Is it balanced? currently no one knows. its too early to say but it seems like a few stuff is ether broken or rushed out from forge worlds side (broken as it it needs an FAQ to function (tau tigershark with macro cannon))
Tournaments you need to ask them.
ask your local group if they want to play with or against it. they have points so you can totally play them in match play
the only places i know that may straight up not allow it is some GW stores as its something that they cannot sell. but that is up to the individual red shirt.
Its as balanced as core GW stuff is. That is - most of it is fine and then there will be overcosted garbage and then there will be undercosted WAAC models that are spammed.
The last time I saw anyone try to stop FW from being allowed was when GW didn't say it was "official"... back in the early 6th edition 40k days. Since they came out and said FW was "official" that argument died on the vine.
I think FW models are generally accepted now, mostly because GW began making super heavy models in the past 10 years or so. Before that FW more or less ment bringing super heavies, which were difficult to deal with and unless you also had a bunch of money to buy your own super heavies. Now you can buy a BaneBlade or Knight from GW and they are as good, if not better than the FW equivilants.
thanks all. i was looking at some of the guard weapons batteries like the manticore and basilisk. aside from the manticore being able to fire all of its missiles on the first turn it just seemed like they may be a little questionable since they are so cheap when compared to the standard AM versions. i just noticed that the manticore battery is also lacking the "doesn't need to be able to see its target" verbiage as well. so odd...
What I have seen (which I will admit is far from everything), I'm going with not balanced, but that is nothing new, FW is notorious for putting out either super broken powerful rules, or over priced garbage.
My biggest complaints so far are
1.) In the base Game T8 is uncommon and T9 is basically unheard of, in FW the latter seems pretty common.
2.) They have a lot of weapons with Dx + y damage, meaning they reliably do more damage than most base game units which either have random, or fixed damage.
3.)Too many things just seem to be 1 step up on the basic rules for no particular reason.
Once codices come out things might be different but right now it seems GW indices are bland toned down units for the most part (not that some are not strong), and FW has more bells and whistles.
I would be for banning FW unit codices are released, but I'd be willing to try playing against it to have my mind changed.
After the Wraithknight, arguments on 'FW is OP while GW os ok' have no base at all.
However, the latest FW indexes came with so many problems that I think it's wise to keep them at arms distance until FWFAQs them. Chaos and Marines alreasy were, at least.
Breng77 wrote: What I have seen (which I will admit is far from everything), I'm going with not balanced, but that is nothing new, FW is notorious for putting out either super broken powerful rules, or over priced garbage.
My biggest complaints so far are
1.) In the base Game T8 is uncommon and T9 is basically unheard of, in FW the latter seems pretty common.
2.) They have a lot of weapons with Dx + y damage, meaning they reliably do more damage than most base game units which either have random, or fixed damage.
3.)Too many things just seem to be 1 step up on the basic rules for no particular reason.
Once codices come out things might be different but right now it seems GW indices are bland toned down units for the most part (not that some are not strong), and FW has more bells and whistles.
I would be for banning FW unit codices are released, but I'd be willing to try playing against it to have my mind changed.
1) The T9+ can be categorised into Astartes Superheavies (Cerberus, Fellblade, Stormbird etc.), Exalted Greater Daemon of Nurgle, Titans (normal ones and the Knight Porphyrion), massive fortifications (Imperial Fortress Walls, Necron Tomb Citadel...), Eldar Titans and Bray'arth Ashmantle. The one reason it seems to be common is because the units are huge and/or incredibly well armoured and limiting them to the same toughness as normal heavy vehicles would be silly. Why limit units to T8 when you have a scale that can go beyond that? I think at least Land Raiders or Monoliths could have been T9 as well.
2) This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it gives them a less swingy damage profile. In fact, making everything random was probably a mistake by GW.
3) And many of GW's things are simply a step up of their own. If we're talking about more expensive ones, such as the Fellblade, it was designed to be a better Baneblade. If we're talking straight up better ones (Earthshaker Platform vs Basilisk), then yes, some of the FW units are better. But the basic idea of FW was to design units with more bells and whistles, and there is nothing wrong with designing a Mars-Alpha Leman Russ when you already have a normal one. I consider it a failure on GW's part that they have made so many bland and uninteresting units.
But the general problem with many of Forge World's units are that you don't see them often enough. In tournaments, people will take whatever is superior. If a Forge World heavy support is the best in slot, you will take that one unit (Skathach Wraithknight comes to mind), and you will never use the ones which are inferior. This means that the most commonly encountered units being the most broken ones, and since Forge World is more niche, the balanced units are only rarely seen, leading to the perception that most of FW's units are overpowered. This problem exists for codex units as well, but they are both cheaper and easier to get for the general playerbase as they are usually stocked in your LGS.
Right now, Forge World is in a bad state because of the rushed indices, but it should not reflect on your perception of their units and once we get some FAQ/Errata, I think we'll be a better spot.
Edit: I'd just give a good comparison. The Atlas Recovery Tank is T7 W11 3+, and armed with a heavy bolter. The only distinct ability it has is that it can repair a single vehicle within 3" for D3 wounds once per turn. 98 points. The Trojan is T7 W10 3+, armed with a heavy bolter, and it can make a single vehicle within 6" re-roll any failed hits during shooting. 98 points.
I have never seen nor can I imagine anyone taking an Atlas. It deals very little damage and it generally heals a vehicle for 2 wounds per turn. For those points, you could have 4 Lascannon Teams or 12 Mortar Teams. Yes, healing my wounded tanks are nice but as it is generally better to cripple one than glance two, I don't see much value in it. Compare this to the Trojan, which can increase any tanks shooting by a lot (Giving us a 75% chance to hit instead of 50% for BS4+). If you buff a Baneblade, you get 50% more shooting for for less than 20% of the cost! That one is really good if you can team it up with a superheavy tank, but quite balanced if you give it to a Leman Russ.
Or another, shorter comparison. The Death Korps army list is about equal to the AM one, with some bonuses for a slight cost both in points and available equipment and units, but overall I think it's a quite balanced list compared to GW's AM. The Renegades and Heretics Army list is straight up worse, as your unique units are almost as expensive while being much less effective. Meanwhile, in the Elysian corner, every unit has Deep Strike, giving us untold opportunities to get plasma guns within 9", and I believe the list itself might be one of the very best in the game.
Besides a brief foray in Warhammer Fantasy 25 years ago, My experience with the hobby started in early 7th so there is a lot I don't know. My question is, aren't GW and Forgeworld part of the same corporation? So you are telling me in the past GW said forgeworld models were not official? That is crazy.
I use a Kharybdis Assault Claw and, while some of my opponents would disagree, it is perfectly balanced. It gets easily blown to bits by concentrated fire while having the ability to dish out a metric feth ton of damage should it be allowed to live.
ITC has decided for the BAO that they won't allow any single model with a PL of 31 and up, which eliminates a lot of the super huge FW units. I expect we will see more tournaments do this and it will start to become the norm in matched play.
Breng77 wrote: What I have seen (which I will admit is far from everything), I'm going with not balanced, but that is nothing new, FW is notorious for putting out either super broken powerful rules, or over priced garbage.
My biggest complaints so far are
1.) In the base Game T8 is uncommon and T9 is basically unheard of, in FW the latter seems pretty common.
2.) They have a lot of weapons with Dx + y damage, meaning they reliably do more damage than most base game units which either have random, or fixed damage.
3.)Too many things just seem to be 1 step up on the basic rules for no particular reason.
Once codices come out things might be different but right now it seems GW indices are bland toned down units for the most part (not that some are not strong), and FW has more bells and whistles.
I would be for banning FW unit codices are released, but I'd be willing to try playing against it to have my mind changed.
1) The T9+ can be categorised into Astartes Superheavies (Cerberus, Fellblade, Stormbird etc.), Exalted Greater Daemon of Nurgle, Titans (normal ones and the Knight Porphyrion), massive fortifications (Imperial Fortress Walls, Necron Tomb Citadel...), Eldar Titans and Bray'arth Ashmantle. The one reason it seems to be common is because the units are huge and/or incredibly well armoured and limiting them to the same toughness as normal heavy vehicles would be silly. Why limit units to T8 when you have a scale that can go beyond that? I think at least Land Raiders or Monoliths could have been T9 as well.
2) This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it gives them a less swingy damage profile. In fact, making everything random was probably a mistake by GW.
3) And many of GW's things are simply a step up of their own. If we're talking about more expensive ones, such as the Fellblade, it was designed to be a better Baneblade. If we're talking straight up better ones (Earthshaker Platform vs Basilisk), then yes, some of the FW units are better. But the basic idea of FW was to design units with more bells and whistles, and there is nothing wrong with designing a Mars-Alpha Leman Russ when you already have a normal one. I consider it a failure on GW's part that they have made so many bland and uninteresting units.
But the general problem with many of Forge World's units are that you don't see them often enough. In tournaments, people will take whatever is superior. If a Forge World heavy support is the best in slot, you will take that one unit (Skathach Wraithknight comes to mind), and you will never use the ones which are inferior. This means that the most commonly encountered units being the most broken ones, and since Forge World is more niche, the balanced units are only rarely seen, leading to the perception that most of FW's units are overpowered. This problem exists for codex units as well, but they are both cheaper and easier to get for the general playerbase as they are usually stocked in your LGS.
Right now, Forge World is in a bad state because of the rushed indices, but it should not reflect on your perception of their units and once we get some FAQ/Errata, I think we'll be a better spot.
Edit: I'd just give a good comparison. The Atlas Recovery Tank is T7 W11 3+, and armed with a heavy bolter. The only distinct ability it has is that it can repair a single vehicle within 3" for D3 wounds once per turn. 98 points. The Trojan is T7 W10 3+, armed with a heavy bolter, and it can make a single vehicle within 6" re-roll any failed hits during shooting. 98 points.
I have never seen nor can I imagine anyone taking an Atlas. It deals very little damage and it generally heals a vehicle for 2 wounds per turn. For those points, you could have 4 Lascannon Teams or 12 Mortar Teams. Yes, healing my wounded tanks are nice but as it is generally better to cripple one than glance two, I don't see much value in it. Compare this to the Trojan, which can increase any tanks shooting by a lot (Giving us a 75% chance to hit instead of 50% for BS4+). If you buff a Baneblade, you get 50% more shooting for for less than 20% of the cost! That one is really good if you can team it up with a superheavy tank, but quite balanced if you give it to a Leman Russ.
Or another, shorter comparison. The Death Korps army list is about equal to the AM one, with some bonuses for a slight cost both in points and available equipment and units, but overall I think it's a quite balanced list compared to GW's AM. The Renegades and Heretics Army list is straight up worse, as your unique units are almost as expensive while being much less effective. Meanwhile, in the Elysian corner, every unit has Deep Strike, giving us untold opportunities to get plasma guns within 9", and I believe the list itself might be one of the very best in the game.
