list of the best in faction. Predictably the codex factions did really well, though nothing can stop AM which is scary because they are bound to get even better with codex.
techsoldaten wrote: Need to see the lists to understand these results. #1 question in my mind: did the winner use conscripts?
Also what are some of the other lists, b.c i have an idea that there are other lists that can beat the Conscripts and wanted to see if others are trying them.
Also as a SoB and Harlequins player im curious to what they did.
Soup more commonly known as Imperial Soup or Chaos Soup is blending a bunch of indexes and codices together to make an almighty army from all the strongest units.
Top placing was Conscripts, Celestine, Elysians, etc. All the really powerful stuff right now. The list is floating around online, it's nothing that surprising. Certainly crafted well with some meta adjustments (two Commissars, Snipers) but not reinventing the wheel.
I was there in the GT, 4-4 with Astra Militarum superheavy tank company.
If anyone has questions, let me know.
There is a bit of an issue in that people were allowed to pick whatever faction they wanted when signing in, so some people picked what they wanted to identify with, others picked what their most expensive detachment was, still others picked what faction their warlord was from, etc.
Best example is the winning list: It's Imperial Soup. The most expensive detachments AM, I believe, but it also included Guilliman among other things. It definitely was not pure AM, most of those got pushed out before the finals.
Orks had a list that finished 9th; otherwise the top 10 is littered with Imperial/Chaos Soup armies largely favoring Elysians, Conscripts, Cultists, and aura-Special Character spam.
I genuinely had to do an internet search for 'Asuryani', what is it with the proliferation of weird names!
Nice to see Orks middle of the pack, however there are a lot of kunning and passionate Ork players out there so they may be punching above their weight in the overall standings.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ah, I saw two guilliman on the finals table on sunday. Unless the Warhammer TV wasn't streaming the final, but I thought they said they were!
Oh well. I remember it because both sides had Guilliman and I made a hilarious joke about which one was the impostor.
Maybe I thought it was the finals but it was really just some random game because of the Warhammer TV fanfare.
Must be, because according to the app round 4 was the winning Imperial Soup vs Chaos Soup and another pair of 2 Chaos Soup lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Winning list:
2nd place (from the NOVA Invitational):
2nd place from the NOVA Open GT (same player/list won 1st place):
Supreme command
5 malefic lords
Aetaos’rao’keres
Supreme command
5 malefic lords
Brigade
3 malefic lords
The changeling
10 pink horrors
5 x 10 brims and a blue
3x scout sentinels with lascannons
3x heavy weapons squads with mortars
3 x command sqauds with lascannon
186 summoning points
Supreme command
5 malefic lords
Aetaos’rao’keres
Supreme command
5 malefic lords
Brigade
3 malefic lords
The changeling
10 pink horrors
5 x 10 brims and a blue
3x scout sentinels with lascannons
3x heavy weapons squads with mortars
3 x command sqauds with lascannon
186 summoning points
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ah, I saw two guilliman on the finals table on sunday. Unless the Warhammer TV wasn't streaming the final, but I thought they said they were!
Oh well. I remember it because both sides had Guilliman and I made a hilarious joke about which one was the impostor.
Maybe I thought it was the finals but it was really just some random game because of the Warhammer TV fanfare.
Must be, because according to the app round 4 was the winning Imperial Soup vs Chaos Soup and another pair of 2 Chaos Soup lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Winning list:
2nd place:
I fething KNEW Arkos worked like I thought he did. Time to start my list writing for CSM soon!
I realize now I was posting lists from the Invitational, not the NOVA Open GT. The 2nd place person for the GT was:
Supreme command
5 malefic lords
Aetaos’rao’keres
Supreme command
5 malefic lords
Brigade
3 malefic lords
The changeling
10 pink horrors
5 x 10 brims and a blue
3x scout sentinels with lascannons
3x heavy weapons squads with mortars
3 x command sqauds with lascannon
186 summoning points
Ah, I saw two guilliman on the finals table on sunday. Unless the Warhammer TV wasn't streaming the final, but I thought they said they were!
Oh well. I remember it because both sides had Guilliman and I made a hilarious joke about which one was the impostor.
Maybe I thought it was the finals but it was really just some random game because of the Warhammer TV fanfare.
Must be, because according to the app round 4 was the winning Imperial Soup vs Chaos Soup and another pair of 2 Chaos Soup lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Winning list:
2nd place:
I fething KNEW Arkos worked like I thought he did. Time to start my list writing for CSM soon!
I realize now I was posting lists from the Invitational, not the NOVA Open GT. The 2nd place person for the GT was:
Supreme command
5 malefic lords
Aetaos’rao’keres
Supreme command
5 malefic lords
Brigade
3 malefic lords
The changeling
10 pink horrors
5 x 10 brims and a blue
3x scout sentinels with lascannons
3x heavy weapons squads with mortars
3 x command sqauds with lascannon
186 summoning points
Pfft I don't care! All I know is I was RIGHT the entire time on how Arkos interacted with Alpha Legion and the Alpha Legion/CSM tactics threads telling me otherwise.
150 celestine
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
15 x1 astropath
15 x1 astropath
I imagine the other one followed the same broad outline of minimal GK with imperium allies. Here (https://mismatchedplay.com/2017/08/31/nova-invitational-lists) are some of the other lists used during the Invitational. You can watch some of the invitational and open games, including one of the semis and the final for the open, from Mismatched Play's twitch (http://www.twitch.tv/mismatchedplay).
Amishprn86 wrote: I would like to see Ynnari or Quins and SOB if anyone can. (If not i understand not to big of a deal)
We've only got two lists so far. Just exercise a little patience.
I was there and used to be able to see the lists on my phone (app shut them off now). I don't recall any highly placed GK list actually being heavy GK. A hair over 50% tops and they were always paired with AM till you got to the lower rankings.
The War Walkers are a bit different, Quins need AT, im guessing its the cheapest/hardest to kill ratio.
Very close ot how i play mine 4 troup units 2 FP each and Embraces with 2x3 RWF, but i use 2 Ravagers for Long range AT, afc i use solitaire and shadowseers/troupe masters.
GhostRecon wrote: Orks had a list that finished 9th; otherwise the top 10 is littered with Imperial/Chaos Soup armies largely favoring Elysians, Conscripts, Cultists, and aura-Special Character spam.
Where do you see this because their website lists orks as like 38th not 9th. the 9th list on there is Daemons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Side note: I would love to know what he used to place that high. I am guessing Boyz/Stormboyz spam with some heavy Psyker presence.
GhostRecon wrote: Orks had a list that finished 9th; otherwise the top 10 is littered with Imperial/Chaos Soup armies largely favoring Elysians, Conscripts, Cultists, and aura-Special Character spam.
Where do you see this because their website lists orks as like 38th not 9th. the 9th list on there is Daemons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Side note: I would love to know what he used to place that high. I am guessing Boyz/Stormboyz spam with some heavy Psyker presence.
That was from NOVA's Invitational side. And right on the money:
godardc wrote: Why are the Elysian so strong ? Deep striking, msu and special weapons ?
Only cost 1pt more than regular Guardsman to get non-faction/Detachment specific deep-strike with easy to spam MSU w/Special Weapons (Command squads, Special Weapon Squads, and Sniper Teams).
xeen wrote: It seems that all the top lists makes use of forge world.
?
I mean, you are right I'm just not sure why you mentioned it. It'd be weird if the best lists could ignore an entire book's worth of models and options for their faction and still do well.
xeen wrote: It seems that all the top lists makes use of forge world.
?
I mean, you are right I'm just not sure why you mentioned it. It'd be weird if the best lists could ignore an entire book's worth of models and options for their faction and still do well.
I mention it because I feel forge world rules are pretty broken for a lot of units. So really to compete you need them.
xeen wrote: It seems that all the top lists makes use of forge world.
?
I mean, you are right I'm just not sure why you mentioned it. It'd be weird if the best lists could ignore an entire book's worth of models and options for their faction and still do well.
I mention it because I feel forge world rules are pretty broken for a lot of units. So really to compete you need them.
Up goes the Peregrine signal once more.
The bulk of the craziness is and almost always has been GW rules. There have always been some exceptions and edge cases where FW stuff is undercosted but the far more egregious offenses have come from the other side of the aisle (which still baffles me why they keep this division at all both in rules writing and sales channels)
xeen wrote: It seems that all the top lists makes use of forge world.
?
I mean, you are right I'm just not sure why you mentioned it. It'd be weird if the best lists could ignore an entire book's worth of models and options for their faction and still do well.
I mention it because I feel forge world rules are pretty broken for a lot of units. So really to compete you need them.
Up goes the Peregrine signal once more.
The bulk of the craziness is and almost always has been GW rules. There have always been some exceptions and edge cases where FW stuff is undercosted but the far more egregious offenses have come from the other side of the aisle (which still baffles me why they keep this division at all both in rules writing and sales channels)
There are a few egregious GW examples, and always will be in some form in a ruleset with this many intermixable factions. But essentially every list that's made the top 10 of these tournaments had abused the often undercosted options from FW. The top winner's list is a great example; sure, he could try spamming Scions instead of Elysians, but it is nowhere near as efficient or effective (particularly after GW killed Command Squad spam with their band-aid fix, and who knows what the Codex will bring) - but 12pts for a deep-striking plasma gun isn't anything to sneeze at, and having every Elysian squad get deep-strike for 1ppm is a huge boon in an edition with precision deep-strike.
GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...
But FW is responsible for: Elysian spam, Vultures, Malefic lord spam, and cheap Earthshaker/Manticore spam that were observed in this tournament alone. FW has its fair share of imbalance - one of the only reasons we don't see more of it is due to the cost of the models.
xeen wrote: It seems that all the top lists makes use of forge world.
?
I mean, you are right I'm just not sure why you mentioned it. It'd be weird if the best lists could ignore an entire book's worth of models and options for their faction and still do well.
I mention it because I feel forge world rules are pretty broken for a lot of units. So really to compete you need them.
Dont say that to Corsair players, it will make them have a mental breakdown.
My list was 0 Forgeworld and ended up middle of the pack. My buddy's had 1 Forgeworld unit and was like top 35%. Another friend fielded an army of exclusively Forgeworld save for Celestine from what I could tell and was pretty close to the bottom.
Forgeworld doesn't seem to have been a predictor of success.
The real problem is that FW doesn't have the same commitment to quick responses to the meta that GW does. We can expect GW's problems to get fixed quickly just as flyer spam was fixed quickly, while Malefic Lords and Elysians will be around for a good long while.
Audustum wrote: My list was 0 Forgeworld and ended up missed of the pack. My buddy's had 1 Forgeworld unit and was like top 35%. Another friend fielded an army of exclusively Forgeworld save for Celestine from what I could tell and was pretty close to the bottom.
Forgeworld doesn't seem to have been a predictor of success.
^ My point! A lot of the lists had Forge World (mine included).
TBH, I wonder if - regardless of GW/FW - the only way for a force to count as battle-forged was if every Detachment shared the same keyword much of the current imbalance would go away or be substantially reduced. Still have Imperial/Chaos Soup, etc., but no more faction-Detachment internal shenanigans.
Slightly tangential, how do you guys think they should handle factions? My personal thought is your faction should be the most restrictive keyword all of your units share. Want to compete for top Blood angels for instance, play blood angels, not 51% blood angels and 49% imperial soup.
Might be a moot point though as faction identity is at an all time low, and the codexes don't seem to have done much to help with that. Maybe 8th ed isn't going to be a game where factions matter, You'll have chaos, imperium, and a bunch of xenos factions on the way to getting squatted.
Truth! To draw a distinction is silly. Even so, I will do so if only to indulge the haters.
Same over-arching owning business company =/= same design/rules-writing shop.
Yes, that's true, and regrettable. I still maintain that a large majority (>80% at least) of FW stuff isn't that spectacular.
I think a lot of it has been poor throughout the editions. Its just you almost never see it on the table. When people bring Forgeworld its almost always the top tier stuff and this gives it the reputation of being broken.
Its pretty clear something needs to be done about the usual suspects. Not sure what GW can do barring some swinging nerfs though, which they seem loath to do.
The problem with Forgeworld units has typically been caused by a larger spectrum of imbalanced units from strong to weak, more so than in GW standard rosters. Which makes a generally very low consensus of FW rules-writing capability. Especially when considering what most people think of 'main studio GW' rules-writing capabilities.
It's no surprise that the top tournament winners are cherry-picking the most broken combinations among GW/FW units.
Mchaagen wrote: The problem with Forgeworld units has typically been caused by a larger spectrum of imbalanced units from strong to weak, more so than in GW standard rosters. Which makes a generally very low consensus of FW rules-writing capability. Especially when considering what most people think of 'main studio GW' rules-writing capabilities.
It's no surprise that the top tournament winners are cherry-picking the most broken combinations among GW/FW units.
That's the problem I have with FW, generally speaking - the pendulum tends to swing to far greater extremes with FW rules. Which is unfortunate, as I love more than a few of the models.
Mchaagen wrote: The problem with Forgeworld units has typically been caused by a larger spectrum of imbalanced units from strong to weak, more so than in GW standard rosters. Which makes a generally very low consensus of FW rules-writing capability. Especially when considering what most people think of 'main studio GW' rules-writing capabilities.
It's no surprise that the top tournament winners are cherry-picking the most broken combinations among GW/FW units.
That's the problem I have with FW, generally speaking - the pendulum tends to swing to far greater extremes with FW rules. Which is unfortunate, as I love more than a few of the models.
Which is basically never. Stop pretending it's that imbalanced. I can name SEVERAL things in the past decade that GW did wrong. Post yours for FW and we can compare notes!
FW is really no different than GW. Both have unbalanced units. People don't care as much when a GW broken unit is brought as opposed to a FW unit since GW's name is on the game and not FW. There are broken units in the standard game armies that get brought just as often. Just look at Razorwing Flocks and Brimstones from earlier. They got fixed and people are saying GW fIxes more than FW but there was also a FW errata that was released recently too.
Yeah the idea GW balances better than FW is laughable imo. Better proofreading maybe, but not balance. Because, while FW does have imbalanced units, they actually get spread across most factions. As opossums to GW, who tends to dump them on 1-2 (imperial) factions, and if they accidentally make anything else overpowered it'll be nerfed sharpish while the imperial brokenness stays around forever.
Case and point, the "quick" responses to brimstones and razorwings, while doing nothing about any of the issues with guard.
At least FW tries to balance and just screws up, GW actively favors some armies and people act like that should be praised? Good lord non.
Hoodwink wrote: FW is really no different than GW. Both have unbalanced units. People don't care as much when a GW broken unit is brought as opposed to a FW unit since GW's name is on the game and not FW. There are broken units in the standard game armies that get brought just as often. Just look at Razorwing Flocks and Brimstones from earlier. They got fixed and people are saying GW fIxes more than FW but there was also a FW errata that was released recently too.
Except FW is different. They are run by a separate studio, composed of a completely different team of people that develop rules and models that appeal to a niche group of customers due to pricing, style, etc. I assume that was the point of creating FW in the first place.
Yes, both FW and GW have unbalanced units. But the point being made is there's a wider gap of imbalance among FW units, over-powered and under-powered.
The FW errata that was released mostly focused on fixing typos and poorly written rules. That's not the same as the balance changes made to units' points costs that GW has recently done to razorwing flocks and brimstone horrors.
Mchaagen wrote: The problem with Forgeworld units has typically been caused by a larger spectrum of imbalanced units from strong to weak, more so than in GW standard rosters. Which makes a generally very low consensus of FW rules-writing capability. Especially when considering what most people think of 'main studio GW' rules-writing capabilities.
It's no surprise that the top tournament winners are cherry-picking the most broken combinations among GW/FW units.
That's the problem I have with FW, generally speaking - the pendulum tends to swing to far greater extremes with FW rules. Which is unfortunate, as I love more than a few of the models.
Which is basically never. Stop pretending it's that imbalanced. I can name SEVERAL things in the past decade that GW did wrong. Post yours for FW and we can compare notes!
