could have beaten you if I was trying".

So to sum things up, your point, if it even exists, is not rational and merely the result of a compulsive desire to find issues where there aren't any.

You must be referring to someone other than me with the rest of your rant because at no point did I say FW should be banned, FW is superior, or FW is pay to win. I also never said that every game has to be competitive. So I'm gonna assume you're talking to someone else, otherwise your rant is just the result of a compulsive desire to find issues where there aren't any.

The point is-maybe indeed he could-had he cared.
GW does not care for competitive play, and say it aloud. in fact they said it from the very beginning.
I also lost my fair share of games due to not even trying to win (demonstration games mostly. i tend not to use my entire arsenal on these)


On the second note, the "you" was a general "you", not a specific "you". it was aimed at the anti-forgeworld camp as a whole.
Though I must say it was quite an impressive turnaround, I'm almost sorry I didn't aim that specifically at you seeing your well-crafted response.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The point is-maybe indeed he could-had he cared.
GW does not care for competitive play, and say it aloud. in fact they said it from the very beginning.

Well if that's your only point I'm not going to bother refuting it because we have no idea how much they "tried" to make it good (saying you aren't trying to make a balanced game is a good excuse when you fail at making a balanced game ). But we do know they do make rules, they release those rules and charge a large amount for those rules. Given we're paying for a premium product I don't think it's too much to ask that they put some effort in to it.

But at the end of day, it is not a balanced game and I don't take issue with people trying to make it more competitive. That's why I find "well X is just as broken" as a bad argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
On the second note, the "you" was a general "you", not a specific "you". it was aimed at the anti-forgeworld camp as a whole.
Though I must say it was quite an impressive turnaround, I'm almost sorry I didn't aim that specifically at you seeing your well-crafted response.

Umm, thanks I guess?

Forge World is as "legal" as anything else. Per the rules now, players must agree to whichever army building restrictions they want.

All this posturing and bullying is pathetic.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Antario wrote:
I don't really like FW as I feel everything about it is bothersome. Rules spread over multiple books which are not all up to date and buying the stuff is a hassle.

How is this different than codex books?

I can find anything I want to know about basic IG in the AM codex. A random FW IG vehicle might be found in a number of IA books or updates. Would it be so fricking hard for GW to put the rules for these units also in the normal codexes? Add in one or two pages with FW model range rules.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Antario wrote:
If GW won't sell it at their stores, won't let you ship it there, and you're officially not allowed to use it in store either. I'm not sure why I should be anymore accommodating...

GW stores don't sell it on the shelf because it's a specialist product. They also don't sell Sisters of Battle without special orders either but nobody seems to begrudge them for that reason. When Battle Bunkers were still a thing they certainly carried FW stuff.

Unlike FW I can order SoB models instore and have it sent to my local GW and without extra cost. I've not yet encountered players who ask if it was alright to use their Battle Fleet Gothic list in a game of 40k. Unlike specialist games FW's IA and Apocalypse units are now an integral part of normal GW game formats, and these models now lack proper support. Store staff don't fully know the rules for these units nor can they look them up quickly or clarify them because they don't have a copy of the books. GW should simply fold FW in to GW and treat their stuff like 40k website exclusives.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If your GW store manager isn't allowing it, report them to their regional manager, they're basically just not wanting to advertise sales that don't apply to their metrics.

Hoenstly, GW didn't create FW and hire people to staff it just for players not to use the stuff....

Seems like the retail side of the company treats it like some under the counter stuff they don't really want to be associated with...I can't get my head around the concept of a company where three departments (stores, webstore and FW) are competing and/or sabotaging each other for sales.

nor is there a digital version by BL.

Since when did that become a requirement? How did people play this game before midway through 6E?

Ever since formations and datasheets became an integral part of the game. In the past I had a small rulebook and all the soft cover codexes that easily fitted in a bag. It was quite convenient at the time. I wouldn't recommend carrying around all the hard copy rules now.

The basic game has already enough rules bloat with formations and supplements to add on a another range of books.

FW has been around much longer than most of that other stuff...