1.) I agree with there is no reason to have limited things to T8, but my point is for whatever reason GW did, and if a land raider is T8 things like Brayarth shouldn't be T9 (especially with the character rule, a 2+ save, and 4+ "FNP"), you can argue that Landraiders and Monoliths should be T9 or 10, but they aren't, so FW stuff being such is a significant difference. I mean things like the Stompa and Baneblade are also not T9 so why are so many FW things? For super expensive stuff ok, but things like the stompa are almost 1000 points, and don't have T9. Should it be the top no-not necessarily, but if Dreadnaughts (like brayarth) have higher T, it seems a bit off, (when they also have a better save, and FNP) For me why not make Brayarth +1 T on a regular dread (so T8) and 2+ save, and give him maybe 5+ FNP, then instead of giving him his own special flamers, give him dual flamestorm cannons. You would make him a bit cheaper, but it would make more sense, instead of making him impossible to kill.
2.) See response 1, in principle I agree, but when GW didn't do this for anything and FW does, it makes a line where some things are just way better (take the necron pylon that can fairly easily oneshot a stompa, or basically any other vehicle).
3.) This is where I have problems with FW, I would rather their design just be alternate versions, not ones with more bells and whistles. So you want a Mars Pattern Leman Russ, cool, but it should function basically like a leman russ, maybe with different (appropriately costed) weapon choices.
I agree that there is an issue with people taking broken stuff en masse, and that it happens on both sides, and it is bad on both sides (Fw and Not), I do feel though that the current GW stuff has seen more testing and was less rushed than the FW stuff. Part of me really wishes FW would no longer write unit rules, and that GW would just release rules for all models (FW and otherwise), as I think the design vision would be more balanced.
Claas wrote: Besides a brief foray in Warhammer Fantasy 25 years ago, My experience with the hobby started in early 7th so there is a lot I don't know. My question is, aren't GW and Forgeworld part of the same corporation? So you are telling me in the past GW said forgeworld models were not official? That is crazy.
They are the same company, but the rules are written by different people, seemingly without reguard for game balance. This used to be a lot worse in 5th edition etc, when most fw units were basically apocalypse only with very powerful abilities and points that doesn't always make sense.
Now most of the units are in line with 40k rules and stats, but there are always few things that are possibly too powerful for their points. There is also the issue of some of the very large units (mostly the things with 30+ power level) simply being too powerful to be balanced in games under 2000 points, whether they are forge world or not. Mostly it is up to TOs to communicate with their players and see if they enjoy playing with these models or not.
Brutallica wrote: The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.
Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...
Brutallica wrote: The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.
Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...
And your 8th ed examples are? I think if we saw more FW stuff you may not feel the same way. Yeah 7th was a giant mess, but if the idea is that 8th is addressing that, and FW stuff doesn't fit the same mold I would think it is a problem.
Brutallica wrote: The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.
Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...
Let go of that anger. What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?
The comment you're quoting is talking about indexes, not 7th.
Brutallica wrote: The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.
Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...
Let go of that anger. What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?
I'd say 2 point brims and storm ravens are worse than most FW personally.
Brutallica wrote: The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.
Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...
Let go of that anger. What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?
I'd say 2 point brims and storm ravens are worse than most FW personally.
"most"? I mean, no one is saying that everything FW is OP.
I feel like a T9 landraider would be a terrible idea. It's cost would need to shoot way up as S8/9 weapons would be crippled and S10 weapons are not terribly common either.
Fw problems outside sloppy rushed rules that I expect to be updated constantly to be balanced like 8th is suppose to be doing.
1) inconsistent rules updates (it wasn't uncommon for people to play 7th ed with 5th ed rules) no idea if this is changing in 8th
2) 1 uping gw rules for no reason but to sell models
3) models are expensive and constantly go out of production to never be seen from again leading to A LOT of fw models being recast or entire armies like dkok. There is a reason why most recaster catalogs are mostly fw.
4) which leads us to the fact many flgs and some gw stores don't allow fw models. Because they don't sell them.
So this brings up ur request of the basilisk carriage which fw no longer sells. So your either scratch building which I've rarely ever seen while playing this game or buying from z or another recaster. There isn't even a listing on eBay for this model so you can't even play that card. So what's the reason to play forgeworld? So you can play select overpowered undercosted models stolen by recasters. I don't see how in any shape or form this is healthy for the game.
Saying that my entire guard army is dkok w some steel legion models as conscripts. I like the look of them and have excess cash so why not. I'm not against forgeworld in games as I like more models but I honestly never thought it is healthy for the game.
No, but neither is GW, really. GW has a history of much more egregious balance issues than FW, and FW tends to err on the underpowered side. However... a larger % of FW units are OP than the % of GW units.
do most places allow it in tournaments?
Never been to one.
do you use it in normal matched play games?
I have never met someone who would allow me to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: I feel like a T9 landraider would be a terrible idea. It's cost would need to shoot way up as S8/9 weapons would be crippled and S10 weapons are not terribly common either.
Forgeworld is not balanced. While in general it may not be too broken, there are a few isolated cases where they have made a unit far too strong for its price, but that's all you're going to see, because competitive players will spam them.
People are talking about how strong Roboute is but you don't see Ultramarines /w Roboute dominating the tournaments. His greatest strength is buffing what is around him, and that stuff dies just as fast as ever. Azrael is actually a stronger force multiplier due to the 4++ bubble.
Brutallica wrote: The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.
Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...
Let go of that anger. What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?
I'd say 2 point brims and storm ravens are worse than most FW personally.
"most"? I mean, no one is saying that everything FW is OP.
The main problem with FW for me is that they have a tendency to write very... "unique" rules that are easy to play wrong. I still use it and don't have an issue with others using it, of course, but I expect the rules to be easily accessible by both players so that FW's wackier stuff doesn't end up more powerful than written.
FW in general has been fine historically. The current batch of stuff has issues and was very poorly developed, reading through the 8E FW books you get the feel that FW found out about 8E the same way the rest of us did and had the new shop intern write the rules for everything at the last minute as rules details were leaked, with predictable outcomes. There are things that dont work right or at all, things that are either plainly stupidly overcapable or over stat'd (e.g. SM superheavy tanks vs IG superheavy tanks..why is a Fellblade easily twice as resilient as a Baneblade?) and plainly underpowered/pointless units. It is the way of Games Workshop as a whole. It is very clear zero playtesting, proof reading, or extended effort went into these FW releases, though it doesnt appear there was much done with the core GW stuff either.
That said, everything we have for 8E is temporary and placeholder. We'll get new rules for everything over time here, lets hope they improve.
Brutallica wrote: The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.
Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...
Let go of that anger. What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?
I'd say 2 point brims and storm ravens are worse than most FW personally.
"most"? I mean, no one is saying that everything FW is OP.
But he did awnser your question.
Well not really. If the most unbalanced GW is only more unbalanced than "most" FW, then that means there is something from FW that is more unbalanced than the most unbalanced from GW.
No one is claiming that FW is unbalanced in every unit, it's only the edge cases that we're looking at, so we're not comparing it to "most" FW.
FirePainter wrote: So why are the edge cases of GW getting a pass? If most GW and most FW is fine and dandy why distinguish between the two?
brims and storm ravens and y'varha and malenthropes and etc etc should have their points adjusted and that should be the issue not the source IMO.
No one is giving them a pass. Those things are most probably OP. The case here was that the GW stuff was MORE op than the FW stuff. You have to keep reminding yourself what the actual discussion is.
FirePainter wrote: So why are the edge cases of GW getting a pass? If most GW and most FW is fine and dandy why distinguish between the two?
brims and storm ravens and y'varha and malenthropes and etc etc should have their points adjusted and that should be the issue not the source IMO.
No one is giving them a pass. Those things are most probably OP. The case here was that the GW stuff was MORE op than the FW stuff. You have to keep reminding yourself what the actual discussion is.
I can't speak for the original poster, but other than maybe the Gauss Pylon I haven't seen anything as busted as brimstones or stormravens in the FW indices. On the contrary, most of the extreme outliers are on the other end of the scale (I'm talking to you Renegades and Heretics).
First of all, as a tzeentch player I'mma say his right now, brimstones are properly costed. You can't make them cost more cause than you compare then to guard and gaunts. I will admit the 4++ invul makes them very resilient, s1 makes them very weak though. I have literally dished out three non smite wounds from them.
Now, most people complain about them because they shoot them expecting them to die, they are literally there to do nothing but get shot instead of characters. If they had any sort of offensive ability they would need to cost more. But right now they have on avg 2 smites a game if people happen to be in range of it. Their entire job is to take bullets as a screen for the heralds/characters. If you make them cost more it becomes way too much to field them for this job. The best thing for them I think is to just lose ephereal form(+1 invul) they'd still have an invul and try and stay alive a bit. But you could spam them to make up for this. Don't forget they have ZERO morale mitigation and you don't actually have to kill an entire squad, just half.
That being said, as far as fw goes, look at the chaos book and tell me if you think 40 s8 ap-1 d2 shots that also give -2 ld to things they hit, and 108 heavy boltor shots behind 70 bodies is broken? Having played with and against cheese well over two dozen games so far with both smite spam tzeentch, and full chaos shooty (opponents being am, sm, nids, Orks, sob, necrons, sw, and Tau) and I can confidently say that there is so much "op" running around it straight comes down to player skill. Gw and fw be damned, gone are the days people won with a power list before even showing up. Use real skill or lose! Muahaha
FirePainter wrote: So why are the edge cases of GW getting a pass? If most GW and most FW is fine and dandy why distinguish between the two?
brims and storm ravens and y'varha and malenthropes and etc etc should have their points adjusted and that should be the issue not the source IMO.
No one is giving them a pass. Those things are most probably OP. The case here was that the GW stuff was MORE op than the FW stuff. You have to keep reminding yourself what the actual discussion is.
I can't speak for the original poster, but other than maybe the Gauss Pylon I haven't seen anything as busted as brimstones or stormravens in the FW indices. On the contrary, most of the extreme outliers are on the other end of the scale (I'm talking to you Renegades and Heretics).
I think there are more than you think as far as NPE go, the Greater Daemon models especially Tzeentch, the pylon, Brayarth is pretty stupid. Just because GW makes some stupid units (Ravens and Brims need fixing too) doesn't mean adding more things that are busted helps. There is also the issue that FW stuff leads very much to skew lists (it is powerful and expensive) meaning if you can handle it, great, but the game is probably over fast and is boring, if you cannot, great the game is probably over fast and is boring. I would argue that on a unit to unit basis, the FW stuff is more broken (ravens are broken because you can field an entire army of them, if you stop that they are not as good, but you could also fix their points, but I think the Air Wing Detachment being a thing is bad for the game, but then I think the super heavy detachment is bad for the game.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ecdain wrote: First of all, as a tzeentch player I'mma say his right now, brimstones are properly costed. You can't make them cost more cause than you compare then to guard and gaunts. I will admit the 4++ invul makes them very resilient, s1 makes them very weak though. I have literally dished out three non smite wounds from them.
Now, most people complain about them because they shoot them expecting them to die, they are literally there to do nothing but get shot instead of characters. If they had any sort of offensive ability they would need to cost more. But right now they have on avg 2 smites a game if people happen to be in range of it. Their entire job is to take bullets as a screen for the heralds/characters. If you make them cost more it becomes way too much to field them for this job. The best thing for them I think is to just lose ephereal form(+1 invul) they'd still have an invul and try and stay alive a bit. But you could spam them to make up for this. Don't forget they have ZERO morale mitigation and you don't actually have to kill an entire squad, just half.