Kind of a strawman to bring in GW's performance in the past decade - not to mention that I didn't suggest GW isn't without fault either, I simply suggested that FW swings the OP/useless pendulum with greater extreme. What matters is what GW has given us now, and how they have performed/acted since giving us 8th Edition. GW's past performance can inform some trends, but GW has already bucked several long-standing traditions with the onset of 8th. Indeed, beyond a handful of offenders that will probably be pared back between GW's 'balance compendium' in Chapter Approved come December and the AM Codex coming next month people widely regard 8th as being much better balanced - have people already forgotten where under the much, much longer development/balance cycles of years past we'd see overpowered/broken units/lists often go years before finally being fixed?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverAlien wrote: Yeah the idea GW balances better than FW is laughable imo. Better proofreading maybe, but not balance. Because, while FW does have imbalanced units, they actually get spread across most factions. As opossums to GW, who tends to dump them on 1-2 (imperial) factions, and if they accidentally make anything else overpowered it'll be nerfed sharpish while the imperial brokenness stays around forever.
Case and point, the "quick" responses to brimstones and razorwings, while doing nothing about any of the issues with guard.
At least FW tries to balance and just screws up, GW actively favors some armies and people act like that should be praised? Good lord non.
Think the Guard issue w/Conscripts/Commissars may have been differed to the Codex - at least if they recognize it as broken and a problem, which at least according to the way the folks over at FLG talk seems to be the case. That they haven't released a quick FAQ for it suggests they either wanted more time to playtest up a solution to input into the Codex, or that the Codex has a larger/more comprehensive fix rather than just adjusting some points values here and there. For example, they quashed the Command Squad spam issue pretty quickly, if you recall - but it was also a very easy fix.
But where has FW actually fixed/balanced anything in their rules thus far? As Mchaagen said:
Except FW is different. They are run by a separate studio, composed of a completely different team of people that develop rules and models that appeal to a niche group of customers due to pricing, style, etc. I assume that was the point of creating FW in the first place.
Yes, both FW and GW have unbalanced units. But the point being made is there's a wider gap of imbalance among FW units, over-powered and under-powered.
The FW errata that was released mostly focused on fixing typos and poorly written rules. That's not the same as the balance changes made to units' points costs that GW has recently done to razorwing flocks and brimstone horrors.
SilverAlien wrote: ...while the imperial brokenness stays around forever.
...GW actively favors some armies and people act like that should be praised? Good lord non.
This hyperbole is getting ridiculous. Which imperial faction has been broken forever? Imperial Guard? Space Marines? Maybe Blood Angels? Or just imperium in general.. because Necrons have never been good, or Eldar, or Tau, or even Tyranids right?
No one is acting as though GW should be praised for less skew than FW.
As far as FW dominating. They have in the past but I don't know anything off the top of my head that's dominating any tournaments right now. I'd say it's pretty balanced. They happen to have some good units that may be slightly OP but for armies that aren't particularly doing well (hello Tau and Necrons).
Hoodwink wrote: As far as FW dominating. They have in the past but I don't know anything off the top of my head that's dominating any tournaments right now. I'd say it's pretty balanced. They happen to have some good units that may be slightly OP but for armies that aren't particularly doing well (hello Tau and Necrons).
Uh, this whole conversation was started because of the winning list at NOVA Open, which heavily features Elysian drop troops.
And this is the first time I've ever seen a mention of them anywhere in these forums. I'm not sure if they are OP or if people just have no clue how to play against them since they are so rare.
SilverAlien wrote: ...while the imperial brokenness stays around forever.
...GW actively favors some armies and people act like that should be praised? Good lord non.
This hyperbole is getting ridiculous. Which imperial faction has been broken forever? Imperial Guard? Space Marines? Maybe Blood Angels? Or just imperium in general.. because Necrons have never been good, or Eldar, or Tau, or even Tyranids right?
No one is acting as though GW should be praised for less skew than FW.
Well yes, back when everything stayed broken forever because GW was even less responsive than FW is now.
However, recent GW "responsiveness" that people keep praising only applies to non imperial armies. Hell, they "fixed" the space marine flyer spam by nerfing all flyers for every single army. Twice. When many of them already weren't worth taking.
That's why I get annoyed at people praising GW "balance" and "responsiveness", it's not actually improved anything, GW is the same as they've ever been, awful at balance and heavily skewed.
I'm glad to see there's nothing worth discussing about NOVA than Forgeworld.
Anyway, from the view in the trenches, there was a really nice amount of diversity present. While Imperium armies were a plurality, I saw multiples of Dark Eldar, Ynnari, Tau, Necrons, Chaos, CSM and even 3 Adeptus Custodes. The top cut down diversity a bit so balancing work isn't done, but people seem to be having fun and bringing out a full range of armies even to a GT.
Mchaagen wrote: The problem with Forgeworld units has typically been caused by a larger spectrum of imbalanced units from strong to weak, more so than in GW standard rosters. Which makes a generally very low consensus of FW rules-writing capability. Especially when considering what most people think of 'main studio GW' rules-writing capabilities.
It's no surprise that the top tournament winners are cherry-picking the most broken combinations among GW/FW units.
That's the problem I have with FW, generally speaking - the pendulum tends to swing to far greater extremes with FW rules. Which is unfortunate, as I love more than a few of the models.
Which is basically never. Stop pretending it's that imbalanced. I can name SEVERAL things in the past decade that GW did wrong. Post yours for FW and we can compare notes!
Kind of a strawman to bring in GW's performance in the past decade - not to mention that I didn't suggest GW isn't without fault either, I simply suggested that FW swings the OP/useless pendulum with greater extreme. What matters is what GW has given us now, and how they have performed/acted since giving us 8th Edition. GW's past performance can inform some trends, but GW has already bucked several long-standing traditions with the onset of 8th. Indeed, beyond a handful of offenders that will probably be pared back between GW's 'balance compendium' in Chapter Approved come December and the AM Codex coming next month people widely regard 8th as being much better balanced - have people already forgotten where under the much, much longer development/balance cycles of years past we'd see overpowered/broken units/lists often go years before finally being fixed?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverAlien wrote: Yeah the idea GW balances better than FW is laughable imo. Better proofreading maybe, but not balance. Because, while FW does have imbalanced units, they actually get spread across most factions. As opossums to GW, who tends to dump them on 1-2 (imperial) factions, and if they accidentally make anything else overpowered it'll be nerfed sharpish while the imperial brokenness stays around forever.
Case and point, the "quick" responses to brimstones and razorwings, while doing nothing about any of the issues with guard.
At least FW tries to balance and just screws up, GW actively favors some armies and people act like that should be praised? Good lord non.
Think the Guard issue w/Conscripts/Commissars may have been differed to the Codex - at least if they recognize it as broken and a problem, which at least according to the way the folks over at FLG talk seems to be the case. That they haven't released a quick FAQ for it suggests they either wanted more time to playtest up a solution to input into the Codex, or that the Codex has a larger/more comprehensive fix rather than just adjusting some points values here and there. For example, they quashed the Command Squad spam issue pretty quickly, if you recall - but it was also a very easy fix.
But where has FW actually fixed/balanced anything in their rules thus far? As Mchaagen said:
Except FW is different. They are run by a separate studio, composed of a completely different team of people that develop rules and models that appeal to a niche group of customers due to pricing, style, etc. I assume that was the point of creating FW in the first place.
Yes, both FW and GW have unbalanced units. But the point being made is there's a wider gap of imbalance among FW units, over-powered and under-powered.
The FW errata that was released mostly focused on fixing typos and poorly written rules. That's not the same as the balance changes made to units' points costs that GW has recently done to razorwing flocks and brimstone horrors.
No it ISN'T a straw man because you DO need to compare the two if you're claiming their swing of imbalance is worse.
So I'm waiting for your writeup. Or one from someone else.
Yeah, you can't say "FW's OPness/UPness is more swingy/broader than GW's!" and then say "Woah no I didn't mention GW that's a strawman."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum: Also, while we're discussing things about NOVA specifically, I found it weird that you could win on objective points even if you had been tabled.
That one hurt me pretty bad in my 3rd (?) game, where I tabled my opponent and lost.
I see where they are coming from and it makes sense in a way, but it does leave a bit of a sour taste in my mouth.
Audustum wrote: I'm glad to see there's nothing worth discussing about NOVA than Forgeworld.
Anyway, from the view in the trenches, there was a really nice amount of diversity present. While Imperium armies were a plurality, I saw multiples of Dark Eldar, Ynnari, Tau, Necrons, Chaos, CSM and even 3 Adeptus Custodes. The top cut down diversity a bit so balancing work isn't done, but people seem to be having fun and bringing out a full range of armies even to a GT.
13 xenos armies in the top 50 is not diverse, with the other 37 armies being either chaos or imperium....
SilverAlien wrote: Well yes, back when everything stayed broken forever because GW was even less responsive than FW is now.
However, recent GW "responsiveness" that people keep praising only applies to non imperial armies. Hell, they "fixed" the space marine flyer spam by nerfing all flyers for every single army. Twice. When many of them already weren't worth taking.
That's why I get annoyed at people praising GW "balance" and "responsiveness", it's not actually improved anything, GW is the same as they've ever been, awful at balance and heavily skewed.
Your definition of 'broken forever' is significantly different than mine.
The idea that GW is only responsive to imperial armies is nonsense. Necron voidblades and character command barges, Tau shield drones 5+ save from passing on wounds, Ynnari Visarch 4+ invulnerable, Harlequin Solitaire gaining <Masque> keyword, and Chaos Daemon Prince wounds profile adjustment to less than 10 are some of the changes that prove that statement false.
I think they're still heavily lacking in rules balance, but GW has definitely been more responsive lately compared to how they've been in the past.
Audustum wrote: I'm glad to see there's nothing worth discussing about NOVA than Forgeworld.
Anyway, from the view in the trenches, there was a really nice amount of diversity present. While Imperium armies were a plurality, I saw multiples of Dark Eldar, Ynnari, Tau, Necrons, Chaos, CSM and even 3 Adeptus Custodes. The top cut down diversity a bit so balancing work isn't done, but people seem to be having fun and bringing out a full range of armies even to a GT.
13 xenos armies in the top 50 is not diverse, with the other 37 armies being either chaos or imperium....
Are you implying that Index armies should be able to beat Codex armies?
A lack of a comprehensive 'writeup' of all the imbalance between FW and GW in the last decade doesn't prove your point. The reason why you keep suggesting this in the first place and why no one has cared to do it is because it would be just a ridiculously large undertaking to comb through all the broken/unbalanced units in Imperial Armor books for the last ten years. Not to mention how many people have the full collection of books or that are willing to pour countless hours into just navigating through their poorly organized material.
The complaint was they aren't responsive to imperial armies. If they were responsive, guard would be nerfed and they wouldn't have nerfed flyers as a whole to avoid nerf into space marines directly. Basically, imperial armies get to keep their broken toys cause GW doesn't want to make any meaningful nerfs to their precious babies. The worst they've done is the command squad guard thing, which was a fart in a hurricane.
Audustum wrote: I'm glad to see there's nothing worth discussing about NOVA than Forgeworld.
Anyway, from the view in the trenches, there was a really nice amount of diversity present. While Imperium armies were a plurality, I saw multiples of Dark Eldar, Ynnari, Tau, Necrons, Chaos, CSM and even 3 Adeptus Custodes. The top cut down diversity a bit so balancing work isn't done, but people seem to be having fun and bringing out a full range of armies even to a GT.
13 xenos armies in the top 50 is not diverse, with the other 37 armies being either chaos or imperium....
Are you implying that Index armies should be able to beat Codex armies?
I mean... one did. Astra Militarum won the tournament.
Audustum wrote: I'm glad to see there's nothing worth discussing about NOVA than Forgeworld.
Anyway, from the view in the trenches, there was a really nice amount of diversity present. While Imperium armies were a plurality, I saw multiples of Dark Eldar, Ynnari, Tau, Necrons, Chaos, CSM and even 3 Adeptus Custodes. The top cut down diversity a bit so balancing work isn't done, but people seem to be having fun and bringing out a full range of armies even to a GT.
13 xenos armies in the top 50 is not diverse, with the other 37 armies being either chaos or imperium....
Dude, I was obviously talking about the tournament as a whole. There were 212 players.
A lack of a comprehensive 'writeup' of all the imbalance between FW and GW in the last decade doesn't prove your point. The reason why you keep suggesting this in the first place and why no one has cared to do it is because it would be just a ridiculously large undertaking to comb through all the broken/unbalanced units in Imperial Armor books for the last ten years. Not to mention how many people have the full collection of books or that are willing to pour countless hours into just navigating through their poorly organized material.
Ah yes, all...13 Imperial Armor books. How many Codices we had since then?
Also the burden of proof is on you. If you want to make the baseless claim, feel free. Without facts, though, it will REMAIN baseless.
I'm willing to write up the last 10 years of feth ups on GW's end. I can't simply imagine why you aren't willing to do the same for 13 books...
SilverAlien wrote: The complaint was they aren't responsive to imperial armies. If they were responsive, guard would be nerfed and they wouldn't have nerfed flyers as a whole to avoid nerf into space marines directly. Basically, imperial armies get to keep their broken toys cause GW doesn't want to make any meaningful nerfs to their precious babies. The worst they've done is the command squad guard thing, which was a fart in a hurricane.
The complaint was that the 'responsiveness,' or what you think are purely nerfs, only apply to non-imperial armies. Which is obviously not the case.
The general nerf to flyers was the easy option, not necessarily the best. It was easy for one specific reason--the marine codex was already done and printed, so making a change to the points cost of specific units (storm raven and Guilliman for another argument) so close to its release looks pretty bad on their part and diminishes sales of the book.
There are certainly other Space Marine/imperial flyers that weren't considered op that were also affected just as much as non-imperial flyers by the 'boots on the ground' rule, so I'm not sure how your argument is valid.
I'm curious to see if they've had time to incorporate any changes within the upcoming Astra Militarum book or whether they include any significant changes to codex books in the Chapter Approved released at the end of the year.
A lack of a comprehensive 'writeup' of all the imbalance between FW and GW in the last decade doesn't prove your point. The reason why you keep suggesting this in the first place and why no one has cared to do it is because it would be just a ridiculously large undertaking to comb through all the broken/unbalanced units in Imperial Armor books for the last ten years. Not to mention how many people have the full collection of books or that are willing to pour countless hours into just navigating through their poorly organized material.
Ah yes, all...13 Imperial Armor books. How many Codices we had since then?
Also the burden of proof is on you. If you want to make the baseless claim, feel free. Without facts, though, it will REMAIN baseless.
I'm willing to write up the last 10 years of feth ups on GW's end. I can't simply imagine why you aren't willing to do the same for 13 books...
Because I don't have them all and if I did (which would be shocking because they're poorly done and overcost) I don't have the desire to burn countless hours recording all the badly designed units in each book and defending them against your claims of being baseless.
SilverAlien wrote: The complaint was they aren't responsive to imperial armies. If they were responsive, guard would be nerfed and they wouldn't have nerfed flyers as a whole to avoid nerf into space marines directly. Basically, imperial armies get to keep their broken toys cause GW doesn't want to make any meaningful nerfs to their precious babies. The worst they've done is the command squad guard thing, which was a fart in a hurricane.
The complaint was that the 'responsiveness,' or what you think are purely nerfs, only apply to non-imperial armies. Which is obviously not the case.
The general nerf to flyers was the easy option, not necessarily the best. It was easy for one specific reason--the marine codex was already done and printed, so making a change to the points cost of specific units (storm raven and Guilliman for another argument) so close to its release looks pretty bad on their part and diminishes sales of the book.
There are certainly other Space Marine/imperial flyers that weren't considered op that were also affected just as much as non-imperial flyers by the 'boots on the ground' rule, so I'm not sure how your argument is valid.
I'm curious to see if they've had time to incorporate any changes within the upcoming Astra Militarum book or whether they include any significant changes to codex books in the Chapter Approved released at the end of the year.
A lack of a comprehensive 'writeup' of all the imbalance between FW and GW in the last decade doesn't prove your point. The reason why you keep suggesting this in the first place and why no one has cared to do it is because it would be just a ridiculously large undertaking to comb through all the broken/unbalanced units in Imperial Armor books for the last ten years. Not to mention how many people have the full collection of books or that are willing to pour countless hours into just navigating through their poorly organized material.