True, but FW was far less accepted before 6th. You certainly didn't have to consider any FW units while building lists for pick up games or events. There was time when even special characters were not considered part of the standard game.

 Antario wrote:

I can find anything I want to know about basic IG in the AM codex. A random FW IG vehicle might be found in a number of IA books or updates. Would it be so fricking hard for GW to put the rules for these units also in the normal codexes? Add in one or two pages with FW model range rules.

It'd be nice...but who knows why GW decides that the main codex books just can't reference FW for some reason aside from occasionally putting in an FW model in a picture.

Unlike FW I can order SoB models instore and have it sent to my local GW and without extra cost.

weird, my local GW (now that one exists) can order FW, not sure where the disconnect is. Mine might just wait until they have a big enough order to do free shipping or something, I dunno. I do know they don't count towards their sales metrics.

Unlike specialist games FW's IA and Apocalypse units are now an integral part of normal GW game formats, and these models now lack proper support.

Rules support for 40k in general is lacking. There is still no rulebook FAQ/Errata and the codex FAQ's are abysmal and short.

Store staff don't fully know the rules for these units nor can they look them up quickly or clarify them because they don't have a copy of the books.

Since when have store staff ever been considered a particularly knowledgable "rules" source? I mean, most actual GW stores are just one guy that usually turns over every year or two now and independent stores certainly aren't going to take up that role as 40k is just one of many products anyway.

GW should simply fold FW in to GW and treat their stuff like 40k website exclusives.

That'd be nice.

Seems like the retail side of the company treats it like some under the counter stuff they don't really want to be associated with...I can't get my head around the concept of a company where three departments (stores, webstore and FW) are competing and/or sabotaging each other for sales.

Who knows. It would be nice if they worked better together certainly.

Ever since formations and datasheets became an integral part of the game. In the past I had a small rulebook and all the soft cover codexes that easily fitted in a bag. It was quite convenient at the time. I wouldn't recommend carrying around all the hard copy rules now.

Not everything has an ebook however even in the main range. IIRC the Militarum Tempestus book has no ebook for example.

True, but FW was far less accepted before 6th. You certainly didn't have to consider any FW units while building lists for pick up games or events. There was time when even special characters were not considered part of the standard game.

What's amusing is that literally nothing about FW changed with 6th, people just finally decided that they'd stop fighting it largely.

 Antario wrote:


I can find anything I want to know about basic IG in the AM codex. A random FW IG vehicle might be found in a number of IA books or updates. Would it be so fricking hard for GW to put the rules for these units also in the normal codexes? Add in one or two pages with FW model range rules.

Yet, with this current book much like with the 3.5/4E version, GW actually cut vehicle choices and punted the ball back to Forgeworld with this one being the Medusa and the Griffon (with the Colossus being a Bombard profile change) all gone. If it hadn't have been for the fact that they gave the Leman Russ and Hellhound actual turret options, I would have bet those would have been cut too. Emperor knows, they could have done the same thing with the Basilisk kit when they re-did that one as well, but GW seemed more wanting to just cut the amount of sprues and charge us the same or higher price it would seem.

I would hope one of the largest and most diverse military organziations in the galaxy would warrant some extra attention in showing the entire armory off, but oh wells.

Really my problem with FW is that it's so expensive for everything, like more than normal GW, and that's not even getting into the superheavies I mean things like if I wanted Death Guard torsos to make good Plague Marines, it'd be like $60 per unit (plus S&H) which is nonsense.

RE: FW's lack of FAQs. That's the same issue we have with the main studio who has FAR more employees available to update them. It's hardly a fair criticism of the much smaller FW department when the bigger one can't manage it.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Really my problem with FW is that it's so expensive for everything, like more than normal GW, and that's not even getting into the superheavies I mean things like if I wanted Death Guard torsos to make good Plague Marines, it'd be like $60 per unit (plus S&H) which is nonsense.

Look at normal GW prices and they're matching FW very quickly. As noted before, many units are now no different from FW equivalents in price. The new Tempestus Scions are the same cost as Death Korps Grenadiers and FW's Phoenix Lord is only like $1 more than GW Phoenix Lords.