That being said, as far as fw goes, look at the chaos book and tell me if you think 40 s8 ap-1 d2 shots that also give -2 ld to things they hit, and 108 heavy boltor shots behind 70 bodies is broken? Having played with and against cheese well over two dozen games so far with both smite spam tzeentch, and full chaos shooty (opponents being am, sm, nids, Orks, sob, necrons, sw, and Tau) and I can confidently say that there is so much "op" running around it straight comes down to player skill. Gw and fw be damned, gone are the days people won with a power list before even showing up. Use real skill or lose! Muahaha
Maybe if they couldn't take smite, but with it they are more effective than guard or gaunts for cheaper. They also let you easily fill up detachments for high CP.
Smite for horrors is on 1d6, literally your going to see 2 go off for at max 6 wounds. That's if they survive the whole game. Gaunts have so much more threat potential it's crazy. If I had to single out one op mother trucker in the book, it's the changeling. That guy easily needs to be double his pts. -1 to hit my whole army? Only 100 pts? Yeah okay. It's this guy that makes horror spam broken giving them all -1 to hit against them.
Distinguishing between Forge World and GW is silly.
If you don't like OP units, banning Forge World's indexes and keeping GW's won't make them go away any more than banning Games Workshop indexes and keeping Forge World's will.
Premise 1: Competitive players will spam the most OP unit. Premise 2: The most OP unit will exist whether it's from Forge World or not. Conclusion: Banning Forge World does nothing to inhibit spamming the most OP unit.
Premise 1: Forge World adds extra options for non-competitive players to bring. Premise 2: Removing options for non-competitive players is only a bad thing. Conclusion: Banning Forge World is a bad thing.
From these two arguments, you can see that banning Forge World does not help the competitive scene and only hurts the casual scene.
If you don't like OP units, banning Forge World's indexes and keeping GW's won't make them go away any more than banning Games Workshop indexes and keeping Forge World's will.
Premise 1:
Competitive players will spam the most OP unit.
Premise 2:
The most OP unit will exist whether it's from Forge World or not.
Conclusion: Banning Forge World does nothing to inhibit spamming the most OP unit.
Premise 1:
Forge World adds extra options for non-competitive players to bring.
Premise 2:
Removing options for non-competitive players is only a bad thing.
Conclusion:
Banning Forge World is a bad thing.
From these two arguments, you can see that banning Forge World does not help the competitive scene and only hurts the casual scene.
Premise 1- FW adds more Skew lists to the game
Premise 2- Skew lists make for NPE
Conclusion- Banning FW leads to fewer NPEs.
Premise 1 - not all OP units are equal
conclusion - the addition of FW may lead to OP units that are less fun to play against than the OP units in the standard game.
Premise 1- Tournament Bans don't necessarily effect the casual scene
conclusion: banning Forge world does not hurt the casual scene, unless that scene chooses it to, similarly allowing FW in tournament in no way forces the casual scene to accept them.
Premise 1- people were generally unhappy with needing multiple books to know what armies did in 7th
Premise 2- FW leads to situations where armies need multiple books to function
conclusion: FW's inclusion will make a not insignificant people unhappy.
There is thinking among FW proponents that because GW produces OP units adding more to the game doesn't matter. This is a flawed premise. Lets accept that Brimstone Horrors are broken, allowing that player to add a giant flying chicken of destruction (I cannot spell his name) to them doesn't make the game better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ecdain wrote: Smite for horrors is on 1d6, literally your going to see 2 go off for at max 6 wounds. That's if they survive the whole game. Gaunts have so much more threat potential it's crazy. If I had to single out one op mother trucker in the book, it's the changeling. That guy easily needs to be double his pts. -1 to hit my whole army? Only 100 pts? Yeah okay. It's this guy that makes horror spam broken giving them all -1 to hit against them.
Termagants have 11 T 3 wounds with 6+ saves average 0.9 wounds per turn in shooting against marines, or assault, have max 12" range. If they survive all game for a 6 turn game They will average 6 wounds in the entire game. This goes down if any models die. So their damage reduces with every wound, it also goes down if the unit has a better save, or higher toughness than 4 and they are significantly less durable than the Brims. They put out slightly more damage against GEQ (14.67 wounds) than Brims, but not by much.
The Brim squads have 20 T3 wounds with a 4++, They average 2.333 wounds per turn against marines, at 18" range, a bit more in combat. If they survive all game for 6 turns that is 14 wounds. These wound against any toughness value Their offensive output does not significantly decrease until the whole unit dies. Tell me again how gaunts have so much more threat potential.
Seems like from this they should cost 3 points each, then it would be 9 + blue for 32. Still be more durable than the Gaunts, and put out the same threat as the Gaunts.
Well, we could ban all non-Codex: Space Marine lists as well to reduce the number of possible options. Or maybe everything but basic Marines? That way everything will be happy following the premise that adding skew makes people unhappy I guess....
Banning options has never been a good strategy in my opinion, and a blanket ban on some publications because "some of the units are OP" is frankly stupid. If we have a hundred units, ten of which are OP, ban those ten and let the other ninety be used. However, this will almost never reflect reality. In stores, the owner will decide what is legal or not. In friendly games, you will hopefully be able to discuss what you're allowed to bring. In tournament's, it's up to the organiser and from what I've seen, they frequently make some changes to the broken units or ban just them.
I think everyone should get a single model, and then the game should be immediately determined by whoever rolls higher on a single d6. You can't balance a game better than that.
If you don't like OP units, banning Forge World's indexes and keeping GW's won't make them go away any more than banning Games Workshop indexes and keeping Forge World's will.
Premise 1:
Competitive players will spam the most OP unit.
Premise 2:
The most OP unit will exist whether it's from Forge World or not.
Conclusion: Banning Forge World does nothing to inhibit spamming the most OP unit.
Premise 1:
Forge World adds extra options for non-competitive players to bring.
Premise 2:
Removing options for non-competitive players is only a bad thing.
Conclusion:
Banning Forge World is a bad thing.
From these two arguments, you can see that banning Forge World does not help the competitive scene and only hurts the casual scene.
Premise 1- FW adds more Skew lists to the game
Premise 2- Skew lists make for NPE
Conclusion- Banning FW leads to fewer NPEs.
conclusion - the addition of FW may lead to OP units that are less fun to play against than the OP units in the standard game.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise: You're missing quite a few premises. In fact, I can't even follow your logic at all right now - are you saying that FW may make a unit that is unfun to play against and should be banned? Because GW, also, could make an unfun unit to play against worse than Forge World's, so utilizing the same logic one could say we should keep the FW rules and ban the GW ones. This is not a strike against Forge World, it is a strike against making unfun units from either publisher, since we're treating them as equals. Remember what I said: Treating the two as separate is silly. If you consider banning one for a reason, consider that you may have to ban the other for the same reason.
Premise 1- Tournament Bans don't necessarily effect the casual scene
conclusion: banning Forge world does not hurt the casual scene, unless that scene chooses it to, similarly allowing FW in tournament in no way forces the casual scene to accept them.
Premise 1: Competitive players need to practice for tournaments.
Premise 2: For a tournament practice to be useful, it must follow those tournament rules.
Premise 3: Competitive players use their home clubs to practice for tournaments.
Conclusion: home clubs end up with the same rules as tournaments, at least for some games.
Premise 1- people were generally unhappy with needing multiple books to know what armies did in 7th
Premise 2- FW leads to situations where armies need multiple books to function
conclusion: FW's inclusion will make a not insignificant people unhappy.
Premise 1: It is bad to put some people's happiness over the happiness of more people.
Premise 2: More people would be upset by banning Forge World than would be upset by allowing it.
Conclusion: Banning Forge World is bad.
There is thinking among FW proponents that because GW produces OP units adding more to the game doesn't matter. This is a flawed premise. Lets accept that Brimstone Horrors are broken, allowing that player to add a giant flying chicken of destruction (I cannot spell his name) to them doesn't make the game better.
You are correct, but the discussion is not about whether we should ban the 'giant flying chicken of destruction' - it is about whether we should ban a whole category of models and units. Allowing people to add fluffy options like Leman Russ Annihilators or Malanthropes to their army is objectively better than disallowing them.
Feel free to ban the OP models if you don't just categorically ban an entire collection.
My premise is FW may lead to more OP units in the game, this is not debatable, and those they have tend to be more extreme than those put out by GW as far as skew.
Tournament Practice =/= Casual play, so you cannot say that tournaments banning effects casual scene, if that scene is not casual. It may effect some clubs that are on the less casual end.
I disagree- with your premise that more people would be upset by banning FW, than would be by including it. I think those crowds are at best equal.
Premise- most players don't own any FW models and as such would be unaffected by a ban.
In my area for example such a ban would impact maybe 1 or 2 people, and not one person has an entire FW army. SO by your own premise in my area if more than 2 people are upset by FW I should ban them if I were to run an event.
As for banning Individual models, that has rarely gone well, it is (however you may dislike it) more well received to have blanket bans. The BAO is banning all units above 30 PL, which includes more FW models than GW models. Not all of these models are broken, but it is more well received by people to ban them all than to only pick the broken models.
People are more upset when their special snowflake unit is banned and some other persons is not. That is just how humans react to things.
Further if there are a lot of rules issues in the current FW books it is better to have a blanket ban than risk those going unaddressed and leading to bad player experiences.
Like I said I wish FW would stop writing rules, and just make units that GW would release data slates for, written by the GW design studio.
So if the crowds that would love/hate FW being banned are equal...then what would be the point of doing so? Either way, half of the player base is unhappy, so banning FW is senseless.
My premise is FW may lead to more OP units in the game, this is not debatable, and those they have tend to be more extreme than those put out by GW as far as skew.
Tournament Practice =/= Casual play, so you cannot say that tournaments banning effects casual scene, if that scene is not casual. It may effect some clubs that are on the less casual end.
I disagree- with your premise that more people would be upset by banning FW, than would be by including it. I think those crowds are at best equal.
Premise- most players don't own any FW models and as such would be unaffected by a ban.
In my area for example such a ban would impact maybe 1 or 2 people, and not one person has an entire FW army. SO by your own premise in my area if more than 2 people are upset by FW I should ban them if I were to run an event.
As for banning Individual models, that has rarely gone well, it is (however you may dislike it) more well received to have blanket bans. The BAO is banning all units above 30 PL, which includes more FW models than GW models. Not all of these models are broken, but it is more well received by people to ban them all than to only pick the broken models.
People are more upset when their special snowflake unit is banned and some other persons is not. That is just how humans react to things.
Further if there are a lot of rules issues in the current FW books it is better to have a blanket ban than risk those going unaddressed and leading to bad player experiences.
Like I said I wish FW would stop writing rules, and just make units that GW would release data slates for, written by the GW design studio.
Whew there is a lot to go over in this post.
I disagree that skew lists cause NPEs. In fact, I rather enjoy playing against skew lists, as it is very challenging to preserve what inadequate antitank I have in a TAC army against a wall of tanks. It's challenging and fun! I rarely win, but that's not the point.