Ah yes, all...13 Imperial Armor books. How many Codices we had since then?
Also the burden of proof is on you. If you want to make the baseless claim, feel free. Without facts, though, it will REMAIN baseless.
I'm willing to write up the last 10 years of feth ups on GW's end. I can't simply imagine why you aren't willing to do the same for 13 books...
Because I don't have them all and if I did (which would be shocking because they're poorly done and overcost) I don't have the desire to burn countless hours recording all the badly designed units in each book and defending them against your claims of being baseless.
It wouldn't take countless hours to do that with Mainstream GW, so it wouldn't take that much time with FW. You're making it up as an excuse not to do it at this point because you're that afraid of being proven wrong.
So I await for the great ginormous number of FW units. Please. Do it. Every time I tell you naysayers to do it, you've just blatantly ignored it because you can't. Maybe you'll be the chosen one though to prove me, Perigrine, and countless others wrong on our assessment of FW being completely fair barring super rare exceptions. I doubt it with your attitude though.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It wouldn't take countless hours to do that with Mainstream GW, so it wouldn't take that much time with FW. You're making it up as an excuse not to do it at this point because you're that afraid of being proven wrong.
So I await for the great ginormous number of FW units. Please. Do it. Every time I tell you naysayers to do it, you've just blatantly ignored it because you can't. Maybe you'll be the chosen one though to prove me, Perigrine, and countless others wrong on our assessment of FW being completely fair barring super rare exceptions. I doubt it with your attitude though.
How long would it take, since you've obviously done this before? But I'll give you a hint, part of the reason it would be a lot of work is because of the explanations and cross-comparisons of why units are unbalanced.
You seem to be missing the point as to why I said I won't do it, and why I can't do it. Beyond the time investment, I literally do not have access to all the FW books from the last decade. So saying 'I've blatantly ignored it' is somewhat ironic.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It wouldn't take countless hours to do that with Mainstream GW, so it wouldn't take that much time with FW. You're making it up as an excuse not to do it at this point because you're that afraid of being proven wrong.
So I await for the great ginormous number of FW units. Please. Do it. Every time I tell you naysayers to do it, you've just blatantly ignored it because you can't. Maybe you'll be the chosen one though to prove me, Perigrine, and countless others wrong on our assessment of FW being completely fair barring super rare exceptions. I doubt it with your attitude though.
How long would it take, since you've obviously done this before? But I'll give you a hint, part of the reason it would be a lot of work is because of the explanations and cross-comparisons of why units are unbalanced.
You seem to be missing the point as to why I said I won't do it, and why I can't do it. Beyond the time investment, I literally do not have access to all the FW books from the last decade. So saying 'I've blatantly ignored it' is somewhat ironic.
Without being able to even read the rules and units in question, how can you claim they are OP? That's like saying "Paris is ugly but I have never been there!"
So, couple of thoughts on the last few pages of discussion -
Until all the codices are released, I don't think we will see much in terms of "faction representation balance" in the top tables of events. Without doubt, Chaos had a strong turnout simply because of the new codex which also happens to be a vast improvement/provides options compared to previous editions. People are genuinely excited to be playing them again – though it helps that some options are currently considered to be top tier. I expect the same thing to happen once Death Guard are released, and then again with Ad Mech etc etc.
Once all the books have been released options will hopefully exist for all the armies to varying degrees. In addition, once they are all released, we might see new rules come into play which highly incentivise “non-soup” armies.
In regards to the top Guard armies, where any of them actually pure guard, or were they soup lists? The dynamic may change with the codex, but, I’m not sure how many changes we will see due to the publishing lee time. What I do think, however, is that FW need to get a move on in regards to ensuring their “chapter tactics” are released in line with the GW releases. Once conscripts are “re-balanced” a lot of the current lists will probably have to change fundamentally, either that, or people will need to seriously look at their own army compositions, to begin to focus around compositions that can easily remove 50-100 t3 models a turn. Too many people compare things in isolation, rather than as a whole, in my view, currently.
The whole FW “OP” issue I think is greatly exaggerated. Currently you see a lot of Malefic Lords because they are cheap in Chaos soup armies, but, beyond that what other FW do you see spammed for Chaos? On the flip side, how many Imperial armies contain RG or Magnus? Sure, Elysians are “slightly better” Scions, but, I’ve not seen a pure Elysian list win anything yet. The top players will ALWAYS pick and choose the most efficient units they can, they are there to win after all, so the figures will always be skewed. The same way so many people use Cyber Wolves, because they are super cheap filler units (but no one complains about them? They are, essentially in lists for the same reason as Malefic Lords – Command Points) Just because a FW unit appears in a lot of lists doesn’t mean the unit itself if OP, it is what the unit can provide overall that is the issue. A simple solution is, for the price of 2 Lords, you can get a Culxeus Assassin which basically completely counters the smite spam. The only advantage GW has over FW, is that -most- of its OP units are 1 unit allowed only, whereas certain FW models can be spammed. But then, would you rather build a list around RB/Magnus/Celestine or around 15 Malefic Lords?
I think, rather than “crying” over what was in the top lists, why don’t we, between us all, come up with lists that can beat them?
For example – An Ork list I thought up, could essentially have a first turn charge of 30 boyz, 45 (or 30) kommandos, 15 stormboyz and a Meka Dread, whilst having another 60 boyzs, kill kans, dakka jets and other units following up after. Sure, it all hinges on first turn and making 3 9” charges, but, it’s certainly possible due to the re-rolls. After that, then things like conscript spam armies will just melt.
My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."
The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.
1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.
Breng77 wrote: My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."
The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.
1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.
I used to think FW was just fine, but that was while nothing was even attempting balance anyway. Now I get the feeling that while GW are actually trying FW is like "ah ffs, guys, make some rules for 40k so we can get back to our own project, 30k."
FW being controversial for tournaments is not new. Let's see:
LVO 2017 was won by an Ordnance Tyrant army with Screamer and Fateweaver support. That's a lot of boom, and warp charge.
Pretty much every notable Eldar tournament army in 7e had a Skatach Wraithknight. Not the other versions, despite them being cheaper, but having double Hellstorm Templates really gave Eldar a tool their army otherwise had to go to extremes to field (close-range trench-sweeping).
Almost every Eldar army that needed a fast support skimmer chose a Hornet over a Vyper.
Of course, power is in the eye of the beholder. Whether FW items are OP, or the GW analogies are UP varies from player to player.
GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...
... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.
So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.
Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?
GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...
... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.
So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.
Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?
Razorback Spam, sure. Tau Commander Spam, sure I guess regular Crisis Suits are 'Counts As.' The other three though, players would have had to go out of the way to field, as prior to 6th, one couldn't legally field more than 3 Stormravens anyway, and 6th added the "instalose" clause. The Razorwing Flock was a proxy army, and Brimstones were a relatively recent model (the LVO list for 2017 had 30 Brimstones by comparison).
Breng77 wrote: My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."
The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.
1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.
Hrm, i'm not at home and don't have the xenos, marine or chaos IA books, but, outside of titan's i can only remember 1 or 2 units having t9 in the Astra Militarum book. I'd argue that there are more Str 10 weapons available in GW than T9 units in total.
There are some units that do 2d6dmg - the shadowsword is one of them, the Stompa another. There are also lots of weapon options that do either D6 or fixed 3-6 dmg. I'd also argue, that you've prob got more mortal wound options in standard GW than FW. What units in FW do D6+4 outside of titans? How many of those can be taken in an ITC event? I.E 35 or less Power level.
Macro pretty much only exists on things that are so so so expensive in points and power, you'll never see them in a 2k point army because they can't fit, aka titans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagicJuggler wrote: FW being controversial for tournaments is not new. Let's see:
LVO 2017 was won by an Ordnance Tyrant army with Screamer and Fateweaver support. That's a lot of boom, and warp charge.
Pretty much every notable Eldar tournament army in 7e had a Skatach Wraithknight. Not the other versions, despite them being cheaper, but having double Hellstorm Templates really gave Eldar a tool their army otherwise had to go to extremes to field (close-range trench-sweeping).
Almost every Eldar army that needed a fast support skimmer chose a Hornet over a Vyper.
Of course, power is in the eye of the beholder. Whether FW items are OP, or the GW analogies are UP varies from player to player.
While I completely agree with your examples, I feel now that 7th has to be looked at differently. This is simply because most of the armies in 7th were not in a good position, which has “technically” changed with the release of all the indexes. Tau on the other hand could generally win whatever event they wanted with just standard riptide spam and a few markerlights.
FW is and has always been GW +1. The thing is - the price you pay in points is completely random. You might pay too much or too little. The problem with this is specifically when you are getting a better unit for the same or less points. Which happens frequently with forge world units.
Elysians are a great example. Gardsmen that get free deep strike ability for no additional point cost....wow - real surprise that these units get spammed. It's also worth noting that gardsmen are already exceptional units for their points.
You see how this works? They take a GW unit - give it special rules "SEE GW +1" and don't charge you for them. It happens - it happens a lot - it will always happen - the drive to sell models for 2-3x GW price will always cause this to happen.
GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...
... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.
So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.
Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?
Yes, FW need to get their act together and update their faqs I agree (along with releasing chapter tactics for their space marine chapters etc), however, I’d also argue that GW seems more active on the “issue resolution” front, simply because they’ve got a lot more issues to resolve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: FW is and has always been GW +1. The thing is - the price you pay in points is completely random. You might pay too much or too little. The problem with this is specifically when you are getting a better unit for the same or less points. Which happens frequently with forge world units.
Elysians are a great example. Gardsmen that get free deep strike ability for no additional point cost....wow - real surprise that these units get spammed. It's also worth noting that gardsmen are already exceptional units for their points.
You see how this works? They take a GW unit - give it special rules "SEE GW +1" and don't charge you for them. It happens - it happens a lot - it will always happen - the drive to sell models for 2-3x GW price will always cause this to happen.
Elysian's cost 1 point more than the standard guardsman. Not much for deep-strike, i agree - but 75% of the time you'll be starting your standard unit on the board anyway due to the 50% deployment rule. Command squads cost 4 points less than a Scion Command squad for 4 plasma, but, the offset is that the hotshot lasguns are so so so much better. (but then, you're only taking these units for plasma spam unless you are preparing for the whole "regiment tactics" thing). On the flip side, a Scion commander is 5 points CHEAPER than an Elysian Commander, so, in effect the Scions are cheaper on a 1 for 1 basis (which is required due to 1 command squad = 1 commander). I'd argue that the re-roll morale buff is useless on a 4 man Elysian unit as well. (commanders are the same price if you don't take a plasma pistol on the Eylsian commander)
Breng77 wrote: My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."
The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.
1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.
Hrm, i'm not at home and don't have the xenos, marine or chaos IA books, but, outside of titan's i can only remember 1 or 2 units having t9 in the Astra Militarum book. I'd argue that there are more Str 10 weapons available in GW than T9 units in total.
There are some units that do 2d6dmg - the shadowsword is one of them, the Stompa another. There are also lots of weapon options that do either D6 or fixed 3-6 dmg. I'd also argue, that you've prob got more mortal wound options in standard GW than FW. What units in FW do D6+4 outside of titans? How many of those can be taken in an ITC event? I.E 35 or less Power level.
Macro pretty much only exists on things that are so so so expensive in points and power, you'll never see them in a 2k point army because they can't fit, aka titans.
The stompa does not do 2D6 damage with any attacks, the shadow sword is 1 unit and 2D6 damage is worse than D6+4 damage. Almost every large FW unit has static damage + D3 or D6 The static extra damage + bonus D6 is huge.
S10 is not very plentiful, especially at range, if we count close combat, there is a decent amount of S10. The point still remains not a single GW unit has toughness above 8, a non 0 number of titans have T9. T( units I can find quickly (Brayarth Ashmantle (t9 dread, character), Cerberus heavy destroyer, Falchion, Felblade, Mastadon, Typhon, Stormbird, Thunderhawk assault gunship, ) Some of these are quite expensive, but all under 1k points. Some are less than 500 points. But the point remains, no GW unit has T9 even those that cost as much as these options. All of these could fit pretty easily given that there is still 1500-1000 point left to spend.
Gauss pylon has macro, at 475 points
I'm not even saying these auto win, but they show a difference in design philosophy. FW is looking at playing large scale games with titans, GW is not. This makes for what I consider to be a poor meshing of units in the game. Most FW heavies wipe out vehicles with ease and make them not worth taking.
GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...
... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.
So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.
Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?
Razorback Spam, sure. Tau Commander Spam, sure I guess regular Crisis Suits are 'Counts As.' The other three though, players would have had to go out of the way to field, as prior to 6th, one couldn't legally field more than 3 Stormravens anyway, and 6th added the "instalose" clause. The Razorwing Flock was a proxy army, and Brimstones were a relatively recent model (the LVO list for 2017 had 30 Brimstones by comparison).
Right but if I own 3 Storm ravens adding more is trivial by comparison to adding a bunch of FW stuff. As all I need to do is go to my LGS and pick them up. Further the reasoning still follows that more people had access (and earlier access) to the rules for GW models. RW flock spam is dead now anyway. Brims are easy to build and proxy.
Tau falling down the ranks heavily as people learn to deal with them as usual. I bet we're going to be one of the last codices this time. :(
Chapter approved can't get here fast enough. Honestly I don't see why GW is taking so long in nerfing some armies. Starcraft 2 gets super frequent patches that make tiny small changes frequently until it gets the balance just right and then their frequency levelled off until it was clear more minor tweaks would be needed.
Spoiler:
Edit
Also if FW never had any good units then it would be pointless buying them since no one would ever have any incentive to buy them to play. The vast majority of their units are actually on the weak side with a few every edition that are strong and occasionally genuinely OP. Still no worse than what GW can do sometimes. Looking at you Gulliman.
GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...
... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.
So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.
Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?
Yes, FW need to get their act together and update their faqs I agree (along with releasing chapter tactics for their space marine chapters etc), however, I’d also argue that GW seems more active on the “issue resolution” front, simply because they’ve got a lot more issues to resolve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: FW is and has always been GW +1. The thing is - the price you pay in points is completely random. You might pay too much or too little. The problem with this is specifically when you are getting a better unit for the same or less points. Which happens frequently with forge world units.
Elysians are a great example. Gardsmen that get free deep strike ability for no additional point cost....wow - real surprise that these units get spammed. It's also worth noting that gardsmen are already exceptional units for their points.
You see how this works? They take a GW unit - give it special rules "SEE GW +1" and don't charge you for them. It happens - it happens a lot - it will always happen - the drive to sell models for 2-3x GW price will always cause this to happen.
Elysian's cost 1 point more than the standard guardsman. Not much for deep-strike, i agree - but 75% of the time you'll be starting your standard unit on the board anyway due to the 50% deployment rule. Command squads cost 4 points less than a Scion Command squad for 4 plasma, but, the offset is that the hotshot lasguns are so so so much better. (but then, you're only taking these units for plasma spam unless you are preparing for the whole "regiment tactics" thing). On the flip side, a Scion commander is 5 points CHEAPER than an Elysian Commander, so, in effect the Scions are cheaper on a 1 for 1 basis (which is required due to 1 command squad = 1 commander). I'd argue that the re-roll morale buff is useless on a 4 man Elysian unit as well. (commanders are the same price if you don't take a plasma pistol on the Eylsian commander)
I don't think GW has more issues to resolve given that they have many more units. Further FW (to my knowledge) is not updating anything, would it be hard for them to plug the issues they do have if they are as small as you claim.
The issues you site for Elysians are trivial, because they are taken as part of a larger AM detachment so the conscripts start on the table, not the deepstriking guardsman. Your regular elysian squads are cheaper than scion squads so there is a net gain for the elysians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gamgee wrote: Tau falling down the ranks heavily as people learn to deal with them as usual. I bet we're going to be one of the last codices this time. :(
Chapter approved can't get here fast enough. Honestly I don't see why GW is taking so long in nerfing some armies. Starcraft 2 gets super frequent patches that make tiny small changes frequently until it gets the balance just right and then their frequency levelled off until it was clear more minor tweaks would be needed.