To the argument that "Citadel" only encompasses Games Workshop itself (meaning the GW website and LGS'), and that, therefore, Forge World rules and miniatures are illegal in the game, does that mean that every single dataslate and "Digital Editions" is not part of 40k, because it is sold by Black Library (who are, like Forge World, a division of the company and not the company proper and therefore not "Citadel" by this logic)? If not, then you're just making an exception for Black Library for no actual reason.

I can understand rejecting 30k on the basis of it being a different game (not that I would, personally), but the majority of Forge World products are made exclusively for games of 40k, and most of the 30k models have additional rules to fit them into 40k (the Fire Raptor and Storm Eagle are good examples).

To the OP: you shouldn't concern yourself with what people think of you. Bring what you want to bring. Ultimately you play the game for your own enjoyment, and that should take precedence over that of other people, especially given the money involved. What does it matter if people "judge" you or not? That's their problem.

I find it quite curious as to how people can assert the game-breaking dominance of Forge World rules when every single overpowered deathstar or netlist I have ever seen has been based entirely on Codex units. Those infamous examples of 2++ rerollables and whatnot.

I do agree that their rules are all over the place and this can be annoying, although I don't see why this is a reason for not playing them. Would it really hurt to add a simple "The latest rules for this model can be found here" to the blurb of each model, with a link to the relevant book, or even just its name?

someone wrote:forgefriends

That is absolutely brilliant. At first, I thought you were referring to Forgefiends for some strange reason. I am now calling my Forgefiend a Forgefriend (Maulerfriend doesn't have the alliteration).

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
I do agree that their rules are all over the place and this can be annoying, although I don't see why this is a reason for not playing them. Would it really hurt to add a simple "The latest rules for this model can be found here" to the blurb of each model, with a link to the relevant book, or even just its name?

This is my major annoyance with FW stuff. I can't really bring myself to buy any of their books, since I never really know if they are the most up to date. I put my faith in Battlescribe (which is not perfect, I have found a handful of errors in it) to get the rules right, but all it would take is a little spot on each model's page that would tell you where to find relevant rules information.

As for whether or not FW stuff should be legal in play, that is up to the individual players, store, and tournament organizer. Personal opinion, they are just as legal as any other officially produced GW product designed for 40K. If the player I am facing says I can't use my FW stuff, then I will find someone else to play. That is their loss. Fixating on one aspect of a person's army, whether standard Citadel or FW, and refusing to play someone makes you a jerk. There are broken combos in standard codex armies just like in FW (possibly more so). The game is about having fun playing an army, not about winning every time.

I just get PDFs. I've never actually bought a rulebook (more money for miniatures, plus I don't even play that often).

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

You saying it like the Knights FW has put out are really OP, but I fail to see how they are. Plus that's the experimantal rules, so they will probably change when they make it into an actual book (hint: they almost always get nerfed).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

You saying it like the Knights FW has put out are really OP, but I fail to see how they are. Plus that's the experimantal rules, so they will probably change when they make it into an actual book (hint: they almost always get nerfed).

check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now. And yes, not only is the ranged gun superior, but the chance to move 30 inches turn one, along with the auto 4+ shield, and a wrecker of a d weapon in meelee, for 5 points? At least if I charge a regular knight with a warboss and nobz, I strike at the same time, and have a good chance of trading. Here his weapon is I2, meaning he can literally cut down everyone in meelee before that. Anything that has a chance to hurt it that is.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
RE: FW's lack of FAQs. That's the same issue we have with the main studio who has FAR more employees available to update them. It's hardly a fair criticism of the much smaller FW department when the bigger one can't manage it.

Codex: Necrons has a FAQ for a few months now. Guess what Fall of Orpheus has? Nothing. A smaller team leads to slower updates. Refusing to update is shoddy work.

 Orock wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

You saying it like the Knights FW has put out are really OP, but I fail to see how they are. Plus that's the experimantal rules, so they will probably change when they make it into an actual book (hint: they almost always get nerfed).

check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now. And yes, not only is the ranged gun superior, but the chance to move 30 inches turn one, along with the auto 4+ shield, and a wrecker of a d weapon in meelee, for 5 points? At least if I charge a regular knight with a warboss and nobz, I strike at the same time, and have a good chance of trading. Here his weapon is I2, meaning he can literally cut down everyone in meelee before that. Anything that has a chance to hurt it that is.