Tournament practice absolutely affects casual play. I can't even count the number of times I've gone to a wargaming night and the club says "We use the ITC (or whatever tournament) rules because they're the major tournament rules", and I've been to at least 10 different clubs in 6 different cities in four countries on two continents. In fact, I think to suggest that clubs are unaffected by what tournaments rule is either incredibly disingenuous at worst or inexperienced at best.
In my experience, most people like having Forge World in the game. I've played a Forge-World only army (Armoured Battlegroup) since it dropped in 5e, and have never had a game turned down 'because it was forge world.' This means the number of people that actively dislike Forge World is either very small, or I am incredibly lucky - and my playmates will tell you I am not lucky!
Simply because a player does not own a Forge World model does not mean they will be unaffected. My friends often requested to play my Armoured Battlegroup because it was nicely painted and they wanted to take photos of the game, or they wanted to see what my latest purchase could do and if they could counter it. If Forge World didn't exist, those games wouldn't be played.
There aren't that many rules issues in the current FW Books that can't be addressed without common-sense - though yes, if you only run the rules like a computer programme there are quite a few issues. I would note that those issues absolutely exist in the Games Workshop rules as well.
If GW's design team wrote the rules for the models there is no guarantee it would be any better, so I fail to see why this is important, but sure that'd be fine with me. Heck, I'd be even happier if I got to write the rules for them! >
Its interesting to note that every time GW has taken over rules for an FW model, those rules have been dramatically more powerful than the FW incarnation.
Additionally, we have units that were GW, but that are now FW, and some that have swapped back and forth multiple times. The Griffon being an excellent example (codex unit in 2E and early 3E, FW from late 3E through 4E, GW in 5E and back to FW with 6E).
Ultimately, FW does and always will write rules. They do stuff that either the core studio isnt interested in, wants to test the waters on, or cant do in plastic, but that still exists in the 40k universe or has some sort of demand. Core GW isnt going to take all of thosr over, they dont have the interest.
We're dealing with a haphazard edition change, yet again, and rushed army lists, as is tradition. Yes, FW put out some garbage. So did core GW. We'll have to see if they live up to their promise of a living ruleset and do regulars, meaningful updates. If so, most issues should work out over time. If not, banning FW isnt going to make the problem go away, as 7E illustrated.
It is commonly accepted by most people that playing games where you stand little to no chance to win is an NPE especially in a tournament (the only place a ban actually matters).
Tournaments effect club play, but I would argue that clubs using ITC because those are major tournaments are not casual. They are clubs concerned with playing tournaments. I'm not insinuating that there is no trickle down that may make it tough to find a casual game, I'm arguing that people that insist on playing with a tournament packet are competitive players not casual.
Most people don't care about FW on a casual basis, I don't I've never refused a game do to FW. They care about it in a competitive setting, which is where a ban would matter.
A player that owns no FW will not be affected by tournament rules disallow FW models. Casual games would still happen in this case, no one would stop your friends from facing your armored BG list, it just wouldn't happen in a tournament.
Common sense works well as long as you are playing not in a tournament, as soon as winning is on the line, someone is going to argue that RAW, something is broken. SO it would require at least an event level FAQ to solve the issues, or multiple judge rulings.
My assumption about the design team writing the rules is that the FW rules would then receive the exact same level of testing, and be written with the same design philosophy. That may or may not make them more balanced, but it is obvious to me that those things are lacking in the current FW rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The other issue, is will FW update things. GW has indicated they will be making balance changes, points costs changes etc on a regular basis. Now maybe they won't live up to that, but since FW is a different studio we have no idea if they will do the same.
That's the funny part. While arguing about whether or not a ban is even sensible, I have yet to see proof of a FW unit which is as broken as a GW unit.
I do recognize that the current meta is unstable and that such problems may not have presented themselves, but the same is true of Games Workshop's meta as well.
andysonic1 wrote: I use a Kharybdis Assault Claw and, while some of my opponents would disagree, it is perfectly balanced. It gets easily blown to bits by concentrated fire while having the ability to dish out a metric feth ton of damage should it be allowed to live.
ITC has decided for the BAO that they won't allow any single model with a PL of 31 and up, which eliminates a lot of the super huge FW units. I expect we will see more tournaments do this and it will start to become the norm in matched play.
See, it's not Forgeworld is imbalanced, it's what you can do with the seemingly balanced models. I agree that the KAC is not imbalanced, but it's awfully good for the points.
Put a Sorcerer and a squad of Noise Marines into the KAC. Deep strike near your opponent's biggest vehicle. Cast Warptime on the KAC to move just an inch away from said vehicle. Shoot it up with the Noise Marines, charge it with the KAC, and hit it with the Melta cutters on a 2+ with 2d6AP -5 attacks.
At least in my local groups, people have a tendency to cluster vehicles. With thoughtful movement, that KAC will consolidate into combat with another vehicle and keep them tied up for the rest of the game.
andysonic1 wrote: I use a Kharybdis Assault Claw and, while some of my opponents would disagree, it is perfectly balanced. It gets easily blown to bits by concentrated fire while having the ability to dish out a metric feth ton of damage should it be allowed to live.
ITC has decided for the BAO that they won't allow any single model with a PL of 31 and up, which eliminates a lot of the super huge FW units. I expect we will see more tournaments do this and it will start to become the norm in matched play.
See, it's not Forgeworld is imbalanced, it's what you can do with the seemingly balanced models. I agree that the KAC is not imbalanced, but it's awfully good for the points.
Put a Sorcerer and a squad of Noise Marines into the KAC. Deep strike near your opponent's biggest vehicle. Cast Warptime on the KAC to move just an inch away from said vehicle. Shoot it up with the Noise Marines, charge it with the KAC, and hit it with the Melta cutters on a 2+ with 2d6AP -5 attacks.
At least in my local groups, people have a tendency to cluster vehicles. With thoughtful movement, that KAC will consolidate into combat with another vehicle and keep them tied up for the rest of the game.
To be fair it's a little more than 500 points for that, and it's completely shut down by any list with proper screening troops (the kharybdis is a huge model so it's not hard to place troops where the KAC can't move where it wants to). You should be comparing that trick in effectiveness to a Knight because that's how much it costs, and I'm pretty sure the Knight is more reliable.
Same deal with Aetaos'rau'keres; amazing model, but represents a third of your points in a standard army size. He does a ton, but he better because he has to outpace a Knight by 200 points to be worth his cost.
Brutallica wrote: The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.
Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...
Let go of that anger. What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?
I'd say 2 point brims and storm ravens are worse than most FW personally.
"most"? I mean, no one is saying that everything FW is OP.
But he did awnser your question.
He answered it but not accurately. "What's 1+6?" "Nineteen." Technically that's an answer too.
Storm Ravens are demonstrably not worse than FW. Have you seen Vulture Gunships? You can spam them much more than you can spam ravens, for cheaper, and they're just as durable, with arguably more firepower.
Brutallica wrote: The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.
Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...
Let go of that anger. What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?
I'd say 2 point brims and storm ravens are worse than most FW personally.
"most"? I mean, no one is saying that everything FW is OP.
But he did awnser your question.
He answered it but not accurately. "What's 1+6?" "Nineteen." Technically that's an answer too.
Storm Ravens are demonstrably not worse than FW. Have you seen Vulture Gunships? You can spam them much more than you can spam ravens, for cheaper, and they're just as durable, with arguably more firepower.
Thats on you on how accurate you want the awnsers to be, if you want percentages and calculations you can just go make them yourself.
Point of me saying "He did awnser your question" was merely just that he in fact awnsered the question "What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?" and then to have the one asking it try and deflect the awnser given.
ITC has decided for the BAO that they won't allow any single model with a PL of 31 and up, which eliminates a lot of the super huge FW units. I expect we will see more tournaments do this and it will start to become the norm in matched play.
Do you have a source for that? I looked through the BAO post and nothing like that is mentioned at all.
The impact of adding FW to the game cannot be measured simply by the perceived effectiveness of the unit based on its stats and cost. Ignoring whether or not it is 'NPE' for the opponent (it's already been pointed out that some enjoy the additional challenge):
1. You need to see if the stats actually translate into actual better win rates; does Bray'arth actually help you to win more? An 'unkillable' but slow and poorly armed for its cost model may very well not. This is further complicated by:
2. Extra options are almost certainly going to lead to new synergies and combos, increasing army performance even if the individual units are as balanced as is reasonable. The Trojan tank having vehicles with more guns to buff is one example. The Inquisition Land Raider Prometheus is very balanced for its cost, even underpowered, but when you make it Ordo Malleus and put it next to Coteaz, suddenly there are 24 Heavy Bolter, 1 Multi Melta and 1-2 Storm Bolter Overwatch shots waiting for every Scion command squad planning to grav chute into battle, and every unit and character planning to disembark within 36" of the Prometheus, each.
Allowing FW means opening up all these extra possibilities, both to be used and faced. Keeping it out will keep things simpler, but not objectively better. I prefer to have the option for more combinations and greater personalisation of armies, even if some of those personalisations may involve 'spam', in no small part because I don't like to tell people that they can't use their stuff.
ITC has decided for the BAO that they won't allow any single model with a PL of 31 and up, which eliminates a lot of the super huge FW units. I expect we will see more tournaments do this and it will start to become the norm in matched play.
What happened to ITC having a vote on this kind of stuff? My "ban Forgeworld completely" vote should be counted.
The other issue, is will FW update things. GW has indicated they will be making balance changes, points costs changes etc on a regular basis. Now maybe they won't live up to that, but since FW is a different studio we have no idea if they will do the same.
If Forgeworld continue as they have been then OP things won't be quickly fixed but they next time they get updated they will be nerfed until they are completely useless.
As others have said - a blanket ban on FW is ridiculous, the overwhelming majority of units are nothing special. Ban or modify the very small handful of OP units.
koooaei wrote: +1 to hit flashlights and vultures are pretty broken.
Yes. And the Ork killkannon is Heavy6 on a Forgeworld model, but HeavyD6 on the similarly named GW model. A pretty significant difference until they fix it, which they may never do.
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
Maybe I'm too stupid to understand, but why the feth are people treating GW and FW as separate, anyway? It's all Warhammer 40K, published by Games Workshop. There are bad rules and broken units everywhere. Does being in a separate book with a fancy logo somehow make it magically different?
Sure, allowing FW allows more combinations. But that is stupid metric, by that logic the best possible game would be the one with least options, so maybe we should just ban everything except tactical marines? (Obviously no weapon upgrades allowed, that might cause imbalance.)
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
No idea what I just read. I played MTG for ten years, and the playerbase is just FINE playing with overpowered cards and combo decks. Sure, some people whine and cry about certain archetypes, but in the most competitive setting, players still usually have between 6-8 builds to choose from, and most of the time the winning deck cycles between those 6-8 builds. There will ALWAYS be certain strategies in ANY game system that are stronger than others. Banning every card that is "strong" is not what WotC does without a ton of data and time, and even then, the card has to be so game-breaking that it completely dominates the tournament scene. Tournament organizers at most of the big 40k tournaments, namely ITC and NOVA, have modified the rules for certain units and models, so there is already competitive balancing being done.