Spoiler:
Edit
Also if FW never had any good units then it would be pointless buying them since no one would ever have any incentive to buy them to play. The vast majority of their units are actually on the weak side with a few every edition that are strong and occasionally genuinely OP. Still no worse than what GW can do sometimes. Looking at you Gulliman.
Because they don't want to tweak a ton, and are waiting for codex releases to change units (for the most part). It seems to me that their logic is: If we have a codex coming soon we'll wait until then. If not, we will issue an FAQ.
Breng77 wrote:My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."
The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.
1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.
I actually perceive the opposite problem: I feel like Forge World is trying too hard to conform to 8th's design philosophy.
Based on what I've seen, I feel like GW has been upping the lethality of weapons (it's why first turn matters so much, both for CC and shooting - many things are super lethal). This makes things like Conscripts OP, because they aren't "durable" in the traditional sense but are "durable" in this ridiculous-lethality environment where units with only 20 wounds can get obliterated in a heartbeat (I was tabled before turn 4 in at least 2 of my games at NOVA and had 78 T8 wounds, 20 T7 wounds, 23 T3 wounds).
So along comes Forge World with units that, in the fluff, are supposed to be able to endure tons and tons of enemy firepower (Titans, Thunderhawks) - so they make them super tough (T10-16, T9, there are more). But then, they've deviated from 8th Edition's "lethality" gimmick, and so they quickly have to shoehorn in a rule that makes those 'super-tough' units not so super-tough. The only fluffy way to do this is have Titan-killing guns gain the Macro rule, and voila - you end up with a super weird dichotomy where Macro weapons overpay against non-superheavies, underpay against superheavies, and superheavies who are very expensive against eachother but very cheap against non-macro/non-superheavy foes.
I think if FW just doubled down on the "These units aren't supposed to be one-shotted ever in a single phase by the same points of enemy gear" metric, then Macro weapons wouldn't exist, but they'd also have deviated from GW's push to increase lethality.
Breng77 wrote: Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?
In the context of which manufacturer creates more broken units both "is something being done about it" and "who has access to them" are completely irrelevant, as that is not the subject being discussed. What was being discussed is which makes more broken units, and only that matters in the context of said discussion. It also doesn't matter is something has already been nerfed; the broken unit was created still. I'm talking about which manufacturer has created the most broken units, nothing else. Sidetracking is pointless. If GW made 2 units that are overpowered, and FW made 1, then GW made more broken units than FW no matter what the accessibility is.
The fact of the matter is that currently, and in the past, GW has been responsible for most of the broken units and other combinations (such as formations) numerically. There is simply no way around this.
8-2 if we account for stuff that has actually fared in tournaments around the world and count Guilliman & Razorback Spam as a single, while not taking into account someones kitchen table subjective views such as; "Necrons are OP lost to them yesterday yo."
Breng77 wrote:My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."
The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.
1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.
I actually perceive the opposite problem: I feel like Forge World is trying too hard to conform to 8th's design philosophy.
Based on what I've seen, I feel like GW has been upping the lethality of weapons (it's why first turn matters so much, both for CC and shooting - many things are super lethal). This makes things like Conscripts OP, because they aren't "durable" in the traditional sense but are "durable" in this ridiculous-lethality environment where units with only 20 wounds can get obliterated in a heartbeat (I was tabled before turn 4 in at least 2 of my games at NOVA and had 78 T8 wounds, 20 T7 wounds, 23 T3 wounds).
So along comes Forge World with units that, in the fluff, are supposed to be able to endure tons and tons of enemy firepower (Titans, Thunderhawks) - so they make them super tough (T10-16, T9, there are more). But then, they've deviated from 8th Edition's "lethality" gimmick, and so they quickly have to shoehorn in a rule that makes those 'super-tough' units not so super-tough. The only fluffy way to do this is have Titan-killing guns gain the Macro rule, and voila - you end up with a super weird dichotomy where Macro weapons overpay against non-superheavies, underpay against superheavies, and superheavies who are very expensive against eachother but very cheap against non-macro/non-superheavy foes.
I think if FW just doubled down on the "These units aren't supposed to be one-shotted ever in a single phase by the same points of enemy gear" metric, then Macro weapons wouldn't exist, but they'd also have deviated from GW's push to increase lethality.
Except they also made a ton of guns that are more lethal than anything GW put into the game. Which makes units that are GW and supposed to be durable laughably easy to one shot off the table. I agree that conscripts need a fix, but I'd have less issue with FW if they didn't both, go high on durability, and lethality. It makes it so that FW is designed to kill FW, and GW is not as much. I'd also have less issue if they were all titans but they aren't. They also could have added more wounds as part of a solution. But FW units very much (against non-infantry spam) are point and delete target unit. Precisely because they are designed to fight the super tough FW units. For instance I faced the chaos Cerberus, 470 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound. So it might be balanced against things with the FW durability level, but against most standard stuff 2 wounds is enough to wipe out a vehicle.
Earthshaker batteries for guard are also bordering on quite undercosted for their abilities... FW necron Gauss Pylon is broken, just the army that plays it is too bad for it to get attention
Breng77 wrote: My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."
The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.
1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.
Hrm, i'm not at home and don't have the xenos, marine or chaos IA books, but, outside of titan's i can only remember 1 or 2 units having t9 in the Astra Militarum book. I'd argue that there are more Str 10 weapons available in GW than T9 units in total.
There are some units that do 2d6dmg - the shadowsword is one of them, the Stompa another. There are also lots of weapon options that do either D6 or fixed 3-6 dmg. I'd also argue, that you've prob got more mortal wound options in standard GW than FW. What units in FW do D6+4 outside of titans? How many of those can be taken in an ITC event? I.E 35 or less Power level.
Macro pretty much only exists on things that are so so so expensive in points and power, you'll never see them in a 2k point army because they can't fit, aka titans.
The stompa does not do 2D6 damage with any attacks, the shadow sword is 1 unit and 2D6 damage is worse than D6+4 damage. Almost every large FW unit has static damage + D3 or D6 The static extra damage + bonus D6 is huge.
S10 is not very plentiful, especially at range, if we count close combat, there is a decent amount of S10. The point still remains not a single GW unit has toughness above 8, a non 0 number of titans have T9. T( units I can find quickly (Brayarth Ashmantle (t9 dread, character), Cerberus heavy destroyer, Falchion, Felblade, Mastadon, Typhon, Stormbird, Thunderhawk assault gunship, ) Some of these are quite expensive, but all under 1k points. Some are less than 500 points. But the point remains, no GW unit has T9 even those that cost as much as these options. All of these could fit pretty easily given that there is still 1500-1000 point left to spend.
Gauss pylon has macro, at 475 points
I'm not even saying these auto win, but they show a difference in design philosophy. FW is looking at playing large scale games with titans, GW is not. This makes for what I consider to be a poor meshing of units in the game. Most FW heavies wipe out vehicles with ease and make them not worth taking.
My mistake on the stomp - decided to read it as 2d6dmg not 2d6 shots for some stupid reason.
Which units do static dmg + D3/D6 damage? I've just scanned over some of the space marine and chaos forgeworld units (http://www.3plusplus.net/2017/06/forgeworld-indexes-imperium-chaos/) and i can't see anything that does the damage you are claiming. I believe there are some, but not many - unless they are all xenos weapons?
At range, str 10+ is lacking, i agree, but, you have to take combat into account - especially with the amount of charges that are possible first turn or from deep-strike later on. Of those units you listed, only 2 would be able to fit into a standard ITC event, the dread and the Cerberus, so i don't really think it is something to be concerned with. As for casual games - well you can set your own rules to simply agree to have no T9 units.
Gauss Pylon is the one that can deep-strike, so if it does it cannot fire it's main weapon that turn as it moved. If it doesnt deep-strike then it will only be in range with its main weapon doing D6 shots with a -1bs vs any non fly unit. Sure, it can put out pain, but, it isnt indestructible and can only kill 5-6 units a game.
I agree that a lot of the units you've listed are designed for bigger pointed games, but these represent like 1% of all the FW models. The rest of the model line isnt really that much different to the GW stuff. Simply just different variations, sometimes with slightly different rules. Everything that is 40 power level + should be kept for those large games, but, the other 99% hardly represent a divergence in philosophy.
Breng77 wrote: Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?
In the context of which manufacturer creates more broken units both "is something being done about it" and "who has access to them" are completely irrelevant, as that is not the subject being discussed. What was being discussed is which makes more broken units, and only that matters in the context of said discussion. It also doesn't matter is something has already been nerfed; the broken unit was created still. I'm talking about which manufacturer has created the most broken units, nothing else. Sidetracking is pointless. If GW made 2 units that are overpowered, and FW made 1, then GW made more broken units than FW no matter what the accessibility is.
The fact of the matter is that currently, and in the past, GW has been responsible for most of the broken units and other combinations (such as formations) numerically. There is simply no way around this.
7-2 if we account for stuff that has actually fared in tournaments around the world and not take into account someones kitchen table subjective views.
Got it so you are interested in academic, irrelevant debate.
Fixing it does matter, what is worse 7 OP units that get fixed quickly, or 2 that never get fixed?
Further if "the unit performing in tournament winning lists" is being used as a mechanic then accessibility absolutely matters. For instance fire raptor spam might have been a thing, if people owned 5 of them...but they don't. Super chicken might have been a thing, but it was pre-emptively banned from many events, and most people don't own the model. Malific Lords and Elysians are easy to proxy using GW models, so we see those on the table.
Also in your method, number of created units doesn't matter either. Who is the better rules writer the guy how creates 10 units and has 2 OP units, or the one that creates 2 and has 1 OP unit?
Your argument is completely meaningless when it comes to a discussion of "quality of rules" or issues that arise with them being used in tournaments.
10 GW Mark of Slaanesh Terminators with Prescience, Combi-plasmaguns and Cacophony can easily oneshot most of the FW superheavies while costing less and being less affected by the soft Wound table of 8th edition (which basically hits all big and effective things in the knees).
Best LoW choices are coming from, you guessed it, GW.
Breng77 wrote:My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."
The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.
1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.
I actually perceive the opposite problem: I feel like Forge World is trying too hard to conform to 8th's design philosophy.
Based on what I've seen, I feel like GW has been upping the lethality of weapons (it's why first turn matters so much, both for CC and shooting - many things are super lethal). This makes things like Conscripts OP, because they aren't "durable" in the traditional sense but are "durable" in this ridiculous-lethality environment where units with only 20 wounds can get obliterated in a heartbeat (I was tabled before turn 4 in at least 2 of my games at NOVA and had 78 T8 wounds, 20 T7 wounds, 23 T3 wounds).
So along comes Forge World with units that, in the fluff, are supposed to be able to endure tons and tons of enemy firepower (Titans, Thunderhawks) - so they make them super tough (T10-16, T9, there are more). But then, they've deviated from 8th Edition's "lethality" gimmick, and so they quickly have to shoehorn in a rule that makes those 'super-tough' units not so super-tough. The only fluffy way to do this is have Titan-killing guns gain the Macro rule, and voila - you end up with a super weird dichotomy where Macro weapons overpay against non-superheavies, underpay against superheavies, and superheavies who are very expensive against eachother but very cheap against non-macro/non-superheavy foes.
I think if FW just doubled down on the "These units aren't supposed to be one-shotted ever in a single phase by the same points of enemy gear" metric, then Macro weapons wouldn't exist, but they'd also have deviated from GW's push to increase lethality.
Except they also made a ton of guns that are more lethal than anything GW put into the game. Which makes units that are GW and supposed to be durable laughably easy to one shot off the table. I agree that conscripts need a fix, but I'd have less issue with FW if they didn't both, go high on durability, and lethality. It makes it so that FW is designed to kill FW, and GW is not as much. I'd also have less issue if they were all titans but they aren't. They also could have added more wounds as part of a solution. But FW units very much (against non-infantry spam) are point and delete target unit. Precisely because they are designed to fight the super tough FW units. For instance I faced the chaos Cerberus, 470 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound. So it might be balanced against things with the FW durability level, but against most standard stuff 2 wounds is enough to wipe out a vehicle.
That's... not true at all. The Shadowsword is both cheaper than the Cerberus and slightly more lethal.
The Cerberus is balanced with the Shadowsword, I would say. And the Shadowsword is a GW unit.
The here is your exact sentence with the Shadowsword instead of the Cerberus:
"For instance I faced the Guard Shadowsword, 438 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound."
Except they also made a ton of guns that are more lethal than anything GW put into the game. Which makes units that are GW and supposed to be durable laughably easy to one shot off the table. I agree that conscripts need a fix, but I'd have less issue with FW if they didn't both, go high on durability, and lethality. It makes it so that FW is designed to kill FW, and GW is not as much. I'd also have less issue if they were all titans but they aren't. They also could have added more wounds as part of a solution. But FW units very much (against non-infantry spam) are point and delete target unit. Precisely because they are designed to fight the super tough FW units. For instance I faced the chaos Cerberus, 470 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound. So it might be balanced against things with the FW durability level, but against most standard stuff 2 wounds is enough to wipe out a vehicle.
But, what happens when the Cerberus faces off against the conscript spam list that doesn’t really have any super high toughness/wound models? You are looking at things in pure isolation. Sure, the Cerberus will absolutely destroy a heavy mech elite force - like it is meant to, but beyond that it does 3 shots a turn plus sponson weapons. Hardly going to die, but not going to prevent the rest of your army from getting pounded.
Breng77 wrote: Got it so you are interested in academic, irrelevant debate.
Got it, you fail to understand that when discussing "which company makes more broken units" it actually matters which company makes more broken units.
Breng77 wrote: Fixing it does matter, what is worse 7 OP units that get fixed quickly, or 2 that never get fixed?
Not in the context that was discussed. And by the way, even after the fixes GW still outnumbers FW in the tournament faring broken units.
Breng77 wrote: Also in your method, number of created units doesn't matter either. Who is the better rules writer the guy how creates 10 units and has 2 OP units, or the one that creates 2 and has 1 OP unit?
Your argument is completely meaningless when it comes to a discussion of "quality of rules" or issues that arise with them being used in tournaments.
"Who is the better rules writer" was not also being discussed.It appears you are simply avoiding admitting when someone is right in a claim they make, instead forcefully trying to sidetrack the context into something different so you can have your way.
Well guess what, I refuse. GW has created more broken units than FW has was my claim. We can move on to other matters when you acknowledge this fact.
Breng77 wrote: My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."
The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.
1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.
Hrm, i'm not at home and don't have the xenos, marine or chaos IA books, but, outside of titan's i can only remember 1 or 2 units having t9 in the Astra Militarum book. I'd argue that there are more Str 10 weapons available in GW than T9 units in total.
There are some units that do 2d6dmg - the shadowsword is one of them, the Stompa another. There are also lots of weapon options that do either D6 or fixed 3-6 dmg. I'd also argue, that you've prob got more mortal wound options in standard GW than FW. What units in FW do D6+4 outside of titans? How many of those can be taken in an ITC event? I.E 35 or less Power level.
Macro pretty much only exists on things that are so so so expensive in points and power, you'll never see them in a 2k point army because they can't fit, aka titans.
The stompa does not do 2D6 damage with any attacks, the shadow sword is 1 unit and 2D6 damage is worse than D6+4 damage. Almost every large FW unit has static damage + D3 or D6 The static extra damage + bonus D6 is huge.
S10 is not very plentiful, especially at range, if we count close combat, there is a decent amount of S10. The point still remains not a single GW unit has toughness above 8, a non 0 number of titans have T9. T( units I can find quickly (Brayarth Ashmantle (t9 dread, character), Cerberus heavy destroyer, Falchion, Felblade, Mastadon, Typhon, Stormbird, Thunderhawk assault gunship, ) Some of these are quite expensive, but all under 1k points. Some are less than 500 points. But the point remains, no GW unit has T9 even those that cost as much as these options. All of these could fit pretty easily given that there is still 1500-1000 point left to spend.
Gauss pylon has macro, at 475 points
I'm not even saying these auto win, but they show a difference in design philosophy. FW is looking at playing large scale games with titans, GW is not. This makes for what I consider to be a poor meshing of units in the game. Most FW heavies wipe out vehicles with ease and make them not worth taking.
My mistake on the stomp - decided to read it as 2d6dmg not 2d6 shots for some stupid reason.