And yet the general consensus of knight players is that it is NOT any better than a "basic" knight.

That you failed to notice that is gun is a wash (2 S8AP3 large blasts compared to 8 S7AP3 shots, the 8 shots are only better against single-model targets, and inferior against multiwound T4 or hordes), and that while he has better anti-horde CC with the sweep and deflargate, his anti-SH cc is WEAKER because he is S10 and not SD (big difference!), and even with his special rules for extra hits and armorbane, he still puts out LESS damage than a knight against heavy targets.

In fact at a direct fight against other knights, the castigator LOSES.

Yet another disadvantage of the castigator-he has no secondary guns, so he has to charge what he shoots, as he cant ping another unit with a stubber to make it a viable target, and the shorter range makes him unable to influence both sides of the table like "basic" knights can.

Your chose a bad example for your point, as it proves the opposite. he's a sidegrade, not an upgrade.
And honestly, I'd rather fight him than a "basic" knight.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
RE: FW's lack of FAQs. That's the same issue we have with the main studio who has FAR more employees available to update them. It's hardly a fair criticism of the much smaller FW department when the bigger one can't manage it.

Codex: Necrons has a FAQ for a few months now. Guess what Fall of Orpheus has? Nothing. A smaller team leads to slower updates. Refusing to update is shoddy work.

What FAQs does IA12 need exactly? Have you tried emailing them the questions? Have you asked them if they're FAQing? Or are you just bitching on the internet without actually doing anything?

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

You saying it like the Knights FW has put out are really OP, but I fail to see how they are. Plus that's the experimantal rules, so they will probably change when they make it into an actual book (hint: they almost always get nerfed).

check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now. And yes, not only is the ranged gun superior, but the chance to move 30 inches turn one, along with the auto 4+ shield, and a wrecker of a d weapon in meelee, for 5 points? At least if I charge a regular knight with a warboss and nobz, I strike at the same time, and have a good chance of trading. Here his weapon is I2, meaning he can literally cut down everyone in meelee before that. Anything that has a chance to hurt it that is.

And yet the general consensus of knight players is that it is NOT any better than a "basic" knight.

That you failed to notice that is gun is a wash (2 S8AP3 large blasts compared to 8 S7AP3 shots, the 8 shots are only better against single-model targets, and inferior against multiwound T4 or hordes), and that while he has better anti-horde CC with the sweep and deflargate, his anti-SH cc is WEAKER because he is S10 and not SD (big difference!), and even with his special rules for extra hits and armorbane, he still puts out LESS damage than a knight against heavy targets.

In fact at a direct fight against other knights, the castigator LOSES.

Yet another disadvantage of the castigator-he has no secondary guns, so he has to charge what he shoots, as he cant ping another unit with a stubber to make it a viable target, and the shorter range makes him unable to influence both sides of the table like "basic" knights can.

Your chose a bad example for your point, as it proves the opposite. he's a sidegrade, not an upgrade.
And honestly, I'd rather fight him than a "basic" knight.

8 S7 AP3 shots that are capable of shooting at fliers. So that allows it to target some of the units which serve as a counter to the standard knight by way of being untargetable except by its weaker weapons.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
8 S7 AP3 shots that are capable of shooting at fliers. So that allows it to target some of the units which serve as a counter to the standard knight.

Snapfire at Fliers.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
8 S7 AP3 shots that are capable of shooting at fliers. So that allows it to target some of the units which serve as a counter to the standard knight.

Snapfire at Fliers.

Still sending some shots their way as opposed to not being able to shoot at them at all.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
RE: FW's lack of FAQs. That's the same issue we have with the main studio who has FAR more employees available to update them. It's hardly a fair criticism of the much smaller FW department when the bigger one can't manage it.

Codex: Necrons has a FAQ for a few months now. Guess what Fall of Orpheus has? Nothing. A smaller team leads to slower updates. Refusing to update is shoddy work.