The MLB aluminum bat statement is just ridiculous.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Maybe I'm too stupid to understand, but why the feth are people treating GW and FW as separate, anyway? It's all Warhammer 40K, published by Games Workshop. There are bad rules and broken units everywhere. Does being in a separate book with a fancy logo somehow make it magically different?
Well, it is a different team writing the rules, and I do think that the FW team is worse. But that doesn't mean I want to ban FW stuff completely.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Maybe I'm too stupid to understand, but why the feth are people treating GW and FW as separate, anyway? It's all Warhammer 40K, published by Games Workshop. There are bad rules and broken units everywhere. Does being in a separate book with a fancy logo somehow make it magically different?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Maybe I'm too stupid to understand, but why the feth are people treating GW and FW as separate, anyway? It's all Warhammer 40K, published by Games Workshop. There are bad rules and broken units everywhere. Does being in a separate book with a fancy logo somehow make it magically different?
"Yes" - The collective 40k community
Don't lump me in with 'the collective 40k community'. I said twice it's silly to separate them.
Honestly, I don't even know why GW itself bothers with pretending FW is a separate entity, especially with how some units have repeatedly hopped back and forth between GW and FW (looking at you, Vendetta). Just throw all that stuff into the codexes already. Make a Codex: Elysians and Codex: DKoK if you have to.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Maybe I'm too stupid to understand, but why the feth are people treating GW and FW as separate, anyway? It's all Warhammer 40K, published by Games Workshop. There are bad rules and broken units everywhere. Does being in a separate book with a fancy logo somehow make it magically different?
"Yes" - The collective 40k community
Don't lump me in with 'the collective 40k community'. I said twice it's silly to separate them.
Collectiveness does not imply a unanimous opinion - just a majority consensus. The number of times I've been told that it's wrong to use FW, or that it should be banned, or that it is OP...
ross-128 wrote: Honestly, I don't even know why GW itself bothers with pretending FW is a separate entity, especially with how some units have repeatedly hopped back and forth between GW and FW (looking at you, Vendetta). Just throw all that stuff into the codexes already. Make a Codex: Elysians and Codex: DKoK if you have to.
Yeah. They should just fold all FW's 40K stuff into normal codices and let the GW's main team handle the rules. FW could concentrate on making models and perhaps write rules for HH stuff (I don't care about that.)
ITC has decided for the BAO that they won't allow any single model with a PL of 31 and up, which eliminates a lot of the super huge FW units. I expect we will see more tournaments do this and it will start to become the norm in matched play.
Do you have a source for that? I looked through the BAO post and nothing like that is mentioned at all.
ITC has decided for the BAO that they won't allow any single model with a PL of 31 and up, which eliminates a lot of the super huge FW units. I expect we will see more tournaments do this and it will start to become the norm in matched play.
What happened to ITC having a vote on this kind of stuff? My "ban Forgeworld completely" vote should be counted.
Everyone going to the BAO got a vote and it was clear what the players going wanted. "Ban FW completely" is unrealistic as, with everything 40k, some things are overpowers and some things are underpowered so it is silly to just throw it all out.
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
Except the FW variants for the Wraithknight and Riptide weren't anymore broken than the regular versions, hence why they didn't appear very often in lists.
So go ahead and start name dropping everything that was broken from FW in 6th/7th So we can all see how ridiculous youre being. I'll wait. I don't have work today.
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
No idea what I just read. I played MTG for ten years, and the playerbase is just FINE playing with overpowered cards and combo decks. Sure, some people whine and cry about certain archetypes, but in the most competitive setting, players still usually have between 6-8 builds to choose from, and most of the time the winning deck cycles between those 6-8 builds. There will ALWAYS be certain strategies in ANY game system that are stronger than others. Banning every card that is "strong" is not what WotC does without a ton of data and time, and even then, the card has to be so game-breaking that it completely dominates the tournament scene. Tournament organizers at most of the big 40k tournaments, namely ITC and NOVA, have modified the rules for certain units and models, so there is already competitive balancing being done.
The MLB aluminum bat statement is just ridiculous.
Tournaments are played with the core releases only in MTG. They don't allow last years cards or the previous years cards. You are right though - they will play with their broken decks combining multiple seasons of cards into 1 deck causally against each other - for SNG's. Just like you could do with all your forge world models at your local group too - thats where 95% of games are played anyways. Was just looking at the fellblade with twin volcano cannons. You really want to see models like this at every table at an ITC/Nova event?
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
No idea what I just read. I played MTG for ten years, and the playerbase is just FINE playing with overpowered cards and combo decks. Sure, some people whine and cry about certain archetypes, but in the most competitive setting, players still usually have between 6-8 builds to choose from, and most of the time the winning deck cycles between those 6-8 builds. There will ALWAYS be certain strategies in ANY game system that are stronger than others. Banning every card that is "strong" is not what WotC does without a ton of data and time, and even then, the card has to be so game-breaking that it completely dominates the tournament scene. Tournament organizers at most of the big 40k tournaments, namely ITC and NOVA, have modified the rules for certain units and models, so there is already competitive balancing being done.
The MLB aluminum bat statement is just ridiculous.
Tournaments are played with the core releases only in MTG. They don't allow last years cards or the previous years cards. You are right though - they will play with their broken decks combining multiple seasons of cards into 1 deck causally against each other - for SNG's. Just like you could do with all your forge world models at your local group too - thats where 95% of games are played anyways. Was just looking at the fellblade with twin volcano cannons. You really want to see models like this at every table at an ITC/Nova event?
Vintage and Modern tournaments certainly do, with the strongest and most expensive cards a staple.
Regardless, what I expect the strongest and best lists at a tournament, because there is absolutely NO reason not to take the strongest and best. Tournaments are supposed to be cutthroat - the point is to win. Complaining about wanting to win at a tournament you paid for and likely traveled a long distance to is perfectly fine and reasonable.
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
That's a bad analogy, because almost all of the units that have existed for the last several editions still exist on some form or another, and the rules have been updated THIS edition. MtG probably wouldn't be so bad across multiple blocks if they put out errata for each and every card changing the rules to make it valid for the new edition. Or maybe it would be.
At any rate, if 40k was MtG, the only valid SM units available to you should be the Scions and Primaris ones. Of course, you'd think that the former was the case from looking at the tactics subforum.
5x the options = broken OP combos
When you're comparing subsets developed in a vaccum to each other, yes. GW/FW is not that.
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
Can you judge the merits of 8th edition FW units on 8th edition FW units and not history?
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
Barring a situation where you give the shortstop a rapier and allow the runner to keep his bat while he runs from base to base, baseball will always be boring.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
Only things I'm aware of that are probably on the edge of "clearly better" than they should be are the Vulture and the Sabre Searchlights. I say "probably on the edge" because I'm still not able to wrap my brain around a world where we pat ourselves on the back for being tactical geniuses by shoehorning as many plasma-scions into a list like it's reasonable, yet we draw the line at these other units simply because they're on the other side of some borderline imaginary fence.
How about you talk to us about what's better than the GW option? You know, articulate a little and describe where specifically you're seeing a problem?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Maybe I'm too stupid to understand, but why the feth are people treating GW and FW as separate, anyway? It's all Warhammer 40K, published by Games Workshop. There are bad rules and broken units everywhere. Does being in a separate book with a fancy logo somehow make it magically different?
Because for all intents and purposes they are separate companies. A lot of problems could have been avoided if, say, GWs playtesting of the 8th edition would have included FWs uniys, and if FW staff would have had access to the 8th edition rules prior to GW's customers.
Instead FW had to rush out indexes that were neither playtested not proof-read.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Maybe I'm too stupid to understand, but why the feth are people treating GW and FW as separate, anyway? It's all Warhammer 40K, published by Games Workshop. There are bad rules and broken units everywhere. Does being in a separate book with a fancy logo somehow make it magically different?
Because for all intents and purposes they are separate companies. A lot of problems could have been avoided if, say, GWs playtesting of the 8th edition would have included FWs uniys, and if FW staff would have had access to the 8th edition rules prior to GW's customers.
Instead FW had to rush out indexes that were neither playtested not proof-read.
So now ask why yourself WHY they had to rush things out. Demands from GW, a very tight deadline, the new edition, loss of sales because people weren't buying FW models without knowing what they were getting, etc. I blame GW for the rushed releases, rebalancing and repointing EVERY FW model is a huge task.
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
Except the FW variants for the Wraithknight and Riptide weren't anymore broken than the regular versions, hence why they didn't appear very often in lists.
So go ahead and start name dropping everything that was broken from FW in 6th/7th So we can all see how ridiculous youre being. I'll wait. I don't have work today.
I can name you countless FW models that are better than there GW counterparts - it's not even worth my time to do so. There was maybe about a 6 month period where GW stuff became competitive because they started handing out free transports and free stats - in formations just to complete with the FW nonsense. Interestingly the FW nonsense wasn't allowed to use the formation rules. I WONDER WHY. I'm sure you are familiar with the WK that had 2 apoc flamers with str 7 rending - that moved faster than a standard WK - and could leave combat double flame something with apoc templates and recharge again right? That's not better than your standard WK? Give me a break. Oh and the Yvara riptide? With 2 str 6 ap2 flamers and other weapons - that were also really good for no reason....that could just skyleap away and come back in the next turn if it was in trouble? You actually want to defend eldar hornets? The librarian that could pick his spells and has a 2++ save? Come on man - not even worth going into 8th edition FW because it's about twice as bad as it used to be.
I can name you countless FW models that are better than there GW counterparts - it's not even worth my time to do so. There was maybe about a 6 month period where GW stuff became competitive because they started handing out free transports and free stats - in formations just to complete with the FW nonsense. Interestingly the FW nonsense wasn't allowed to use the formation rules. I WONDER WHY. I'm sure you are familiar with the WK that had 2 apoc flamers with str 7 rending - that moved faster than a standard WK - and could leave combat double flame something with apoc templates and recharge again right? That's not better than your standard WK? Give me a break. Oh and the Yvara riptide? With 2 str 6 ap2 flamers and other weapons - that were also really good for no reason....that could just skyleap away and come back in the next turn if it was in trouble? You actually want to defend eldar hornets? The librarian that could pick his spells and has a 2++ save? Come on man - not even worth going into 8th edition FW because it's about twice as bad as it used to be.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to take this time to point out that this is the same guy who can't understand why anyone would ever use a powerfist in 8th. Now, read the bolded part of the quote and then go back and reread the unbolded part of the quote.
What are we acxtually looking at that is GENUINELY op, i've only got the Space marines FW Index and i'm not seeing much. Unless we're talking about people bringing 800 pt models to 1000pt games but we all know that is a core rules issue not a FW issue.
Hell the most expensive thing space marines get is a Mastodon and i wouldn't take that for anything other than a narrative game because it's mediocre as all hell
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Also nothing I said in this discussion could be labeled ad hominem. I try to refrain from logical fallacy because it weaken any arguments position.
I could have said something like...."I'm sure you have 20 of the most OP forge world units from 7th edition so your opinion is invalid" but I didn't. If you're going to attack someones arguments - at least use a valid attack.
I'm pretty sure that card seasons would be more analogous to editions than to the GW/FW split. Not playing old seasons in the current season would be like not bringing 3rd edition rules to an 8th edition game. Well what do you know, we've got that covered: 8th ed GW and 8th ed FW are both 8th edition.