Which units do static dmg + D3/D6 damage? I've just scanned over some of the space marine and chaos forgeworld units (http://www.3plusplus.net/2017/06/forgeworld-indexes-imperium-chaos/) and i can't see anything that does the damage you are claiming. I believe there are some, but not many - unless they are all xenos weapons?
At range, str 10+ is lacking, i agree, but, you have to take combat into account - especially with the amount of charges that are possible first turn or from deep-strike later on. Of those units you listed, only 2 would be able to fit into a standard ITC event, the dread and the Cerberus, so i don't really think it is something to be concerned with. As for casual games - well you can set your own rules to simply agree to have no T9 units.
Gauss Pylon is the one that can deep-strike, so if it does it cannot fire it's main weapon that turn as it moved. If it doesnt deep-strike then it will only be in range with its main weapon doing D6 shots with a -1bs vs any non fly unit. Sure, it can put out pain, but, it isnt indestructible and can only kill 5-6 units a game.
I agree that a lot of the units you've listed are designed for bigger pointed games, but these represent like 1% of all the FW models. The rest of the model line isnt really that much different to the GW stuff. Simply just different variations, sometimes with slightly different rules. Everything that is 40 power level + should be kept for those large games, but, the other 99% hardly represent a divergence in philosophy.
None of these units will ever be charged turn 1, against a good opponent.
As for damage + D3/D6, it does appear the 2D6 is more common but a quick look yields,
Gauss annihilator = D3 + 6 damage (gauss pylon)
Heavy Neutron pulse array = 3 + D6 damage (Relic Cerberus)
Maliganatas beam cannon = 4+D6 damage (Helforged Cerberus)
apparently I'm just lucky that this is what I've seen played.
Klowny wrote: Earthshaker batteries for guard are also bordering on quite undercosted for their abilities... FW necron Gauss Pylon is broken, just the army that plays it is too bad for it to get attention
I agree the batteries are potentially under costed, but if you can target them, they die pretty easily.
Another thing to note on them, is i know at least the ITC are putting in rules that the model representing the unit has to be approx the same size as the original. Apparently the batteries are like 8" across and nearly the same high, so in tournaments they are going to be harder to hide and place going forward. (ruling not in place yet, but was mentioned in the last signal podcast)
None of these units will ever be charged turn 1, against a good opponent.
As for damage + D3/D6, it does appear the 2D6 is more common but a quick look yields,
Gauss annihilator = D3 + 6 damage (gauss pylon)
Heavy Neutron pulse array = 3 + D6 damage (Relic Cerberus)
Maliganatas beam cannon = 4+D6 damage (Helforged Cerberus)
apparently I'm just lucky that this is what I've seen played.
So, basically 3 units then? 2 of which are basically the same model, just for different factions? That'd hardly what i'd call even remotely as common as you're implying.
Oh, in most cases, yes, they won't be charged turn 1. But, turn 2 and 3 it can still easily happen. It can even easily be done without deep strike with just target saturation and heavy psychic powers.
Breng77 wrote:My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."
The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.
1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.
I actually perceive the opposite problem: I feel like Forge World is trying too hard to conform to 8th's design philosophy.
Based on what I've seen, I feel like GW has been upping the lethality of weapons (it's why first turn matters so much, both for CC and shooting - many things are super lethal). This makes things like Conscripts OP, because they aren't "durable" in the traditional sense but are "durable" in this ridiculous-lethality environment where units with only 20 wounds can get obliterated in a heartbeat (I was tabled before turn 4 in at least 2 of my games at NOVA and had 78 T8 wounds, 20 T7 wounds, 23 T3 wounds).
So along comes Forge World with units that, in the fluff, are supposed to be able to endure tons and tons of enemy firepower (Titans, Thunderhawks) - so they make them super tough (T10-16, T9, there are more). But then, they've deviated from 8th Edition's "lethality" gimmick, and so they quickly have to shoehorn in a rule that makes those 'super-tough' units not so super-tough. The only fluffy way to do this is have Titan-killing guns gain the Macro rule, and voila - you end up with a super weird dichotomy where Macro weapons overpay against non-superheavies, underpay against superheavies, and superheavies who are very expensive against eachother but very cheap against non-macro/non-superheavy foes.
I think if FW just doubled down on the "These units aren't supposed to be one-shotted ever in a single phase by the same points of enemy gear" metric, then Macro weapons wouldn't exist, but they'd also have deviated from GW's push to increase lethality.
Except they also made a ton of guns that are more lethal than anything GW put into the game. Which makes units that are GW and supposed to be durable laughably easy to one shot off the table. I agree that conscripts need a fix, but I'd have less issue with FW if they didn't both, go high on durability, and lethality. It makes it so that FW is designed to kill FW, and GW is not as much. I'd also have less issue if they were all titans but they aren't. They also could have added more wounds as part of a solution. But FW units very much (against non-infantry spam) are point and delete target unit. Precisely because they are designed to fight the super tough FW units. For instance I faced the chaos Cerberus, 470 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound. So it might be balanced against things with the FW durability level, but against most standard stuff 2 wounds is enough to wipe out a vehicle.
That's... not true at all. The Shadowsword is both cheaper than the Cerberus and slightly more lethal.
The Cerberus is balanced with the Shadowsword, I would say. And the Shadowsword is a GW unit.
The here is your exact sentence with the Shadowsword instead of the Cerberus:
"For instance I faced the Guard Shadowsword, 438 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound."
I would actually say it is significantly less lethal to be honest. Its main gun averages 1.75 hits (so say 2), wounds on a 2 + so 2 wounds, average 14 damage. The Helforged Cerberus hits on a 2+ and wounds most things on a essentially 2+, with static 4 shots. So it hits 3 times on average, and wounds 3 times on average, each time is 7.5 wounds so 21.5 damage. It is much less random, a shadow sword for 32 points less can do way more damage, but also can do way less (random shots could be 1, which misses.).
It is also significantly more durable than the shadow sword at T9 with a 2+ save. SO not really balanced in this match-up unless by balanced you mean they can kill each other.
Except they also made a ton of guns that are more lethal than anything GW put into the game. Which makes units that are GW and supposed to be durable laughably easy to one shot off the table. I agree that conscripts need a fix, but I'd have less issue with FW if they didn't both, go high on durability, and lethality. It makes it so that FW is designed to kill FW, and GW is not as much. I'd also have less issue if they were all titans but they aren't. They also could have added more wounds as part of a solution. But FW units very much (against non-infantry spam) are point and delete target unit. Precisely because they are designed to fight the super tough FW units. For instance I faced the chaos Cerberus, 470 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound. So it might be balanced against things with the FW durability level, but against most standard stuff 2 wounds is enough to wipe out a vehicle.
But, what happens when the Cerberus faces off against the conscript spam list that doesn’t really have any super high toughness/wound models? You are looking at things in pure isolation. Sure, the Cerberus will absolutely destroy a heavy mech elite force - like it is meant to, but beyond that it does 3 shots a turn plus sponson weapons. Hardly going to die, but not going to prevent the rest of your army from getting pounded.
yes these things basically remove things that are not infantry from the game, which means having things like this forces the game to infantry spam because other things don't survive. When I played against the Helforged (chaos version has 4 shots) my only thought was I guess I should have just run 200 ork boyz instead of playing a balanced list, because I could win easily in a boring game. Which is my problem. Not that they are unbeatable, but they force the meta in a specific (IMO boring) direction. Other units are guilty of this as well. My point simply was that FW design of giant tank battles, and being balanced toward that end leads to games that are just to opposite when used with regular GW.
Breng77 wrote: Got it so you are interested in academic, irrelevant debate.
Got it, you fail to understand that when discussing "which company makes more broken units" it actually matters which company makes more broken units.
Breng77 wrote: Fixing it does matter, what is worse 7 OP units that get fixed quickly, or 2 that never get fixed?
Not in the context that was discussed. And by the way, even after the fixes GW still outnumbers FW in the tournament faring broken units.
Breng77 wrote: Also in your method, number of created units doesn't matter either. Who is the better rules writer the guy how creates 10 units and has 2 OP units, or the one that creates 2 and has 1 OP unit?
Your argument is completely meaningless when it comes to a discussion of "quality of rules" or issues that arise with them being used in tournaments.
"Who is the better rules writer" was not also being discussed.It appears you are simply avoiding admitting when someone is right in a claim they make, instead forcefully trying to sidetrack the context into something different so you can have your way.
Well guess what, I refuse. GW has created more broken units than FW has was my claim. We can move on to other matters when you acknowledge this fact.
Got it. GW while being the better company for rules writing, and response to problems, has infact more OP units because they have more units (proportionally they are close to equal). Especially when we are only factoring tournament results (which you did not respond to because it proves your point wrong) where accessibility dictates what gets played, as the method of determining the power of a unit.
See completely meaningless to any discussion. GW has more op units, that are getting addressed. SO yeah you are right in a completely meaningless statistic. Which has no bearing on any discussion of whether FW rules are good or bad.
Klowny wrote: Earthshaker batteries for guard are also bordering on quite undercosted for their abilities... FW necron Gauss Pylon is broken, just the army that plays it is too bad for it to get attention
I agree the batteries are potentially under costed, but if you can target them, they die pretty easily.
Another thing to note on them, is i know at least the ITC are putting in rules that the model representing the unit has to be approx the same size as the original. Apparently the batteries are like 8" across and nearly the same high, so in tournaments they are going to be harder to hide and place going forward. (ruling not in place yet, but was mentioned in the last signal podcast)
None of these units will ever be charged turn 1, against a good opponent.
As for damage + D3/D6, it does appear the 2D6 is more common but a quick look yields,
Gauss annihilator = D3 + 6 damage (gauss pylon)
Heavy Neutron pulse array = 3 + D6 damage (Relic Cerberus)
Maliganatas beam cannon = 4+D6 damage (Helforged Cerberus)
apparently I'm just lucky that this is what I've seen played.
So, basically 3 units then? 2 of which are basically the same model, just for different factions? That'd hardly what i'd call even remotely as common as you're implying.
Oh, in most cases, yes, they won't be charged turn 1. But, turn 2 and 3 it can still easily happen. It can even easily be done without deep strike with just target saturation and heavy psychic powers.
3 that I found in a quick check ignoring all titans. But yes not as bad as I thought, but it is still 3 more than in all of GW.
Breng77 wrote: GW has more op units, that are getting addressed. SO yeah you are right in a completely meaningless statistic. Which has no bearing on any discussion of whether FW rules are good or bad.
Firstly, you are not empowered to decide the discussion subject nor therefore deciding what is useless. Second, if we discuss FW rules being good or bad, then there is reason in comparing it to what GW has done in turn. Certainly their ruleswriting can be criticized by themselves, but comparison is also quite obvious. I do not know what tournament point you speak of, I certainly skipped nothing because it would prove me wrong. There is no need, because my claim is simply correct. What comes to mind from previous editions, only stuff that has dominated tournaments and again ignoring kitchen table commanders subjective views:
7E
GW
Heldrake (early, before nerf)
War Convocation
Horrors (Split)
Brimstone spam
Librarius Conclave
Centurion Devastators (Gravcannon & Grav-amp)
Riptide Wing
Deathstar elements (Draigo, Fenrisian Wolves, Azrael, Iron Priests, WGBTL, Cyclobia Cabal, Flesh Hounds etc.)
Screamerstar
Ynnari
Windriders (Scatter Laser)
Warp Spiders
Gladius Strike Force
Reclamation Legion
Wraithknight
Skyhammer Annihilation Force
Servo Skulls
Celestine
Smashfether
Icing on the cake, the most hated tournament winners from earlier editions: Night Scythe spam, Grey Knights, Eldar Starcannon spam, Chaos Space Marine Iron Warriors + 9x Oblits + Basilisks, Eldar Rangers, Imperial Guard leaf blower. All from GW.
Breng77 wrote: GW has more op units, that are getting addressed. SO yeah you are right in a completely meaningless statistic. Which has no bearing on any discussion of whether FW rules are good or bad.
Firstly, you are not empowered to decide the discussion subject nor therefore deciding what is useless. Second, if we discuss FW rules being good or bad, then there is reason in comparing it to what GW has done in turn. Certainly their ruleswriting can be criticized by themselves, but comparison is also quite obvious. I do not know what tournament point you speak of, I certainly skipped nothing because it would prove me wrong. There is no need, because my claim is simply correct. What comes to mind from previous editions, only stuff that has dominated tournaments and again ignoring kitchen table commanders subjective views:
7E
GW
Heldrake (early, before nerf)
War Convocation
Horrors (Split)
Brimstone spam
Librarius Conclave
Centurion Devastators (Gravcannon & Grav-amp)
Riptide Wing
Deathstar elements (Draigo, Fenrisian Wolves, Azrael, Iron Priests, WGBTL, Cyclobia Cabal, Flesh Hounds etc.)
Screamerstar
Ynnari
Windriders (Scatter Laser)
Warp Spiders
Gladius Strike Force
Reclamation Legion
Wraithknight
Skyhammer Annihilation Force
Servo Skulls
Celestine
Smashfether
Icing on the cake, the most hated tournament winners from earlier editions: Night Scythe spam, Grey Knights, Eldar Starcannon spam, Chaos Space Marine Iron Warriors + 9x Oblits + Basilisks, Eldar Rangers, Imperial Guard leaf blower. All from GW.
The comparison is not meaningless. The comparison as stock number of OP units is meaningless because it ignores a ton of issues. Proportion of bad units is meaningful if we are looking at overall rules writing. Addressing rules issues is meaningful because it suggests how long those problems might exist (right now GW addressing FW not, that may change).
You last Icing on the cake actually proves my tournament point which you still have not addressed about accessibility. In older edtions that you mention FW was by and large banned so using tournament results as the indicator of OP is almost entirely meaningless. GK were OP in tournaments yes. But we have no idea what FW would have been back then, because they were not in tournaments so saying. "These are the worst tournament lists and they are all GW and not FW." is meaningless because NO FW was allowed in those events in the first place.
Which was my point, we don't know all the FW issues because people don't own the models and don't run them. Fire Raptor Spam could have been a thing alongside storm raven spam. But people don't own 5 fire raptors, and the nerf came prior to anyone having the ability to buy/convert them. Elysians and Malific lords are easy to proxy, and guess what we see? You also want tournament results. Razorwing spam won exactly 0 tournaments (it was good at ETC in fixed matchups) so that is based on what that they got nerfed prior to any tournament where they dominated? What event has Drone spam dominated? You completely ignored the fact that tournament results are not any kind of indicator between GW and FW rules, because you will see a ton more GW in those events because more people own just GW.
Also previous editions mean nothing when discussing current rules, and response. Most things you listed are not even units in 7th but formations.
GW:
Guilliman
Magnus (poss +changeling combo)
Stormraven spam - fixed/nerfed
Razorback spam - Really relies on Girlyman to be OP, so kind of a misnomer to list separately
Conscripts - Codex coming next month
Commander spam - Listing as OP is a misnomer as it allows Tau to be competitive, but they aren't dominating tournaments
Drone spam - as above, another misnomer. In fact the first Tau list you hit that fielded both finished 50th.
Razorwing Flock spam - fixed/nerfed
Scion spam - Codex coming next month
Brimstone spam - fixed/nerfed
FW:
Malefic lord spam
Karybdis Assault Claw
Elysians
Earthshaker Carriage Battery
+ Necron Gauss Pylon and others that don't seem OP yet thanks to the owning army being an Index
Plus we have the big Chapter Approved bringing Matched Play changes in December. When will FW fix their units?
First off, you are ignoring a later of GW units. A taurox prime is probably as good as the earthshaker carriage for example.
Second, I refuse to treat stormraven spam as a successful fix, considering they refused to nerf a single problematic unit and instead nerfed all existing flyers, even ones that weren't very good.
SilverAlien wrote: First off, you are ignoring a later of GW units. A taurox prime is probably as good as the earthshaker carriage for example.
Second, I refuse to treat stormraven spam as a successful fix, considering they refused to nerf a single problematic unit and instead nerfed all existing flyers, even ones that weren't very good.
It doesn't hurt any flyers that were not going to be spammed as an entire army. It is an entirely reasonable fix that future proofs against other flyers getting spammed. For instance take the FW fire raptor for CSM. It is another powerful flyer that may well have been spammed if the storm raven was the only thing that was fixed, or the storm talon etc.