What FAQs does IA12 need exactly? Have you tried emailing them the questions? Have you asked them if they're FAQing? Or are you just bitching on the internet without actually doing anything?

E-Mail with no response months ago, 2 actually, one asking if there will be FAQ for 7th just as there were with 6th; a second one as well, asking specific questions in regards to how Kulakh interacts now, if SP get reworked and asking for a re-writing of the FDR.

6th had upfront FAQ. 7th did not. Make a guess.

Orock wrote:

forgefriends

Cute.

Orock wrote:

Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Why don't you explain your rationale behind why you think its so grievously undercosted/overpowered. Looks within the realms of reasonable to me, and no worse than anything found in the codices.

Because posts like yours above aren't doing anything productive for the discussion.

There are plenty of reasons to be annoyed at FW, but I don't think balance is one of them.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
8 S7 AP3 shots that are capable of shooting at fliers. So that allows it to target some of the units which serve as a counter to the standard knight.

Snapfire at Fliers.

Still sending some shots their way as opposed to not being able to shoot at them anyway effectively at all.

And if it shoots at them it can't assault anything. It only has one lonely gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
E-Mail with no response months ago, 2 actually, one asking if there will be FAQ for 7th just as there were with 6th; a second one as well, asking specific questions in regards to how Kulakh interacts now, if SP get reworked and asking for a re-writing of the FDR.

Odd, I got a response about By This Seal within a week. Have you tried emailing them again, or just that initial email? Sometimes things get lost in the shuffle after all.

 Sigvatr wrote:
6th had upfront FAQ. 7th did not. Make a guess.

That 7th caught them off guard with how fast it came out and with what it did to the game?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
6th had upfront FAQ. 7th did not. Make a guess.

That 7th caught them off guard with how fast it came out and with what it did to the game?

So nobody in GW main told Forge World that 7th was coming?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Still sending some shots their way as opposed to not being able to shoot at them anyway effectively at all.

And if it shoots at them it can't assault anything. It only has one lonely gun.

If it comes down to shooting at the Vendetta which next turn could get onto your side and blast you with lascannons or assaulting a unit of guardsmen, which is the better option?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
6th had upfront FAQ. 7th did not. Make a guess.

That 7th caught them off guard with how fast it came out and with what it did to the game?

So nobody in GW main told Forge World that 7th was coming?

I meant more that they may not have seen the final copy before it went to print.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If it comes down to shooting at the Vendetta which next turn could get onto your side and blast you with lascannons or assaulting a unit of guardsmen, which is the better option?

Assault the Guardsmen, because then you can't be shot while locked in combat with them.

Plus I'd rather use anti-air to take care of flyers, not relying on luck (6s followed by 5+s to deal with the Vendetta) to try and solve my flyer problems.

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

O_o

No D weapon.

No ranged weapon capable of harming heavy armor or penetrating a 2+ armor save.

Ranged weapon is half the range of basic GW AP3 cannon knight.

In exchange it gets an enhanced run move and is a better horde-infantry mulcher in close combat.

At most you'll ever have 2 in a Knight list.

Why is this so hideously broken?

 Orock wrote:


check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now.

Except they can and do change things as time goes on even without the Experimental stamp...

And yes, not only is the ranged gun superior

Half the range and lower strength?

but the chance to move 30 inches turn one

If you have absolutely insane dice luck and don't want him to assault/shoot that turn.

along with the auto 4+ shield, and a wrecker of a d weapon in meelee, for 5 points?

Normal Knights get the 4+ invul too, and they get a D weapon, the Castigator does not have a D weapon.

At least if I charge a regular knight with a warboss and nobz, I strike at the same time, and have a good chance of trading. Here his weapon is I2, meaning he can literally cut down everyone in meelee before that. Anything that has a chance to hurt it that is.

Normal Knights are I4 aren't they?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Have you tried emailing them again, or just that initial email?

As above, two e-mails. Right now, I don't care anymore, as I went back to playing 4th.

That 7th caught them off guard with how fast it came out and with what it did to the game?

It's been out for how long now?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Have you tried emailing them again, or just that initial email?

As above, two e-mails. Right now, I don't care anymore, as I went back to playing 4th.