I understand FW used to actually be an independent company that did their own thing, but GW assimilated them a long time ago. Units have been hopping back and forth over the GW/FW divide for the past three editions, and it has really just lost its meaning. At this point, the split between the two just feels like a charade so they can sell you your codex twice.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Y'know, sometimes something being mathematically proven in a theoretical environment doesn't pan out in practice. I think there's a term for that...
GAdvance wrote: What are we acxtually looking at that is GENUINELY op, i've only got the Space marines FW Index and i'm not seeing much. Unless we're talking about people bringing 800 pt models to 1000pt games but we all know that is a core rules issue not a FW issue.
Hell the most expensive thing space marines get is a Mastodon and i wouldn't take that for anything other than a narrative game because it's mediocre as all hell
A specific example would be the tau Yvara (SP) it is obnoxiously good. One of the more OP units I've looked at. Fellblade with volcano cannon...Also - consider this - FW in genernal means allowing 800 point models in 2000 point games - even 1500 point models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: I'm pretty sure that card seasons would be more analogous to editions than to the GW/FW split. Not playing old seasons in the current season would be like not bringing 3rd edition rules to an 8th edition game. Well what do you know, we've got that covered: 8th ed GW and 8th ed FW are both 8th edition.
I understand FW used to actually be an independent company that did their own thing, but GW assimilated them a long time ago. Units have been hopping back and forth over the GW/FW divide for the past three editions, and it has really just lost its meaning. At this point, the split between the two just feels like a charade so they can sell you your codex twice.
They are an independent company - they have different websites for buying products - FW doesn't even sell product in GW stores. They profit from each others success - that's about where it ends for them.
GAdvance wrote: What are we acxtually looking at that is GENUINELY op, i've only got the Space marines FW Index and i'm not seeing much. Unless we're talking about people bringing 800 pt models to 1000pt games but we all know that is a core rules issue not a FW issue.
Hell the most expensive thing space marines get is a Mastodon and i wouldn't take that for anything other than a narrative game because it's mediocre as all hell
A specific example would be the tau Yvara (SP) it is obnoxiously good. One of the more OP units I've looked at. Fellblade with volcano cannon...Also - consider this - FW in gernal means allowing 800 point models in 2000 point games - even 1500 point models.
I haven't seen anything wrong with the Falchion ('Fellblade with the volcano cannon'), particularly. The Yhvara or whatever I've not looked at, because T'au are getting so creamed right now that having one good unit for them isn't hurting the game. But the Falchion... could you elaborate on your issue with it?
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Also nothing I said in this discussion could be labeled ad hominem. I try to refrain from logical fallacy because it weaken any arguments position.
I could have said something like...."I'm sure you have 20 of the most OP forge world units from 7th edition so your opinion is invalid" but I didn't. If you're going to attack someones arguments - at least use a valid attack.
Where did I say you had used an ad-hominem attack? I implied the poster responding to you was using one. And this is not out of context, you noted that it was not worthwhile identifying an OPFW unit to support your argument. Thus making an assertion without evidence.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Also nothing I said in this discussion could be labeled ad hominem. I try to refrain from logical fallacy because it weaken any arguments position.
I could have said something like...."I'm sure you have 20 of the most OP forge world units from 7th edition so your opinion is invalid" but I didn't. If you're going to attack someones arguments - at least use a valid attack.
Where did I say you had used an ad-hominem attack? I implied the poster responding to you was using one. And this is not out of context, you noted that it was not worthwhile identifying an OPFW unit to support your argument. Thus making an assertion without evidence.
The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
In my area, we've been mostly against Forgeworld, untill now that is.
This was mostly due to the fact that the rules they gave to units where all over the place (even more so than GW), but also because alot of units where simply "GW's version but better" for more or less the same pricetag, which resulted in a pay-to-win situation.
FW also tended to focus mainly on superheavy/gargantuans, and we mostly play 1500-2000 pts, where that kind of units didn't really get you many friends.
Lastly, alot of people also felt that they weren't "official".
Now though, in 8th where everything kan kill everything, it's not so bad, and even "titanic" units are manageable in a normal game. FW even has the "official stamp" now, eventhough their rules still are all over the place.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Y'know, sometimes something being mathematically proven in a theoretical environment doesn't pan out in practice. I think there's a term for that...
Theres nothing theoretical about a dice game. We roll dice to kill things - if one averages less damage than the other and costs more it is objectively worse - there are other factors - mobility, survivability - all can be accounted for. As often is the case with truely OP units from forge world though - they are just better in every conceivable way.
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
GAdvance wrote: What are we acxtually looking at that is GENUINELY op, i've only got the Space marines FW Index and i'm not seeing much. Unless we're talking about people bringing 800 pt models to 1000pt games but we all know that is a core rules issue not a FW issue.
Hell the most expensive thing space marines get is a Mastodon and i wouldn't take that for anything other than a narrative game because it's mediocre as all hell
A specific example would be the tau Yvara (SP) it is obnoxiously good. One of the more OP units I've looked at. Fellblade with volcano cannon...Also - consider this - FW in gernal means allowing 800 point models in 2000 point games - even 1500 point models.
I haven't seen anything wrong with the Falchion ('Fellblade with the volcano cannon'), particularly. The Yhvara or whatever I've not looked at, because T'au are getting so creamed right now that having one good unit for them isn't hurting the game. But the Falchion... could you elaborate on your issue with it?
It destroys any GW model in a single shot with it's main gun and has 8 las cannons remaining to destroy something else? uhhh - yeah I have a problem with that.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Y'know, sometimes something being mathematically proven in a theoretical environment doesn't pan out in practice. I think there's a term for that...
Theres nothing theoretical about a dice game. We roll dice to kill things - if one averages less damage than the other and costs more it is objectively worse - there are other factors - mobility, survivability - all can be accounted for. As often is the case with truely OP units from forge world though - they are just better in every conceivable way.
I am still waiting for you to explain to me why the Falchion is so good.
And we play a dice game. With models. On a board. With terrain. Controlled tactically by flawed human beings, using imprecise measuring devices (literally just estimation, in cases of seeing if something has 50% obscured or not, for example).
GAdvance wrote: What are we acxtually looking at that is GENUINELY op, i've only got the Space marines FW Index and i'm not seeing much. Unless we're talking about people bringing 800 pt models to 1000pt games but we all know that is a core rules issue not a FW issue.
Hell the most expensive thing space marines get is a Mastodon and i wouldn't take that for anything other than a narrative game because it's mediocre as all hell
A specific example would be the tau Yvara (SP) it is obnoxiously good. One of the more OP units I've looked at. Fellblade with volcano cannon...Also - consider this - FW in gernal means allowing 800 point models in 2000 point games - even 1500 point models.
I haven't seen anything wrong with the Falchion ('Fellblade with the volcano cannon'), particularly. The Yhvara or whatever I've not looked at, because T'au are getting so creamed right now that having one good unit for them isn't hurting the game. But the Falchion... could you elaborate on your issue with it?
It destroys any GW model in a single shot with it's main gun and has 8 las cannons remaining to destroy something else? uhhh - yeah I have a problem with that.
Boy you must hate the Shadowsword too then, since for the price of the Fellblade you get 2. Which makes literally the same gun. And double the number of lascannons that can be targeted (remember, the Fellblade's lascannons can only hit two other targets). Oh, and some heavy bolters also.
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
Why would I shoot tactical marines with this thing? Why wouldn't I shoot your swarmlord/ or or daemonlord/ or wraithknight/ or stormsurge/ or baneblade?
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
Why would I shoot tactical marines with this thing? Why wouldn't I shoot your swarmlord/ or or daemonlord/ or wraithknight/ or stormsurge/ or baneblade?
Because not everyone has those things? I have a buddy that plays a Marine foot battle company with 0 tanks, 3 Devastator squads, 3 Assault squads, 6 Tactical squads, and some stuff (scouts and whatnot).
The Falchion in that matchup is an 800 point Predator with an Autocannon, in some respects, lol.
Heck, I mean, the two Shadowswords you get for the price of the 1 Falchion will be way better against that army. And still have the same firepower against Superheavies. And are GW models in the GW index.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Also nothing I said in this discussion could be labeled ad hominem. I try to refrain from logical fallacy because it weaken any arguments position.
I could have said something like...."I'm sure you have 20 of the most OP forge world units from 7th edition so your opinion is invalid" but I didn't. If you're going to attack someones arguments - at least use a valid attack.
Where did I say you had used an ad-hominem attack? I implied the poster responding to you was using one. And this is not out of context, you noted that it was not worthwhile identifying an OPFW unit to support your argument. Thus making an assertion without evidence.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Also nothing I said in this discussion could be labeled ad hominem. I try to refrain from logical fallacy because it weaken any arguments position.
I could have said something like...."I'm sure you have 20 of the most OP forge world units from 7th edition so your opinion is invalid" but I didn't. If you're going to attack someones arguments - at least use a valid attack.
Where did I say you had used an ad-hominem attack? I implied the poster responding to you was using one. And this is not out of context, you noted that it was not worthwhile identifying an OPFW unit to support your argument. Thus making an assertion without evidence.
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
Why would I shoot tactical marines with this thing? Why wouldn't I shoot your swarmlord/ or or daemonlord/ or wraithknight/ or stormsurge/ or baneblade?
Because not everyone has those things? I have a buddy that plays a Marine foot battle company with 0 tanks, 3 Devastator squads, 3 Assault squads, 6 Tactical squads, and some stuff (scouts and whatnot).
The Falchion in that matchup is an 800 point Predator with an Autocannon, in some respects, lol.
Heck, I mean, the two Shadowswords you get for the price of the 1 Falchion will be way better against that army. And still have the same firepower against Superheavies. And are GW models in the GW index.
A shawdowsword with 4 las and 4 heavy flamer is almost the price of a fellbalde with 8 las cannons. Basically double the firepower and it's BS3+. This is a perfect example. How much does the fellblade cost? My friend and I worked it out yesterday but my battlescribe isnt working? It's in the 750 range right - compared to the shadowsword which is 650?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth mentioning that /I/ play a superheavy tank regiment. I bring 3 baneblades/stormswords to each game.
I'm literally the target the Falchion is going to LOVE to shoot at, and I'm totally okay with the Falchion right now.
Good for you man. IMO this is pretty silly as well. Too bad he's probably going first though because hes going to have a 2 model army compared to your 3 model army.
The SM superheavies are all pretty ridiculous next to their IG counterparts, the higher T and most importantly the 2+sv, on top of rules that allow them to move and fire without penalty (unlike the IG tanks) making them clearly superior, both in absolute and point for point comparisons.
FW however seemed to largely just copy GW on that count, with Russ tanks and Land Raiders having pretty much identical issues.
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
Except the FW variants for the Wraithknight and Riptide weren't anymore broken than the regular versions, hence why they didn't appear very often in lists.
So go ahead and start name dropping everything that was broken from FW in 6th/7th So we can all see how ridiculous youre being. I'll wait. I don't have work today.