Also if it fixed storm raven spam, then it was a successful fix. Maybe not the one you wanted but successful none the less.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It wouldn't take countless hours to do that with Mainstream GW, so it wouldn't take that much time with FW. You're making it up as an excuse not to do it at this point because you're that afraid of being proven wrong.
So I await for the great ginormous number of FW units. Please. Do it. Every time I tell you naysayers to do it, you've just blatantly ignored it because you can't. Maybe you'll be the chosen one though to prove me, Perigrine, and countless others wrong on our assessment of FW being completely fair barring super rare exceptions. I doubt it with your attitude though.
How long would it take, since you've obviously done this before? But I'll give you a hint, part of the reason it would be a lot of work is because of the explanations and cross-comparisons of why units are unbalanced.
You seem to be missing the point as to why I said I won't do it, and why I can't do it. Beyond the time investment, I literally do not have access to all the FW books from the last decade. So saying 'I've blatantly ignored it' is somewhat ironic.
It would take me all of 10 minutes to do it for GW and 2 minutes for FW in all my gaming since 4th edition. It isn't hard to do a little research either. You just won't do it because you're afraid of being proven wrong. I work 5-7 (usually 6) days a week and can easily make time. What's YOUR excuse?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GhostRecon wrote: GW:
Guilliman
Magnus (poss +changeling combo)
Stormraven spam - fixed/nerfed
Razorback spam - Really relies on Girlyman to be OP, so kind of a misnomer to list separately
Conscripts - Codex coming next month
Commander spam - Listing as OP is a misnomer as it allows Tau to be competitive, but they aren't dominating tournaments
Drone spam - as above, another misnomer. In fact the first Tau list you hit that fielded both finished 50th.
Razorwing Flock spam - fixed/nerfed
Scion spam - Codex coming next month
Brimstone spam - fixed/nerfed
FW:
Malefic lord spam
Karybdis Assault Claw
Elysians
Earthshaker Carriage Battery
+ Necron Gauss Pylon and others that don't seem OP yet thanks to the owning army being an Index
Plus we have the big Chapter Approved bringing Matched Play changes in December. When will FW fix their units?
The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Arguably this is the case, as none of those were in the winning lists.
I thought the argument was "stuff in the winning lists is OP, and Forge World is among the stuff in the winning lists, therefore Forge World is OP?"
Or are we talking about something else now?
My argument, at least, is that FW has its fair share of OP units and has an exceedingly poor history of actually addressing them. In a solely 8th Edition-focused context, even, GW has made fairly aggressive steps at times to quell potentially OP units - whereas FW's last FAQs did nothing of the sort, and have made no mention of changing from that tack.
Runic et all want to drag it into comparing GW's track history to FW's when it comes to advertent/inadvertent OP units to try and portray FW as being fine or better. My post was just touching on how GW at least is trying to fix theirs and has several other fixes in the pipeline. From FW - anything?
And so, at least until FW actually begins to release balance updates like GW is currently attempting to do it doesn't seem prudent to allow FW in mainstream tournaments - otherwise, things like Malefic Lord spam, Elysian-heavy Imperial lists, etc., will remain even if/when Conscripts, Girlyman, etc., are balanced (eventually).
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Arguably this is the case, as none of those were in the winning lists.
I thought the argument was "stuff in the winning lists is OP, and Forge World is among the stuff in the winning lists, therefore Forge World is OP?"
Or are we talking about something else now?
I never made that argument. My current concerns regarding FW is that it is not designed with the same design ideas as basic GW stuff, and I'm not sure how well they will address issues when they arise. By and large most units in the game are fine (both GW and FW), but for those that are an issue I'm not convinced FW stuff will get addressed in a timely fashion.
The real issues in the game right now IMO is that anti-infantry firepower is woefully ineffective by comparison to anti-multi wound model weapons. This essentially forces the game into horde spam backed by untargetable firepower (either characters or things that don't need LOS or deepstrikers)
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Arguably this is the case, as none of those were in the winning lists.
I thought the argument was "stuff in the winning lists is OP, and Forge World is among the stuff in the winning lists, therefore Forge World is OP?"
Or are we talking about something else now?
My argument, at least, is that FW has its fair share of OP units and has an exceedingly poor history of actually addressing them. In a solely 8th Edition-focused context, even, GW has made fairly aggressive steps at times to quell potentially OP units - whereas FW's last FAQs did nothing of the sort, and have made no mention of changing from that tack.
Runic et all want to drag it into comparing GW's track history to FW's when it comes to advertent/inadvertent OP units to try and portray FW as being fine or better. My post was just touching on how GW at least is trying to fix theirs and has several other fixes in the pipeline. From FW - anything?
And so, at least until FW actually begins to release balance updates like GW is currently attempting to do it doesn't seem prudent to allow FW in mainstream tournaments - otherwise, things like Malefic Lord spam, Elysian-heavy Imperial lists, etc., will remain even if/when Conscripts, Girlyman, etc., are balanced (eventually).
Well, I did hear from the GW community guys at NOVA that they are looking at adjusting some of the points costs in Forge World stuff in a future Warhammer Community contribution.
Though I'm sure that something released by Warhammer Community addressing something from FW without GW designer's input will just make everyone's heads explode because THEYRE"RER NOT THE SAME COMAPNYS REAWRRY!
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Well how many of the things I listed made it super far compared to your list? What in those units I named just being excellent is actually super broken about them? I'll admit the Claw borders, but it's not broken in any sense.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Well, I did hear from the GW community guys at NOVA that they are looking at adjusting some of the points costs in Forge World stuff in a future Warhammer Community contribution.
If that's the case, awesome - will look forward to seeing it. Doesn't necessarily change the present, though, so until then...
Unit1126PLL wrote: Though I'm sure that something released by Warhammer Community addressing something from FW without GW designer's input will just make everyone's heads explode because THEYRE"RER NOT THE SAME COMAPNYS REAWRRY!
Don't think I've seen anybody claim they're not the same company so much as not the same design studio/group/shop/whateveryouwanttocallthem. No surprise that the GW mandated site they're using for communicating everything will still be used for communicating everything (it lists FW, Horus Heresy, AOS, and everything else under GW's myriad umbrella, after all).
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Well how many of the things I listed made it super far compared to your list? What in those units I named just being excellent is actually super broken about them? I'll admit the Claw borders, but it's not broken in any sense.
Earth Shakers won BAO, so more than razorbacks have done, or commanders, drones, Magnus etc. SO by your own metric if earthshakers are just excellent then so are all of the things you've listed here.
People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Hoodwink wrote: People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Or maybe many people don't pour over every resource for units. Number of units taken is a poor metric for what is strong, especially the first time someone plays a specific list.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.
Hoodwink wrote: People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Or maybe many people don't pour over every resource for units. Number of units taken is a poor metric for what is strong, especially the first time someone plays a specific list.
So... you're saying that it doesn't matter how many times a given unit shows up?
I'm confused...
...by what metric are we determining if FW is OP again? Subjectivity?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.
"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Well how many of the things I listed made it super far compared to your list? What in those units I named just being excellent is actually super broken about them? I'll admit the Claw borders, but it's not broken in any sense.
Earth Shakers won BAO, so more than razorbacks have done, or commanders, drones, Magnus etc. SO by your own metric if earthshakers are just excellent then so are all of the things you've listed here.
Hoodwink wrote: People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Or maybe many people don't pour over every resource for units. Number of units taken is a poor metric for what is strong, especially the first time someone plays a specific list.
So... you're saying that it doesn't matter how many times a given unit shows up?
I'm confused...
...by what metric are we determining if FW is OP again? Subjectivity?
Honestly we have no great metric for FW units because they are not common, the ones that can be easily proxied are the ones we are likely to see.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.
"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Well how many of the things I listed made it super far compared to your list? What in those units I named just being excellent is actually super broken about them? I'll admit the Claw borders, but it's not broken in any sense.
Earth Shakers won BAO, so more than razorbacks have done, or commanders, drones, Magnus etc. SO by your own metric if earthshakers are just excellent then so are all of the things you've listed here.
How often did the Earthshakers show up though?
again this is a poor method for FW because most people don't run FW. By the method of how many show up tactical marines are OP.
Hoodwink wrote: People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Or maybe many people don't pour over every resource for units. Number of units taken is a poor metric for what is strong, especially the first time someone plays a specific list.
So... you're saying that it doesn't matter how many times a given unit shows up?
I'm confused...
...by what metric are we determining if FW is OP again? Subjectivity?
Honestly we have no great metric for FW units because they are not common, the ones that can be easily proxied are the ones we are likely to see.
So if we've no metric or data on FW's OPness, why the constant whining?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually fought a pick-up game while I was there against a DKoK army with 9 Earthshaker cannons in 3 batteries.
Not only did I table him, but he was bringing some of the Earthshakers to the tournament and ended up 2-6.
Earthshakers OP indeed.
Nothing is OP if the rest of the list is not good, or the player is not very good. My argument about earthshakers is that if they aren't op then neither is a bunch of stuff people claim is OP from GW, as they have placed higher in events than most of what people complain about from GW.
Hoodwink wrote: People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Or maybe many people don't pour over every resource for units. Number of units taken is a poor metric for what is strong, especially the first time someone plays a specific list.
So... you're saying that it doesn't matter how many times a given unit shows up?
I'm confused...
...by what metric are we determining if FW is OP again? Subjectivity?
Honestly we have no great metric for FW units because they are not common, the ones that can be easily proxied are the ones we are likely to see.
So if we've no metric or data on FW's OPness, why the constant whining?
I already explained why I think FW is in a bad place right now, and OP has nothing to do with it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually fought a pick-up game while I was there against a DKoK army with 9 Earthshaker cannons in 3 batteries.
Not only did I table him, but he was bringing some of the Earthshakers to the tournament and ended up 2-6.
Earthshakers OP indeed.
Nothing is OP if the rest of the list is not good, or the player is not very good. My argument about earthshakers is that if they aren't op then neither is a bunch of stuff people claim is OP from GW, as they have placed higher in events than most of what people complain about from GW.
But the same argument can be turned on its head: if it placed higher in events, perhaps the player was just good or the rest of the list is good?
The Earthshakers themselves didn't win BAO, it wasn't 2000 points of Earthshaker cannons.
A unit whose utility depends on player skill and the composition of the rest of the list is a balanced unit imo.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually fought a pick-up game while I was there against a DKoK army with 9 Earthshaker cannons in 3 batteries.
Not only did I table him, but he was bringing some of the Earthshakers to the tournament and ended up 2-6.
Earthshakers OP indeed.
Nothing is OP if the rest of the list is not good, or the player is not very good. My argument about earthshakers is that if they aren't op then neither is a bunch of stuff people claim is OP from GW, as they have placed higher in events than most of what people complain about from GW.
But the same argument can be turned on its head: if it placed higher in events, perhaps the player was just good or the rest of the list is good?
The Earthshakers themselves didn't win BAO, it wasn't 2000 points of Earthshaker cannons.
A unit whose utility depends on player skill and the composition of the rest of the list is a balanced unit imo.
Then every unit is balanced, end of discussion. No list is ever made up of 2000 points of a single unit, no unit auto wins games without any skill or a good rest of the list.
I don't really want to wade into this slowed debate... but it's worth noting that the Elysian detachment in the winning IG list could have easily been replaced with units just from the Index with very little difference in utility...
He was running psyker spam, conscript spam (120!), mortar spam and Taurox spam, and of course Celestine... the Elysian role could've been achieved with the GW Index as well.
I saw 2 really cool DKoK armies (with earthshakers too) that didn't do all that well.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually fought a pick-up game while I was there against a DKoK army with 9 Earthshaker cannons in 3 batteries.
Not only did I table him, but he was bringing some of the Earthshakers to the tournament and ended up 2-6.
Earthshakers OP indeed.
Nothing is OP if the rest of the list is not good, or the player is not very good. My argument about earthshakers is that if they aren't op then neither is a bunch of stuff people claim is OP from GW, as they have placed higher in events than most of what people complain about from GW.
But the same argument can be turned on its head: if it placed higher in events, perhaps the player was just good or the rest of the list is good?
The Earthshakers themselves didn't win BAO, it wasn't 2000 points of Earthshaker cannons.
A unit whose utility depends on player skill and the composition of the rest of the list is a balanced unit imo.
Then every unit is balanced, end of discussion. No list is ever made up of 2000 points of a single unit, no unit auto wins games without any skill or a good rest of the list.
I can be convinced to believe a unit is OP when there is more data than "it won a thing once" to back up such claims.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually fought a pick-up game while I was there against a DKoK army with 9 Earthshaker cannons in 3 batteries.
Not only did I table him, but he was bringing some of the Earthshakers to the tournament and ended up 2-6.
Earthshakers OP indeed.
Nothing is OP if the rest of the list is not good, or the player is not very good. My argument about earthshakers is that if they aren't op then neither is a bunch of stuff people claim is OP from GW, as they have placed higher in events than most of what people complain about from GW.
But the same argument can be turned on its head: if it placed higher in events, perhaps the player was just good or the rest of the list is good?
The Earthshakers themselves didn't win BAO, it wasn't 2000 points of Earthshaker cannons.
A unit whose utility depends on player skill and the composition of the rest of the list is a balanced unit imo.
Then every unit is balanced, end of discussion. No list is ever made up of 2000 points of a single unit, no unit auto wins games without any skill or a good rest of the list.
I can be convinced to believe a unit is OP when there is more data than "it won a thing once" to back up such claims.
That is basically the only data provided for all such claims. That x thing is popular and won a thing once (sometimes not even won anything). For instance Razorback Spam has won nothing, yet it is OP, because reasons. So the Earthshaker has more to support it being OP than Razor spam does, which is how it even got in this discussion. Performance of all units is dependent on the rest of the list, and player skill.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So we're back to "FW isn't any more overpowered than GW."
Glad you agree!
I never said that it was. I said that I think it has issues regarding the correction of its imbalances that worry me. I hope they are as responsive as GW. If not I would call for it's exclusion based on the grounds that it stagnates the meta. Further, I think the meta it's inclusion creates (having a lot of things that wipe vehicles out easily) are undesirable. But the fix to this is amending anti-infantry fire power.
If the way we interpret tournament results is to argue about what is more broken, we are really missing the point.
There are some combinations of units that are more effective than others, which we really only learn about from reading the lists themselves. Eventually, they will probably be countered, but a lot of what goes into placing in the top 20 is rolls of the dice.
I don't think anyone is aware of how thin the margins of victory can be in any single game. Saying that a unit is OP just because it shows up in a winning list is like saying the dice don't matter, the format of the tournament doesn't matter, the people playing the games don't matter.
I am always interested in reading a list, but... honestly, this isn't data. It's a point which may or may not be valid based on hundreds of other points. No one is going to examine these lists and prove that the rules are skewed one way or another for any individual unit.
For example: I used to play in an extremely competitive local meta under 5th edition. The only list that was went undefeated in over 10 games was spawn rush - 30+ chaos spawn, a chaos lord, and 2 small CSM units at 1850 points. No one can tell me 5th edition spawn were OP, they were mindless and you could not control where they went. You could control 3 factors in the game, where you put them, whether or not they advanced during the shooting phase, and what the chaos lord aimed his melta bombs at. Other than that, it was all random and there were only a couple lists that came close to beating it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So we're back to "FW isn't any more overpowered than GW."
Glad you agree!
I never said that it was. I said that I think it has issues regarding the correction of its imbalances that worry me. I hope they are as responsive as GW. If not I would call for it's exclusion based on the grounds that it stagnates the meta. Further, I think the meta it's inclusion creates (having a lot of things that wipe vehicles out easily) are undesirable. But the fix to this is amending anti-infantry fire power.
Is stagnating the meta bad? And if so, is there any evidence that Forge World is doing that?
And I think more things wholesale wipe out vehicles from GW than from FW. I was tabled once by a Gauss Pylon at the GT. I was tabled twice by regular GW units: Lascannon predator spam and neutron onager spam. The "tanks are easily murdered" meta is simply what GW/FW both seem to want, otherwise perhaps the proliferation of damage that can instant-kill a tank would go down.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So we're back to "FW isn't any more overpowered than GW."