That 7th caught them off guard with how fast it came out and with what it did to the game?

It's been out for how long now?

For how fast FW is on FAQs? Not long.

Since the castigator is.so bad. No one will ever see one in play. Oh.wait, its not bad the FW apologists are just saying that then when it is.taken it will be taken because it is different which somehow doesn't mean better...

blaktoof wrote:
Since the castigator is.so bad. No one will ever see one in play. Oh.wait, its not bad the FW apologists are just saying that then when it is.taken it will be taken because it is different which somehow doesn't mean better...

It's not bad, it's just not better than a regular Knight. It's strengths in munching infantry and a weapon that can potentially hurt fliers (if you're desperate) is met with other weaknesses (no D weapon and a shorter range weapon than other Knights for example). It's a side-grade that costs more than regular Knights and while can be taken in a Knight army, can't outnumber the other kinds of Knights you have, meaning you could take 2 in a 5 Knight army -tops-.

blaktoof wrote:
Since the castigator is.so bad. No one will ever see one in play. Oh.wait, its not bad the FW apologists are just saying that then when it is.taken it will be taken because it is different which somehow doesn't mean better...

???

First off the wording was a bit off. Second off you say "Forge World Apologists" like FW is some kind of malicous society based around punching babies, and those who defend it are similar. Also the point I was trying to make (that you hinted to in a less than subtle manner) was not that "OP units are okay since people just want to run something different" it was "I like running FW to run different options i.e. CCs on tactical marines.

Seriously with each post you people get more vicious and bloodthirsty towards people for using the "wrong" type of toy soldier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'll be frank here anti FW posters, most of you are not helping your argument. Acting like arrogant donkey caves and loudly attacking people for using the wrong type of toy soldiers in the most condescending manner possible, actually just makes people more sympathetic towards people who run FW.

...

On second thought continue using derogatory phrases like "forge friends" and painting FW as an evil OP powerhouse

Dear lord, now we have FW apologists?

 Blacksails wrote:
Dear lord, now we have FW apologists?

I'd rather be a bacon apologist.

Seriously though, the name calling never ends it seems.

 Orock wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

You saying it like the Knights FW has put out are really OP, but I fail to see how they are. Plus that's the experimantal rules, so they will probably change when they make it into an actual book (hint: they almost always get nerfed).

check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now. And yes, not only is the ranged gun superior, but the chance to move 30 inches turn one, along with the auto 4+ shield, and a wrecker of a d weapon in meelee, for 5 points? At least if I charge a regular knight with a warboss and nobz, I strike at the same time, and have a good chance of trading. Here his weapon is I2, meaning he can literally cut down everyone in meelee before that. Anything that has a chance to hurt it that is.

It is hard to read with the font FW uses but it said "EXPERIMENTAL" for a pretty good reason.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
RE: FW's lack of FAQs. That's the same issue we have with the main studio who has FAR more employees available to update them. It's hardly a fair criticism of the much smaller FW department when the bigger one can't manage it.

Codex: Necrons has a FAQ for a few months now. Guess what Fall of Orpheus has? Nothing. A smaller team leads to slower updates. Refusing to update is shoddy work.

The core rulebook still doesn't have an FAQ, the current Tau book was released about the same time as the Fall of Orpheus book, about a month earlier actually, and its FAQ might as well not exist for what its 104 words is worth.

The Necron book has been out since 5E and they just copy/pasted a lot of previously done FAQ stuff.

It's fine to harangue FW for not doing updates, but lets not pretend they're functionally any worse than GW's main studio either.

blaktoof wrote:
Since the castigator is.so bad. No one will ever see one in play. Oh.wait, its not bad the FW apologists are just saying that then when it is.taken it will be taken because it is different which somehow doesn't mean better...

hooray for hyperbole!


Nobody said it was terribad, they said it wasn't broken. It serves a different role than other knights and has different abilities. It's neither spectacular nor craptacular. What it is is not broken (at least not anymoreso than any other Knights). If you've got something to add other than trying to reword other people's statements to fit your narrative, please do so.

Wait a second.