I can name you countless FW models that are better than there GW counterparts - it's not even worth my time to do so. There was maybe about a 6 month period where GW stuff became competitive because they started handing out free transports and free stats - in formations just to complete with the FW nonsense. Interestingly the FW nonsense wasn't allowed to use the formation rules. I WONDER WHY. I'm sure you are familiar with the WK that had 2 apoc flamers with str 7 rending - that moved faster than a standard WK - and could leave combat double flame something with apoc templates and recharge again right? That's not better than your standard WK? Give me a break. Oh and the Yvara riptide? With 2 str 6 ap2 flamers and other weapons - that were also really good for no reason....that could just skyleap away and come back in the next turn if it was in trouble? You actually want to defend eldar hornets? The librarian that could pick his spells and has a 2++ save? Come on man - not even worth going into 8th edition FW because it's about twice as bad as it used to be.
1. Says there's COUNTLESS models and can name only a few that aren't even close to broken.
2. The flamers weren't Rending on that Wraithknight. Also people rather had the extra D Strength shots or melee capabilities from their Wraithknights, hence why it didn't get used. It was on par with the other Wraithknights, which makes it as bad as any other Wraithknight outside the Suncannon one nobody used?
2. Large Blast being given Ignore Cover with Markerlights is better than a Template.
3. Nobody used them in 6th/7th. Pretty darn good in the past but no more broken than other Eldar options. This is an Eldar theme, not a FW theme.
4. The Librarian that spent a Warp Charge on that for his paltry 2 Wounds and sticks you with a specific Chapter Tactic that couldn't be abused? Picking powers is great, except you were buying a bunch of Librarians anyway for the Warp Charges and were rolling on Telepathy anyway for Shriek or Biomancy.
You're overreacting and proving you haven't actually PLAYED the game.
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
Why would I shoot tactical marines with this thing? Why wouldn't I shoot your swarmlord/ or or daemonlord/ or wraithknight/ or stormsurge/ or baneblade?
Because not everyone has those things? I have a buddy that plays a Marine foot battle company with 0 tanks, 3 Devastator squads, 3 Assault squads, 6 Tactical squads, and some stuff (scouts and whatnot).
The Falchion in that matchup is an 800 point Predator with an Autocannon, in some respects, lol.
Heck, I mean, the two Shadowswords you get for the price of the 1 Falchion will be way better against that army. And still have the same firepower against Superheavies. And are GW models in the GW index.
You bring 3 baneblades vs 6 tactical squads? First - thats no't very nice. Second - you would never see that at a competitive level. It's very possible you will see 500 conscripts - but that is a separate issue.
Vaktathi wrote: The SM superheavies are all pretty ridiculous next to their IG counterparts, the higher T and most importantly the 2+sv, on top of rules that allow them to move and fire without penalty (unlike the IG tanks) making them clearly superior, both in absolute and point for point comparisons.
FW however seemed to largely just copy GW on that count, with Russ tanks and Land Raiders having pretty much identical issues.
Well, a Land Raider costs quite a bit more points than a Russ.
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
Why would I shoot tactical marines with this thing? Why wouldn't I shoot your swarmlord/ or or daemonlord/ or wraithknight/ or stormsurge/ or baneblade?
Because not everyone has those things? I have a buddy that plays a Marine foot battle company with 0 tanks, 3 Devastator squads, 3 Assault squads, 6 Tactical squads, and some stuff (scouts and whatnot).
The Falchion in that matchup is an 800 point Predator with an Autocannon, in some respects, lol.
Heck, I mean, the two Shadowswords you get for the price of the 1 Falchion will be way better against that army. And still have the same firepower against Superheavies. And are GW models in the GW index.
A shawdowsword with 4 las and 4 heavy flamer is almost the price of a fellbalde with 8 las cannons. Basically double the firepower and it's BS3+. This is a perfect example. How much does the fellblade cost? My friend and I worked it out yesterday but my battlescribe isnt working? It's in the 750 range right - compared to the shadowsword which is 650?
Not knowing your rules will hurt.
A shadowsword's base cost is 446 points. The Falchion's base cost is 817 points with the quad lascannons.
Additionally, 4 lascannons on the Shadowsword cannot be compared to 8 lascannons on the Falchion, because the Falchion's are really 2 quad lascannons, meaning they can only shoot two targets, whereas the shadowsword can engage 4. Furthermore, The Shadowsword has 8 heavy flamers and 2 heavy bolters that can be fired while it is in close combat, while the Falchion cannot say the same.
Even more additionally, there can never be more than 1 Falchion per army due to the construction rules, whereas there can be 3 Shadowswords, and for only 50% more points.
They are an independent company - they have different websites for buying products - FW doesn't even sell product in GW stores. They profit from each others success - that's about where it ends for them.
How are they an independent company when they're a division of GW? I can understand that they seem somewhat independent because they have limited interaction with eachother, different websites and because Games Workshop do not sell Forge World products in its stores (which I believe would be due to both difficulty in making enough products, limited space in the store as well as a general business decision), but they are not an independent company whatsoever.
They also both have 26 wounds (though the Shadowsword is T8/3+ and the Falchion is T9/2+), so they have very similar durability but the Falchion is paying through the nose for that extra volcano cannon.
Does a Falchion alpha-strike enemy superheavies slightly more efficiently than a pair of Shadowswords? Yes, but it's highly specialized to do that and nothing else. Compared to a pair of Shadowswords it's a glass cannon (in fact a pair of Shadowswords would handily win a shootout against it), and the Shadowswords have 20 heavy bolters between them to ensure they're not entirely dead weight against infantry.
ross-128 wrote: They also both have 26 wounds (though the Shadowsword is T8/3+ and the Falchion is T9/2+), so they have very similar durability but the Falchion is paying through the nose for that extra volcano cannon.
Does a Falchion alpha-strike enemy superheavies slightly more efficiently than a pair of Shadowswords? Yes, but it's highly specialized to do that and nothing else. Compared to a pair of Shadowswords it's a glass cannon (in fact a pair of Shadowswords would handily win a shootout against it), and the Shadowswords have 20 heavy bolters between them to ensure they're not entirely dead weight against infantry.
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
Except the FW variants for the Wraithknight and Riptide weren't anymore broken than the regular versions, hence why they didn't appear very often in lists.
So go ahead and start name dropping everything that was broken from FW in 6th/7th So we can all see how ridiculous youre being. I'll wait. I don't have work today.
I can name you countless FW models that are better than there GW counterparts - it's not even worth my time to do so. There was maybe about a 6 month period where GW stuff became competitive because they started handing out free transports and free stats - in formations just to complete with the FW nonsense. Interestingly the FW nonsense wasn't allowed to use the formation rules. I WONDER WHY. I'm sure you are familiar with the WK that had 2 apoc flamers with str 7 rending - that moved faster than a standard WK - and could leave combat double flame something with apoc templates and recharge again right? That's not better than your standard WK? Give me a break. Oh and the Yvara riptide? With 2 str 6 ap2 flamers and other weapons - that were also really good for no reason....that could just skyleap away and come back in the next turn if it was in trouble? You actually want to defend eldar hornets? The librarian that could pick his spells and has a 2++ save? Come on man - not even worth going into 8th edition FW because it's about twice as bad as it used to be.
1. Says there's COUNTLESS models and can name only a few that aren't even close to broken.
2. The flamers weren't Rending on that Wraithknight. Also people rather had the extra D Strength shots or melee capabilities from their Wraithknights, hence why it didn't get used. It was on par with the other Wraithknights, which makes it as bad as any other Wraithknight outside the Suncannon one nobody used?
2. Large Blast being given Ignore Cover with Markerlights is better than a Template.
3. Nobody used them in 6th/7th. Pretty darn good in the past but no more broken than other Eldar options. This is an Eldar theme, not a FW theme.
4. The Librarian that spent a Warp Charge on that for his paltry 2 Wounds and sticks you with a specific Chapter Tactic that couldn't be abused? Picking powers is great, except you were buying a bunch of Librarians anyway for the Warp Charges and were rolling on Telepathy anyway for Shriek or Biomancy.
You're overreacting and proving you haven't actually PLAYED the game.
1. Countless unbroken models does not excuse allowing the MOST OP units.
2. The Deathshroud cannons on the WK were shred, monofiliament (this is basically rending), They were heavily prefered over GW wraithkngihts (quite possibly the most broken unit ever made by GW and FW had to top even that) do you actually dispute this (I can provide NOVA/ITC army lists if you desire)
3. Hornet were literally auto include for any eldar list because they were 2-3 times better than any model minus a WK(which FW also topped) coming out of the best codex ever released by GW in 7th. This is a FW making GW+1 rules all over the place.
4. Chapter tactics couldn't be abused once GW made a ruling - not that that matters - auto invis on a deathstar unit was an I win button in 7th.
ross-128 wrote: They also both have 26 wounds (though the Shadowsword is T8/3+ and the Falchion is T9/2+), so they have very similar durability but the Falchion is paying through the nose for that extra volcano cannon.
Does a Falchion alpha-strike enemy superheavies slightly more efficiently than a pair of Shadowswords? Yes, but it's highly specialized to do that and nothing else. Compared to a pair of Shadowswords it's a glass cannon (in fact a pair of Shadowswords would handily win a shootout against it), and the Shadowswords have 20 heavy bolters between them to ensure they're not entirely dead weight against infantry.
I'm glad someone understands.
It seems like a very, very, veeeeeeeeeeery common complaint on Dakka is "A specialist unit is better at its specialty than a less specialized unit! That makes it OP!!!!11!1"
Also, regarding FW's status under GW: back when it started in 1998, FW was an independent company that held a license to make GW models. However, a few years ago when the license came up for renewal, GW declined to renew the license and instead bought FW. FW is now a department within GW, which GW uses as a catch-all for models that they don't consider "mainstream" enough to mass-produce in plastic and as an excuse to double-dip on codex sales.
Most semblance of genuine quality discussion went out the window when statements to the tune of "The sky is falling twice as hard as it was before, and it can be proven, but I won't prove it" became the repeated talking point. You'll note I tried at some point to be reasonable and then just kinda gave up.
So, yeah, this is a "quality dakka discussion". Yet another /unsubscribe from me.
ross-128 wrote: A base Shadowsword is 446. A Shadowsword with full lascannon and heavy bolter sponsons is 590. The Falchion is 817 points.
I see you did for the weaker HB varient - that's fine - most everyone would run the HF but I'll roll with this even. For plus 227 points you get +1 BS +4 Las cannons +1 Volcano cannon -2 heavy bolters and 2+ save? Also are you charging 80 points for the quad las? I'm pretty sure the Falchion is under 800 points it wont come up on my battlescribe though.
Safe to say the Falchion is more survivable and has over twice the firepower due to +1 BS - even has good close combat stats and can fire on the move for only a 38% increase in points?
Most semblance of genuine quality discussion went out the window when statements to the tune of "The sky is falling twice as hard as it was before, and it can be proven, but I won't prove it" became the repeated talking point. You'll note I tried at some point to be reasonable and then just kinda gave up.
So, yeah, this is a "quality dakka discussion". Yet another /unsubscribe from me.
I'm pretty sure quality discussion ended when this guy starting falsifying quotes from me. To each his own I guess though.
ross-128 wrote: A base Shadowsword is 446. A Shadowsword with full lascannon and heavy bolter sponsons is 590. The Falchion is 817 points.