Glad you agree!
I never said that it was. I said that I think it has issues regarding the correction of its imbalances that worry me. I hope they are as responsive as GW. If not I would call for it's exclusion based on the grounds that it stagnates the meta. Further, I think the meta it's inclusion creates (having a lot of things that wipe vehicles out easily) are undesirable. But the fix to this is amending anti-infantry fire power.
Is stagnating the meta bad? And if so, is there any evidence that Forge World is doing that?
And I think more things wholesale wipe out vehicles from GW than from FW. I was tabled once by a Gauss Pylon at the GT. I was tabled twice by regular GW units: Lascannon predator spam and neutron onager spam. The "tanks are easily murdered" meta is simply what GW/FW both seem to want, otherwise perhaps the proliferation of damage that can instant-kill a tank would go down.
I think a stagnant meta is bad (opinion), as for FW doing that, it is entirely up to whether they address any broken units in their books. If not then yes they are doing this.
I disagree on the second, point, but yes in general I think tanks are a bit to easy to kill when viewed with respect in infantry. Very few units can kill 18+ wounds of infantry in a single phase, multiple units can do this to tanks. This is why infantry spam is so prevalent.
150 celestine
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
15 x1 astropath
15 x1 astropath
I imagine the other one followed the same broad outline of minimal GK with imperium allies. Here (https://mismatchedplay.com/2017/08/31/nova-invitational-lists) are some of the other lists used during the Invitational. You can watch some of the invitational and open games, including one of the semis and the final for the open, from Mismatched Play's twitch (http://www.twitch.tv/mismatchedplay).
This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.
Marmatag wrote: This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.
It's pretty simple to explain. Entrants had to give a name to their faction before their lists were completed and did not get a chance to change it.
I mean, it would be nice to be able to change faction names, but.... what do you really call Imperial Soup? How does this impact our perceptions about good factions?
Marmatag wrote: This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.
It's pretty simple to explain. Entrants had to give a name to their faction before their lists were completed and did not get a chance to change it.
I mean, it would be nice to be able to change faction names, but.... what do you really call Imperial Soup? How does this impact our perceptions about good factions?
I don't know, but his list was Forgeworld Astra Militarum, with some GK on the side.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Don't know if everyone saw this, but videos of the games including the final table.
Some of those armies are insane. Watched enough to know the best lists combine multiple armies, Daemons with artillery, AM with psykers, etc.
Also, many of the Chaos lists (World Eaters, Black Legion) feature Kharbdyis Assault Claws. Supposedly this is the most OP Forgeworld unit these days, the best they placed is 11.
Having been there, there wasn't much guidance on picking what your faction is.
You could pick which detachment your Warlord was (which seems like the fluffy option), which detachment cost more points, which you identified as, etc.
150 celestine
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
27 x3 heavy weapon team, x3 mortars
15 x1 astropath
15 x1 astropath
I imagine the other one followed the same broad outline of minimal GK with imperium allies. Here (https://mismatchedplay.com/2017/08/31/nova-invitational-lists) are some of the other lists used during the Invitational. You can watch some of the invitational and open games, including one of the semis and the final for the open, from Mismatched Play's twitch (http://www.twitch.tv/mismatchedplay).
This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.
You missed the three Strike squads hidden. It's more like 800ish points. That's not bad.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.
"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?
Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod.
Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.
"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?
Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod.
Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?
No. Something does not need to be spammable to be good.
Abaddon is good. He buffs units around him, halves damage thrown at him, can do a ton of damage in close combat, and has a 4+ save. But you can only take one. That's a good unit that's not spammable.
Rapier Quad Heavy Bolters are good. For 56 points each, I can fit 9 of them into most lists and do 108 S 5 AP -1 shots at 48 inches. That's a spammable unit that's also a good unit.
I think we are getting caught up on the word 'good' here, I think it's being mistaken for 'points efficient.' In general, you want to combine as many points-efficient units into your army as possible. Units can be points-efficient for different reasons, and it usually depends on the role you want it to play in your army.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.
"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?
Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod.
Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?
Breng77 wrote: The comparison is not meaningless. The comparison as stock number of OP units is meaningless because it ignores a ton of issues.
Nope. If someone claims that FW writes rules worse than GW does, then pointing out that GW feths up with rules thrice as much is actually not meaningless.
You last Icing on the cake actually proves my tournament point which you still have not addressed about accessibility.
FW units simply have not been as broken as GW units have been, and this is the case once again in 8th edition. Top ITC and ETC lists and their players will include the best stuff around, accessibility simply doesn't matter. All good FW units from 7th ed were present in tournaments, such as Skatach Wraithknights, Tau Tetras, Sevrin Loth. They were in the lists. Have you even followed the meta during 7th? I get this impression you have not, due to this accessibility claim you're making.
I get this vibe: "There must be some super OPFW units that the most competitive players on the planet, participating in the largest tournaments out there just didn't use because of accessibility." - this is a fairytale. All the stuff that was worth using,was used. It's just that there was a fraction of it on FW's side.
If anything is meaningless, it's that, because the overpowered FW stuff WAS used in tournaments. It's just that in 7th for example, 90% of the broken stuff came from GW, and the best armies around were built on GW's mistakes. You fail to see this, clearly, but the lists from all the largest tournaments from a few years back can still be found and there it stands. Just no way around it. Accessibility isn't a factor for competitive play. Where the broken units lie is a factor, and those units will be used even if they were manufactured by Lego.
Breng77 wrote: In older edtions that you mention FW was by and large banned so using tournament results as the indicator of OP is almost entirely meaningless. GK were OP in tournaments yes. But we have no idea what FW would have been back then, because they were not in tournaments so saying. "These are the worst tournament lists and they are all GW and not FW." is meaningless because NO FW was allowed in those events in the first place.
Wrong, FW has been allowed in major tournaments during 5th edition already, but admittedly it was more restricted than these days (numerically tournaments-wise). Still, no top lists with FW in them.
Breng77 wrote: Fire Raptor Spam could have been a thing alongside storm raven spam. But people don't own 5 fire raptors, and the nerf came prior to anyone having the ability to buy/convert them.
Except that Fire Raptors are worse on the points/effectivity scale than Storm Ravens... so no.
Breng77 wrote: Razorwing spam won exactly 0 tournaments (it was good at ETC in fixed matchups) so that is based on what that they got nerfed prior to any tournament where they dominated? What event has Drone spam dominated? You completely ignored the fact that tournament results are not any kind of indicator between GW and FW rules, because you will see a ton more GW in those events because more people own just GW.
A Skatach Wraithknight was still broken even if it didn't WIN a tournament. Your point is illogical and moot.
Breng77 wrote: Also previous editions mean nothing when discussing current rules, and response. Most things you listed are not even units in 7th but formations.
Creations by GW that broke the game. Even if we leave formations out, GW still wins by units alone.
Make us a tournament list consisting of FW that is more broken than anything we've seen from GW in 8th edition. Paste it here.
Alternatively, make us a tournament list constisting of FW based on 7th edition that was more broken than GW's stuff. Paste it here.
Hell, do a 5th edition list that is worse than GK using FW units since you seem so certain it was possible FW could've done worse.
I eagerly await your factual concrete proof in the form of an actual example instead of antics.
Marmatag wrote: This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.
Ironically however, it's a turbo-fluffy list.
A small, elite strike force of Marines bolstered by a ton of fodder is far fluffier then how the individual codices for each chapter would have you believe.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Without being able to even read the rules and units in question, how can you claim they are OP? That's like saying "Paris is ugly but I have never been there!"
Or possibly I've seen the books in the past and no longer have access to them. Assumptions aren't hard to make both ways.
There are a few Forgeworld things that are op and a few that are under powered and some priced about right. My complaint is how much the stuff costs to ship to the US and that they are generally made to fill holes in an army. I'm a firm believe that each army should have holes in it.
Did the imperial knights perform so bad because of the missions?
Read a lot people being concerned about beating 3-4 of them.
Seemed no Problem with that at Nova.
As someone else said, I think we need to move away from using “OP”, and start discussing “high points efficiency”. Sure, a Cerberus can one shot tanks and pretty much do the same to super heavies, but, overall is it “cost effective” to do so? Malefic Lords aren’t exactly “OP”, and neither are their GW counterparts, Primaris Psykers for AM, but, right now they seem to be hyper points efficient for several reasons.
The same goes for conscript spam. It isn’t that the unit is “over powered”, as, let’s face it, if required you can usually make sure a unit dies in a turn (balanced lists). It’s the fact that they are so points efficient and spammable when compared to other units that provide the same role in a game.
A lot of noise recently has been about Elysians, so let’s start off looking at them. What makes them so “hyper efficient” compared to Scions, who do the same role? For the standard infantry unit, is 1 point for deep-strike that “effective” when in most lists chances are they’d be starting on the table anyway? Even if they deep-strike, is 10 points worth it for 10 T3, 5+ wound models wielding lasguns?
What are the best answers to Elysians? How do they stack up “overall”?
(For RAI purposes, we should presume that they work the same way as normal command squads – 1 commander = 1 command squad, as this hasn’t technically been FWFAQ’d)
This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.
I also agree. That, and the other similar lists, are not Grey Knight lists. Bit of a “moot point”, unless you are trying to get first place in ITC faction rankings, but, I think Nova should have put a bit more thought into how they defined armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SideshowLucifer wrote: There are a few Forgeworld things that are op and a few that are under powered and some priced about right. My complaint is how much the stuff costs to ship to the US and that they are generally made to fill holes in an army. I'm a firm believe that each army should have holes in it.
Personally, I think all the armies should be able to provide answers for all situations. How well they able to answer each situation, however, should vary. I'd rather things be able to put up a fight, rather than it be too swingy on "rock-paper-scissors".
"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?
Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod.
Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?
You didn't answer my question. You avoided it.
I did answer the question:
Ghorgul wrote:Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod. Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?
Against this fourth placed AM he deployed the Multi-meltas with Drop Pod to destroy or heavily damage 1-2 Xiphons. Exact specifics were not mentioned in his report.
But please do allow me be more specific as normal english sentence did not go through to you. And you clearly didn't make the effort to go read Reece's report I was referring to.
So how did Reece find success with his Drop Pod? This is coming from reading his 2 reports he wrote on Frontlinegaming. Atleast in 2 matches he used the Drop Pod to deploy his Multi-melta Devastators to make alpha/beta-strike against enemy vehicles with quite good effect. He didn't write in his post-analysis of his list or matches that he was dissappointed with their performance, so I am somewhat safe to argue that he was satisfied with them.
Also I added some bolding for you to be able to catch the main points.
I think a major factor in the elysians is they currently have an order that, RAW, allows them to throw all of their grenades at the same time. Which is why we see so many loaded with nothing but krak grenades.
Move and Fire, their replacement for Forward for the Emperor, converts all of their weapons to Assault weapons. All of their weapons includes grenades, and losing the grenade type removes the one-grenade rule. It only has a 6" range, but getting hit by a lasgun volley, 10 frags, and 10 kraks hurts.
I'm surprised they didn't fix it when they FAQd the time-traveling vulcan and omni-buff searchlight, but perhaps the way it interacted with grenades didn't occur to them or they were worried that excluding grenades would make it strictly worse than FftE (because the Assault type gets -1 to hit after running, FftE doesn't).
Kdash wrote: A lot of noise recently has been about Elysians, so let’s start off looking at them. What makes them so “hyper efficient” compared to Scions, who do the same role? For the standard infantry unit, is 1 point for deep-strike that “effective” when in most lists chances are they’d be starting on the table anyway? Even if they deep-strike, is 10 points worth it for 10 T3, 5+ wound models wielding lasguns?
What are the best answers to Elysians? How do they stack up “overall”?
(For RAI purposes, we should presume that they work the same way as normal command squads – 1 commander = 1 command squad, as this hasn’t technically been FWFAQ’d)
For 1pt more than regular guardsmen all Elysian Drop Troop Infantry get deep strike and +1 LD (giving them better leadership with a Sgt. than Scions can get, in fact). As others have pointed out, they also get access to a better Orders chart than regular IG. Scions are 9pts per model by comparison for +1BS, +1Sv, -1Ld; comparing Scions to Elysian Command Squads/Veteran Squads, Elysians are 7pts for the same BS, +1Ld, -1Sv. And both can get Plasma Guns for 7pts. And even the 9pts part is somewhat misleading in that any Scion not holding a special weapon or other option has to take a hot-shot lasgun at 1pt, so for non-PG Scions, etc., they're paying 10pts.
Because you don't need to keep them battle-forged to retain deep strike, you can fill the troop slots with three Conscripts, then take Elysian options elsewhere - though 50pts for 10 bodies that you can reserve/deep-strike or have objective sit when you need them to isn't bad at all. Add in Sniper Teams/Special Weapon Teams, etc., and you're getting cheap Infantry who let you pick what you want to deep-strike out of the whole force and you can put them exactly where you need to - giving you an incredibly flexible amount of choice with them. And since Scions are just as likely to die once they've deepstriked and accomplished their task, the Elysians having a lower save is hardly that big an issue compared to saving ~2pts for every model in a 1-for-1 comparison.
Need to snipe some characters? DS Sniper teams into good positions; next match, need to blap a specific vehicle? DS your Command Squads instead. And with how many other options the tournament winner has in the rest of his list, he can basically deep-strike the whole Elysian Detachment if he wants to.
Kdash wrote: A lot of noise recently has been about Elysians, so let’s start off looking at them. What makes them so “hyper efficient” compared to Scions, who do the same role? For the standard infantry unit, is 1 point for deep-strike that “effective” when in most lists chances are they’d be starting on the table anyway? Even if they deep-strike, is 10 points worth it for 10 T3, 5+ wound models wielding lasguns?
What are the best answers to Elysians? How do they stack up “overall”?
(For RAI purposes, we should presume that they work the same way as normal command squads – 1 commander = 1 command squad, as this hasn’t technically been FWFAQ’d)
For 1pt more than regular guardsmen all Elysian Drop Troop Infantry get deep strike and +1 LD (giving them better leadership with a Sgt. than Scions can get, in fact). As others have pointed out, they also get access to a better Orders chart than regular IG. Scions are 9pts per model by comparison for +1BS, +1Sv, -1Ld; comparing Scions to Elysian Command Squads/Veteran Squads, Elysians are 7pts for the same BS, +1Ld, -1Sv. And both can get Plasma Guns for 7pts. And even the 9pts part is somewhat misleading in that any Scion not holding a special weapon or other option has to take a hot-shot lasgun at 1pt, so for non-PG Scions, etc., they're paying 10pts.
Because you don't need to keep them battle-forged to retain deep strike, you can fill the troop slots with three Conscripts, then take Elysian options elsewhere - though 50pts for 10 bodies that you can reserve/deep-strike or have objective sit when you need them to isn't bad at all. Add in Sniper Teams/Special Weapon Teams, etc., and you're getting cheap Infantry who let you pick what you want to deep-strike out of the whole force and you can put them exactly where you need to - giving you an incredibly flexible amount of choice with them. And since Scions are just as likely to die once they've deepstriked and accomplished their task, the Elysians having a lower save is hardly that big an issue compared to saving ~2pts for every model in a 1-for-1 comparison.
Need to snipe some characters? DS Sniper teams into good positions; next match, need to blap a specific vehicle? DS your Command Squads instead. And with how many other options the tournament winner has in the rest of his list, he can basically deep-strike the whole Elysian Detachment if he wants to.
Thanks for the extra insight!
I guessed the whole 10 krak grenades might have been a big factor over the standard infantry units, but, they can't do this on the turn they deep-strike, so i wasnt sure how effective it'd be there (grenade range = 6" and can only be given 1 order). On the flip side, the hot shot lasguns will still put out the hurt but prob not worth double the points. (Edit to add - ok, didn't realise you'd then be able to use BOTH grenades AND the lasgun after the order...)
As for the command squads vs scion command, when taking the plasma pistol on the elysian's commander, for 1 commander and a plasma command squad, scions are actually cheaper by a very small margin, so i wasn't sure. The ld, save and morale re-roll etc is meaningless on the command squads as you say, cos 4 man units just die instantly anyway.