-Lack of logic and/or consistent argument
-Constant use of derogatory phrases
-Putting words in mouhs

Men/Women, We have been trolled!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Dear lord, now we have FW apologists?

I'd rather be a bacon apologist.

Seriously though, the name calling never ends it seems.

Its even more comical when you remember FW is a just a different department in the same company making models for the same game.

I guess its always easier to paint in broad strokes and turn it into an us vs. them, black and white discussion.

 Orock wrote:

check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now.

It may not say experimental in the pdf, but the downloads page from whence you presumably got the direct link for the rules says: "The rules presented here are Experimental rules, still under development, and are not the final version. Experimental rules will change over time before a final version is published."

 Blacksails wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Dear lord, now we have FW apologists?

I'd rather be a bacon apologist.

Seriously though, the name calling never ends it seems.

Its even more comical when you remember FW is a just a different department in the same company making models for the same game.

I guess its always easier to paint in broad strokes and turn it into an us vs. them, black and white discussion.

Well that and demonizing your opponent by putting them into a separate camp makes it easier to ignore any points they bring up.

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 Azreal13 wrote:
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

It's also the lowest form of arguing:

FW Apologists?

Well. They are a subsidiary of Games Workshop.

Next he will blame us that we only claim that so we can take them in our own armies for powergaming reasons, even though some of us don't even play these armies.

I've been in this argument before so many times, it is seriously going back to all the same silly "points" and its not even funny any more.

It feels like I'm arguing with a religious zealot.

 Gashrog wrote:

 Orock wrote:

check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now.

It may not say experimental in the pdf, but the downloads page from whence you presumably got the direct link for the rules says: "The rules presented here are Experimental rules, still under development, and are not the final version. Experimental rules will change over time before a final version is published."

The Imperial Aquila makes it hard to read but I am 100% sure it says experimental.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:


The Imperial Aquila makes it hard to read but I am 100% sure it says experimental.

This link? No, it doesn't say experimental on it, but as was pointed out, the rules there are experimental until published elsewhere...or something.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:


The Imperial Aquila makes it hard to read but I am 100% sure it says experimental.

This link? No, it doesn't say experimental on it, but as was pointed out, the rules there are experimental until published elsewhere...or something.

The actual downloads page http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/fwDownloads


"The rules presented here are Experimental rules, still under development, and are not the final version. Experimental rules will change over time before a final version is published."

Something is written on the aquila and it looks like experimental.

If you could tell me what it says if it isn't "Experimental" I would appreciate it.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Something is written on the aquila and it looks like experimental.

If you could tell me what it says if it isn't "Experimental" I would appreciate it.

It says "Warhammer 40,000" on the Aquila.

Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Something is written on the aquila and it looks like experimental.

If you could tell me what it says if it isn't "Experimental" I would appreciate it.

It says "Warhammer 40,000" on the Aquila.

That makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

I'll say it again GW as a whole needs to get better at writing in general (it is unreadable on my computer)

Forgefiends sounds like a bad name in a bad childrens novel

Rat on yer pa and the forgefiends will get you

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

I expect it'll get nerfed in the future though. That or the Knight will go over 400pts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

I expect it'll get nerfed in the future though. That or the Knight will go over 400pts.

Bump down its ap to 4 or lessen the range

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

It gets Shred and Rending, but loses a point of strength, 24" of range, ordnance special armor penetration, and only gets one shot instead of two. I'd say the Errant is still ahead on that score.

The secondary weapon is obviously better however

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

It gets Shred and Rending, but loses a point of strength, 24" of range, ordnance special armor penetration, and only gets one shot instead of two. I'd say the Errant is still ahead on that score.

The secondary weapon is obviously better however

It has a 12 inch better range and the same amount of shots just ap 3 instead of ap 1

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

It gets Shred and Rending, but loses a point of strength, 24" of range, ordnance special armor penetration, and only gets one shot instead of two. I'd say the Errant is still ahead on that score.

The secondary weapon is obviously better however

It has a 12 inch better range and the same amount of shots just ap 3 instead of ap 1

AP3 can't blow up vehicles. So it'd have to rely on Rending to 1 hit kill vehicles.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

It gets Shred and Rending, but loses a point of strength, 24" of range, ordnance special armor penetration, and only gets one shot instead of two. I'd say the Errant is still ahead on that score.