I see you did for the weaker HB varient - that's fine - most everyone would run the HF but I'll roll with this even. For plus 227 points you get +1 BS +4 Las cannons +1 Volcano cannon -2 heavy bolters and 2+ save? Also are you charging 80 points for the quad las? I'm pretty sure the Falchion is under 800 points it wont come up on my battlescribe though.
Safe to say the Falchion is more survivable and has over twice the firepower due to +1 BS - even has good close combat stats and can fire on the move for only a 38% increase in points?
Yes the quad lascannon is 80 points. Let's go through your points bit by bit (my comments in red):
Xenomancers wrote: I see you did for the weaker HB varient - that's fine - most everyone would run the HF Most everyone? I'm not running heavy flamers on my superheavies, and I've got more superheavies than the rest of my club combined. The vast majority of superheavies here at least are not running heavy flamers. but I'll roll with this even. For plus 227 points you get +1 BS against certain targets; the Shadowsword is 3+ against Titanic units, which is what you want the weapon to shoot at. +4 Las cannons That can only engage half as many targets as the Shadowsword's, so this is disingenuous at worst or exposes horrible inexperience playing superheavies at best. +1 Volcano cannon Yes, you should get something for 227 points. Also, it's a twin volcano cannon - two separate volcano cannons are actually better than a twin volcano cannon, which might be why two Shadowswords is more expensive. -2 heavy bolters It's actually -4 twin heavy bolters, or -8 heavy bolters total. If the Falchion had the same number of heavy bolters as a full Shadowsword it would cost 102 points more, putting it within striking range of 1k. and 2+ save? Yes! For 817 points you'd better be more survivable than a 590 point model, and since it has the same number of wounds... well... Also are you charging 80 points for the quad las? I'm pretty sure the Falchion is under 800 points it wont come up on my battlescribe though.
Safe to say the Falchion is more survivable and has over twice the firepower due to +1 BS Not quite. The Shadowsword is also BS3+ against its preferred targets, and two shadowswords can kill 2 targets no matter how small, while the Falchion can only overkill one. - even has good close combat stats If I recall correctly, though I can look again, it's about the same as the shadowsword. and can fire on the move just like every space marine tank, it's part of their theme now. for only a 38% increase in points? Seems reasonable.
I see you did for the weaker HB varient - that's fine - most everyone would run the HF but I'll roll with this even. For plus 227 points you get +1 BS +4 Las cannons +1 Volcano cannon -2 heavy bolters and 2+ save? Also are you charging 80 points for the quad las? I'm pretty sure the Falchion is under 800 points it wont come up on my battlescribe though.
Safe to say the Falchion is more survivable and has over twice the firepower due to +1 BS - even has good close combat stats and can fire on the move for only a 38% increase in points?
I would definitely use heavy bolters on a Shadowsword. The Shadowsword specifically is the only Baneblade variant that I wouldn't drive to the front and slam into melee, because I want it alpha-striking stuff from turn 1.
Also, the Falchion doesn't have any heavy bolters at all. So it's -10 heavy bolters, not -2. Let's look at it this way: it gives up 160 points of heavy bolters to gain 80 points of lascannons. So the +1BS, +1 Volcano cannon, +1T, and 2+ save would have to be worth 307 points altogether to make up the difference.
GAdvance wrote: You don't really get +1 volcano cannon, you get a twin volcano cannon.
Which whilst fantastic is basically a big 'I overkill my target' weapon against anything beyond actual titan fights.
And let me ask you, how many games are there of ACTUAL titan fights... a year.
Exactly. I addressed that point in my commentary on his misconceptions about the Falchion at the end of the previous page.
This is a good point too. The twin volcano cannon on the Falchion must fire both shots at the same target. 99.9% of the time, this is just pointless overkill. You're almost always wasting that very expensive second volcano cannon.
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
Except the FW variants for the Wraithknight and Riptide weren't anymore broken than the regular versions, hence why they didn't appear very often in lists.
So go ahead and start name dropping everything that was broken from FW in 6th/7th So we can all see how ridiculous youre being. I'll wait. I don't have work today.
I can name you countless FW models that are better than there GW counterparts - it's not even worth my time to do so. There was maybe about a 6 month period where GW stuff became competitive because they started handing out free transports and free stats - in formations just to complete with the FW nonsense. Interestingly the FW nonsense wasn't allowed to use the formation rules. I WONDER WHY. I'm sure you are familiar with the WK that had 2 apoc flamers with str 7 rending - that moved faster than a standard WK - and could leave combat double flame something with apoc templates and recharge again right? That's not better than your standard WK? Give me a break. Oh and the Yvara riptide? With 2 str 6 ap2 flamers and other weapons - that were also really good for no reason....that could just skyleap away and come back in the next turn if it was in trouble? You actually want to defend eldar hornets? The librarian that could pick his spells and has a 2++ save? Come on man - not even worth going into 8th edition FW because it's about twice as bad as it used to be.
1. Says there's COUNTLESS models and can name only a few that aren't even close to broken.
2. The flamers weren't Rending on that Wraithknight. Also people rather had the extra D Strength shots or melee capabilities from their Wraithknights, hence why it didn't get used. It was on par with the other Wraithknights, which makes it as bad as any other Wraithknight outside the Suncannon one nobody used?
2. Large Blast being given Ignore Cover with Markerlights is better than a Template.
3. Nobody used them in 6th/7th. Pretty darn good in the past but no more broken than other Eldar options. This is an Eldar theme, not a FW theme.
4. The Librarian that spent a Warp Charge on that for his paltry 2 Wounds and sticks you with a specific Chapter Tactic that couldn't be abused? Picking powers is great, except you were buying a bunch of Librarians anyway for the Warp Charges and were rolling on Telepathy anyway for Shriek or Biomancy.
You're overreacting and proving you haven't actually PLAYED the game.
1. Countless unbroken models does not excuse allowing the MOST OP units.
2. The Deathshroud cannons on the WK were shred, monofiliament (this is basically rending), They were heavily prefered over GW wraithkngihts (quite possibly the most broken unit ever made by GW and FW had to top even that) do you actually dispute this (I can provide NOVA/ITC army lists if you desire)
3. Hornet were literally auto include for any eldar list because they were 2-3 times better than any model minus a WK(which FW also topped) coming out of the best codex ever released by GW in 7th. This is a FW making GW+1 rules all over the place.
4. Chapter tactics couldn't be abused once GW made a ruling - not that that matters - auto invis on a deathstar unit was an I win button in 7th.
1. Except none of them are broken. Being better than a bad version of a unit doesn't make it broken.
2. Except for the more numerous people that used the other variants.
3. Which didn't happen in 6th/7th at all?
4. You already had Auto Invisibility when you took 5 Librarians rolling on the same table. Or if you took Tigrus. Please don't pretend Sevrin was any more powerful than regular options.
You just rolled a 1 on your number of shots with your volcano cannon and you hit on 4's....You don't wish you had another one? Overkill? It's the name of the game. Quad lascannon? Anything shooting a lascannon at is worth shooting 4 lascannons at.
The reason you take heavy flamer on a baneblade varient is simple. It's weakness having a melle unit completely surround it. Heavy flammers mostly solve that problem and they auto hit so it allows you to reposition and still do something useful that turn. OFC if you really want some more heavy bolters to go along with you 1000 las gun shots a turn - go for it.
Xenomancers wrote: You just rolled a 1 on your number of shots with your volcano cannon and you hit on 4's....You don't wish you had another one? Overkill? It's the name of the game. Quad lascannon? Anything shooting a lascannon at is worth shooting 4 lascannons at.
Not necessarily. If confronted with a bunch of damaged vehicles, it'd be nice to put one or two lascannons into each than 4 into 1, 4 into another, and leave the rest alive. Overkill is, actually, a mathematical inefficiency in a unit. Something I thought you'd notice, what with all your maths.
Also... you hit with the Shadowsword's volcano cannon on 3s, not 4s against most targets worth engaging. And I do wish I had another one, which is why I can get damn near two for the price of a Falchion. Or I can spend my CP re-roll that 1 shot that I'll have with the ~300 points of extra units I can bring in a Battalion detachment that the Falchion player couldn't afford.
The reason you take heavy flamer on a baneblade varient is simple. It's weakness having a melle unit completely surround it. Heavy flammers mostly solve that problem and they auto hit so it allows you to reposition and still do something useful that turn. OFC if you really want some more heavy bolters to go along with you 1000 las gun shots a turn - go for it.
I mean, if heavy flamers are that much more important than heavy bolters, we can include those too. It just adds even more to the Shadowsword's capabilities that the Falchion does not even have access to. I think you're missing the point here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're literally saying "Why would you want heavy bolters if heavy flamers are so much better?" when comparing one tank that has both options to one tank that has neither option and trying to pretend the second tank is somehow better, lol.
Xenomancers wrote: You just rolled a 1 on your number of shots with your volcano cannon and you hit on 4's....You don't wish you had another one? Overkill? It's the name of the game. Quad lascannon? Anything shooting a lascannon at is worth shooting 4 lascannons at.
The reason you take heavy flamer on a baneblade varient is simple. It's weakness having a melle unit completely surround it. Heavy flammers mostly solve that problem and they auto hit so it allows you to reposition and still do something useful that turn. OFC if you really want some more heavy bolters to go along with you 1000 las gun shots a turn - go for it.
I have absolutely no problem with a melee unit completely surrounding my Shadowsword. I'm just going to sit there and not move while they flail at it. I can still fire my heavy bolters at them. I can still fire my lascannons and volcano cannons at targets I care about. And I can hit back with 9 melee attacks. The only reason I'm not charging into melee myself is that I'd rather spend my first turn firing a Volcano cannon at full BS. If the melee units want to come to me? Let them.
Maybe I might find myself in a situation where I want a second volcano cannon. But if I spend 400 points on it instead of 300 points, I can target that second cannon at a second unit whenever the first one hits. I'll also get an extra 26 T8/3+ wounds to protect it. Or I can just spend those other 300 points on something other than a second volcano cannon.
Forgeworld needs to do a few proof reading swings but I hope it becomes globally accepted. Superheavies aside, a fw ban in validates my friends red scorpions army and relegates my salamanders to only 1 named character. Might not matter to others but those few characters really add a lot when gw has had its tunnel vision on other parts of the game
ross-128 wrote: Also, regarding FW's status under GW: back when it started in 1998, FW was an independent company that held a license to make GW models. However, a few years ago when the license came up for renewal, GW declined to renew the license and instead bought FW. FW is now a department within GW, which GW uses as a catch-all for models that they don't consider "mainstream" enough to mass-produce in plastic and as an excuse to double-dip on codex sales.
Not quite accurate. The original "Forge World" was an independent company in the US that, like Armorcast, bought the license to make 40k-scale versions of some of the old Epic units. This was way back in the early 90s, when the 40k model range still had massive gaps. Most of the models are terrible, and long forgotten. The modern "Forge World" is a brand name that GW uses for certain product lines, much like Citadel or White Dwarf. It is not and never has been an independent company, and the people working on those product lines have nothing to do with the US company. The only thing the two have in common is that they both have/had names that reference the same piece of 40k fluff.