The secondary weapon is obviously better however

It has a 12 inch better range and the same amount of shots just ap 3 instead of ap 1

Oh wait, is the Errant the melta one?

My mistake in that case.

That said, S8 AP1 Melta vs S7 AP3 Shred/Rending are pretty different roles, and the S8 one won't be much worse than the S7 Shred at killling infantry but significantly better at engaging armor.

Or engaging anything with a 2+ save.
Multiwound T4's, FNP T4's (some units have both)

I'd say its not one sided.

Oh my word, people. "Apologist" isn't an insult. It's a technical term for "someone defending something that is being criticized." That's all it is. There's nothing derogatory or insulting about it.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Oh my word, people. "Apologist" isn't an insult. It's a technical term for "someone defending something that is being criticized." That's all it is. There's nothing derogatory or insulting about it.

"Blonde" isn't an insult either, it's a technical term to describe a certain range of hair colors, but it can still be used as one to imply someone is air-headed and ditzy.

Just because a word has specific definition doesn't take away from the way people use it as a means to belittle other people.

Apologist carries the implication that the thing they're defending has done something wrong.

Some of the FW stuff can be on the powerful side. I believe this was more prevalent in the early days, but the reputation has remained. Certainly, anything they put out today is no more game breaking than other powerful units you find in regular codices.

I think we need forgeworld in 40k, as it help to add more variety and versatility to the xenos races, who do not have the vast allies table of the imperium forces.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Some of the FW stuff can be on the powerful side. I believe this was more prevalent in the early days, but the reputation has remained. Certainly, anything they put out today is no more game breaking than other powerful units you find in regular codices.

I think we need forgeworld in 40k, as it help to add more variety and versatility to the xenos races, who do not have the vast allies table of the imperium forces.

They also have a lot less toys from Forge World compared the the Imperium, so whatever nice stuff xenos get from Forge World, the imperium gets more and can use any of it without hindrances from the allies matrix.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Some of the FW stuff can be on the powerful side. I believe this was more prevalent in the early days, but the reputation has remained. Certainly, anything they put out today is no more game breaking than other powerful units you find in regular codices.

I think we need forgeworld in 40k, as it help to add more variety and versatility to the xenos races, who do not have the vast allies table of the imperium forces.

They also have a lot less toys from Forge World compared the the Imperium, so whatever nice stuff xenos get from Forge World, the imperium gets more and can use any of it without hindrances from the allies matrix.

I think thats more a problem with GW than Forge World. Forge World makes what appears in the fluff and frankly there is more variety in the Imperial lineup.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Some of the FW stuff can be on the powerful side. I believe this was more prevalent in the early days, but the reputation has remained. Certainly, anything they put out today is no more game breaking than other powerful units you find in regular codices.

I think we need forgeworld in 40k, as it help to add more variety and versatility to the xenos races, who do not have the vast allies table of the imperium forces.

They also have a lot less toys from Forge World compared the the Imperium, so whatever nice stuff xenos get from Forge World, the imperium gets more and can use any of it without hindrances from the allies matrix.

I think thats more a problem with GW than Forge World. Forge World makes what appears in the fluff and frankly there is more variety in the Imperial lineup.

Actually not really, considering all you could consider from Chaos and Tyranids and others like DE.

They just like making treads honestly, they admitted as such before.

30k stuff also majorly contributed to that. It also helps that the imperium is multiple armies.

They also have a lot less toys from Forge World compared the the Imperium, so whatever nice stuff xenos get from Forge World, the imperium gets more and can use any of it without hindrances from the allies matrix.

This is of course true, but at least it does still present new tactics and units to the xenos. To the tyrannids for example the introduction of the malanthrope was of far greater importance than anything in the IA: v2 for space marines, in a large part due to the small number of existing options available to tyrannids. (Also because of course is is a pretty decent unit).

FW has also helped out in my games where my armies did not have an updated codex for 6th ed, (or got left out like DA), and had no anti air options in their codex. In my experience FW has actually increased balance in my gaming group rather than the opposite.