I must admit to not even looking at the eylsian vet squads - beyond the command squad and snipers i didn't see the point. Elites are already heavily contested.
What i haven't seen anyone do - that i want to do - is deep strike twin lascannon venators. They are like 86 points with a 12" move, no shooting penalty and a 5++ if they move 10". I'd also consider not deep-striking the snipers and keeping a commander with them. Instead, deep-strike a few officers of the fleet so they can re-roll 1's to hit and wound.
That... and i'd add a thunderbolt and maurader destroyer in for good measure....
Breng77 wrote: The comparison is not meaningless. The comparison as stock number of OP units is meaningless because it ignores a ton of issues.
Nope. If someone claims that FW writes rules worse than GW does, then pointing out that GW feths up with rules thrice as much is actually not meaningless.
Except it doesn't if GW writes 3 times as many rules....which is why proportion matters, I'm not even saying GW would come out on top in that comparison simply that it is the comparison that matters not the bulk number of broken units that matters. Further it would matter which "broken" units are more broken. Which again GW might come out on top with, but that matters more than more units.
You last Icing on the cake actually proves my tournament point which you still have not addressed about accessibility.
FW units simply have not been as broken as GW units have been, and this is the case once again in 8th edition. Top ITC and ETC lists and their players will include the best stuff around, accessibility simply doesn't matter. All good FW units from 7th ed were present in tournaments, such as Skatach Wraithknights, Tau Tetras, Sevrin Loth. They were in the lists. Have you even followed the meta during 7th? I get this impression you have not, due to this accessibility claim you're making.
I get this vibe: "There must be some super OPFW units that the most competitive players on the planet, participating in the largest tournaments out there just didn't use because of accessibility." - this is a fairytale. All the stuff that was worth using,was used. It's just that there was a fraction of it on FW's side.
If anything is meaningless, it's that, because the overpowered FW stuff WAS used in tournaments. It's just that in 7th for example, 90% of the broken stuff came from GW, and the best armies around were built on GW's mistakes. You fail to see this, clearly, but the lists from all the largest tournaments from a few years back can still be found and there it stands. Just no way around it. Accessibility isn't a factor for competitive play. Where the broken units lie is a factor, and those units will be used even if they were manufactured by Lego.
Of cource accessibility matters, if 2 things are close in power people will take the one they have easier access too, especially when the ETC doesn't allow FW as far as I recall. SO players building toward doing well in that format may specifically not take FW units in their armies. In the past FW was banned or restricted in many places (in 5e where you claim it was a thing, and largely it was not GW banned it from their own events), so people may have not been inclined to spend money on units that they rarely would get to use. Some more broken FW stuff was banned in past editions (I'm looking at you Revenant Titan) SO to a point accessibility is a factor in competitive play unless FW is universally accepted, and even then in a new edition things that are easier to acquire quickly this close to the beginning of an edition are more likely to see play than those that are not. (FW is harder to get quickly or needs conversion.)
Breng77 wrote: In older edtions that you mention FW was by and large banned so using tournament results as the indicator of OP is almost entirely meaningless. GK were OP in tournaments yes. But we have no idea what FW would have been back then, because they were not in tournaments so saying. "These are the worst tournament lists and they are all GW and not FW." is meaningless because NO FW was allowed in those events in the first place.
Wrong, FW has been allowed in major tournaments during 5th edition already, but admittedly it was more restricted than these days (numerically tournaments-wise). Still, no top lists with FW in them.
Wrong, it was banned at adepticon, Ard Boyz, GWGTs, NOVA open and most GTs in 5e. The BAO was one of the only major events to allow it in 5th. Even in 6th it was banned from most events, toward the end of that edition and into 7th it was allowed in more events but still often restricted excepting the west coast events. It is still banned in the ETC. So it is provably false that it was allowed in major events with any regularity in previous editions.
Breng77 wrote: Fire Raptor Spam could have been a thing alongside storm raven spam. But people don't own 5 fire raptors, and the nerf came prior to anyone having the ability to buy/convert them.
Except that Fire Raptors are worse on the points/effectivity scale than Storm Ravens... so no.
Then why do I see plenty of people running them?
Breng77 wrote: Razorwing spam won exactly 0 tournaments (it was good at ETC in fixed matchups) so that is based on what that they got nerfed prior to any tournament where they dominated? What event has Drone spam dominated? You completely ignored the fact that tournament results are not any kind of indicator between GW and FW rules, because you will see a ton more GW in those events because more people own just GW.
A Skatach Wraithknight was still broken even if it didn't WIN a tournament. Your point is illogical and moot.
You were the one who said we needed to use tournament results as a means to show how OP things were. Where are the multitude of tournament results dominated by Razorwing spam (I know it was broken, but their are no results to corroborate this beyond a lot of ETC lists had them spammed.)
Breng77 wrote: Also previous editions mean nothing when discussing current rules, and response. Most things you listed are not even units in 7th but formations.
Creations by GW that broke the game. Even if we leave formations out, GW still wins by units alone.
Make us a tournament list consisting of FW that is more broken than anything we've seen from GW in 8th edition. Paste it here.
Alternatively, make us a tournament list constisting of FW based on 7th edition that was more broken than GW's stuff. Paste it here.
Hell, do a 5th edition list that is worse than GK using FW units since you seem so certain it was possible FW could've done worse.
I eagerly await your factual concrete proof in the form of an actual example instead of antics.
I'm not going to take the time to go back and make lists for past editions from resources I would need to find to even do. My claim has never been FW is way more broken than GW, or that GW isn't broken. Only that your statement that GW has more broken units is functionally meaningless when it comes to looking at broken units, whether FW will address those units, or the effectiveness of said units. A strict count of GW had 8 broken things and FW had only 3 borders on completely irrelevant to any meaningful balance discussion, or honest discussion of rules quality.
Very little really, it would in theory produce a different meta. That is about it. I think the only reason right now to consider a ban is if FW does not address its broken units/rules in a timely manner. To me that is the biggest possible problem.
Now this assumes
1.) The units are prevalent in the meta
2.) GW is doing a good job of addressing their own problems.
failing either of these a FW ban probably isn't a huge deal.
"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?
Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod.
Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?
You didn't answer my question. You avoided it.
I did answer the question:
Ghorgul wrote:Well Reece managed to beat the AM player who placed fourth, and that was that players only loss in whole tournament. And reading his report this was mostly thanks to his drop pod. Drop pods by themselves didn't win anything, and they shouldn't. So do you think that anything good/useable needs to be spammable? So if something fails 'spammability' test, it's not good unit?
Against this fourth placed AM he deployed the Multi-meltas with Drop Pod to destroy or heavily damage 1-2 Xiphons. Exact specifics were not mentioned in his report.
But please do allow me be more specific as normal english sentence did not go through to you. And you clearly didn't make the effort to go read Reece's report I was referring to.
So how did Reece find success with his Drop Pod? This is coming from reading his 2 reports he wrote on Frontlinegaming. Atleast in 2 matches he used the Drop Pod to deploy his Multi-melta Devastators to make alpha/beta-strike against enemy vehicles with quite good effect. He didn't write in his post-analysis of his list or matches that he was dissappointed with their performance, so I am somewhat safe to argue that he was satisfied with them.
Also I added some bolding for you to be able to catch the main points.
I asked for how many topping lists had Drop Pods, not battle reports.
Probably a good way to judge how responsive FW will be is see how they update the various FW flavors of guard after the AM codex drops. Assuming the AM codex does make heavy changes, not a given I admit.
SilverAlien wrote: Probably a good way to judge how responsive FW will be is see how they update the various FW flavors of guard after the AM codex drops. Assuming the AM codex does make heavy changes, not a given I admit.
Somewhat, it will also depend on how they handle things between releases (same with GW). I mean they haven't really updated their marine stuff much after the marine release.
Marmatag wrote: This is so disappointing it makes me want to wretch. This isn't a Grey Knights list. It has a freaking AM Brigade. That isn't GK. A patrol of GK under 600 points DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARMY GREY KNIGHTS, FFS.
Ironically however, it's a turbo-fluffy list.
A small, elite strike force of Marines bolstered by a ton of fodder is far fluffier then how the individual codices for each chapter would have you believe.
I very much agree with this. Imo the Grey Knights are weird trying to function as a stand alone army in the first place. ...
But back to some the lists, wtf are Elysian Snipers?
Unless i'm doing the math wrong this is like 1850 points...?
No, its actually 2001pts, so IDK what he dropped, im guessing 1 embrace somewhere.
Edit: ALso each Warwalker is its own unit so he gets the CP from Spearhead (if that wasnt clear)
Unless i'm doing the math wrong this is like 1850 points...?
No, its actually 2001pts, so IDK what he dropped, im guessing 1 embrace somewhere. Edit: ALso each Warwalker is its own unit so he gets the CP from Spearhead (if that wasnt clear)
Fixed it. Did it in battlescribe. It's 1995 points on the nose.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I asked for how many topping lists had Drop Pods, not battle reports.
You claimed drop pod is complete garbage, I showed you example of list that went 4-2 on tournament using 1 Drop Pod in list. The said list took 1 game of player who placed 4th, and 2 losses were against players who placed 8th ('Grey Knights' with Elysians and Celestine), and 13th ("Alpha Legion" with 2 Fire raptors, Magnus etc.)
If the drop pod(s) were consistently in top lists, we should be arguing whether the unit is OP. Unit however can be good without consistently showing up in top placements, because that is a sign of good balance.
Alternatively, if drop pod was 'complete garbage', Reece's list shouldn't have performed as well as it did, he did after all have 1/20th of his list filled by this so called complete garbage.
Unless i'm doing the math wrong this is like 1850 points...?
No, its actually 2001pts, so IDK what he dropped, im guessing 1 embrace somewhere.
Edit: ALso each Warwalker is its own unit so he gets the CP from Spearhead (if that wasnt clear)
Fixed it. Did it in battlescribe. It's 1995 points on the nose.
I did it in BS just now also... why is it so far off? did you not update yours? everything seems to be correct.
Unless i'm doing the math wrong this is like 1850 points...?
No, its actually 2001pts, so IDK what he dropped, im guessing 1 embrace somewhere.
Edit: ALso each Warwalker is its own unit so he gets the CP from Spearhead (if that wasnt clear)
Fixed it. Did it in battlescribe. It's 1995 points on the nose.
I did it in BS just now also... why is it so far off? did you not update yours? everything seems to be correct.
The mistake i was making, is that he only has 4 fusion pistols in the squads of 5, not 5. That brings the cost down below 2k.
Breng77 wrote: Except that Fire Raptors are worse on the points/effectivity scale than Storm Ravens... so no.
Then why do I see plenty of people running them?
... Why do you see many people running Tactical Marines? Because they're good? Jesus. Go look at their datasheets and compare them, if you can't figure it out then I don't know how you perceive effectiveness of units. Plenty of people huh, would figure accessibility is an issue.
Breng77 wrote: You were the one who said we needed to use tournament results as a means to show how OP things were. Where are the multitude of tournament results dominated by Razorwing spam (I know it was broken, but their are no results to corroborate this beyond a lot of ETC lists had them spammed.)
Yeah. I said that. And you somehow interpreted it as "something isn't broken if it didn't win" as evidenced by your claim Razorwings aren't broken because they won nothing, which is a completely different statement altogether. The fact these lists place well in the largest tournaments in the world, and the fact they are even used by the players who train for these things more than you or I play during a whole year speaks volumes. To ignore that fact is to ignore common sense. Any basic list would get destroyed by the original un-nerfed Razorwing Flock spam, if not by the sheer amount of attacks, then by the fact they will simply swarm the board and win by objectives. You know this, I know you know this, I know this, and GW knew it, hence the nerf.
And if the less informed entities formerly listed knew this, then it's obvious the players who compete at the absolute top knew it aswell. Before anyone else, too. Ergo, they know their gak, and if something pops up in more than 10 ETC lists it's guaranteed to be effective and/or broken.
I'm not going to take the time to go back and make lists for past editions from resources I would need to find to even do. My claim has never been FW is way more broken than GW, or that GW isn't broken. Only that your statement that GW has more broken units is functionally meaningless when it comes to looking at broken units, whether FW will address those units, or the effectiveness of said units. A strict count of GW had 8 broken things and FW had only 3 borders on completely irrelevant to any meaningful balance discussion, or honest discussion of rules quality.
For one, you're not going to make a list that is FW and more broken than anything GW made because such a list doesn't currently exist. Even if you went back to 5th edition where you claim FW could've been more broken if it was allowed (secret: no, it wouldn't have been more broken than GK, I have always played FW and kept up to date of their publications and there was nothing that could stand up to the guys from Titan back then, nothing). And again, if someone claims FW has a poorer rules writing record than GW does, then the comparison is meaningful.
GW is responsible for the overwhelming majority of things that have been broken in the game. You don't think the comparison is meaningful. If someone compares FW to GW and says FW has done worse, then it simply is meaningful. If I told you Toyota makes worse cars than Ford does, I guess you would call it irrelevant to compare them, when infact in a comparison claim that is exactly what is relevant. In another context, sure, it might not be meaningful. It starts to appear you fail to acknowledge the context on purpose.
On a general level, sure, it's not meaningful. When someone compares these 2 studios that create official rules for the game Warhammer 40.000, it is meaningful. Only thing FW is doing worse now is not fixing the mistakes as fast as GW does. GW might write 3x the rules (maybe, I actually don't think it's that big of a difference) but they certainly are responsible for 8x more fethups. So even in scale, the victory of rules blunders is theirs.
See if you want to prove your point that last part is the key. If GW writes 3x the rules, but creates 8x the problems, then your point is made. But if GW has say 300 units and FW has 100 units, and you say. Well GW has 10 broken things and FW only has 4, so GW is worse than FW. When factually FW has a higher proportion of broken units.
That is all I was originally saying that your statement that GW has more broken units is a meaningless statistic by itself.
Also nice that you ignore all the parts where I pick apart your "if ETC guys don't take it, it must not be good" FW argument. I also never said RW flocks were not good, but you said "show me tournament results where X did well, we need proof." RW flocks don't have high placement at a ton tournaments, just inclusion in a ton of ETC lists which could be due to the need to include different factions (it isn't but it could be)
As for the Fire Raptor. Plenty of people own some FW, not many own say 5 of the same model from FW.
You speak out both sides of your mouth on one hand you say. "Show me the tournament lists with X" and on the other you say "you can tell things are broken just by looking at the rules." Which one is it?
When you say things like "I think FW might have been broken in 5th, I never said that I said It was largely banned in 5th, so you trying to compare tournament results from 5th is largely meaningless.
I've already said my issues with FW in this edition and balance isn't the major one they are
1.) I feel like the write rules for a different scale game than basic GW rules.
2.) I'm concerned with how they will respond to balance issues, assuming GW continues to address their own, and assuming the GW fixes are meaningful.
Ghorgul wrote: Alternatively, if drop pod was 'complete garbage', Reece's list shouldn't have performed as well as it did
That's a bit of a logical stretch. I wouldn't consider finishing 74th to be performing well.
From what i gather, Reece dropped out after the first 6 games, "to enjoy the rest of the con" - as a result, anyone that played all 8 games would prob be placed close to/above him in the rankings by nature of points scored overall?
Reece went 4-2 in the 6 games, with the 2 losses against very strong lists - though they were said to be "close" games with a couple of mistakes being what caused the result.
Based on that, you could argue that a drop pod -isn't- a hindrance in a competitive environment, and, if used well, can be a benefit.
The Battle for Salvation GT coming this October Columbus day weekend
www.battleforsalvation.com will be announcing its finalized format in the next day. You can expect ITC restrictions of no more than 31 PL models and a BFS restriction on FW of 0-1 "UNITS" unique.
We have been asked to ban FW...we are not.
We have been asked to keep FW unrestricted...we are not.
Take your FW units and have fun but you cant spam them.
- A unit of 3 Earthshakers... cool. Not 12 of them
- A unit of Elysian Snipers and a unit of Elysian command squad...cool just not 6 of each.
- A Malific Lord...sure...just not 13 of them
- A Decimator..yup .. not 7 of them shooting possibly up to 12 Mortal wound shots.
Is this totally fair ? maybe not
Is it going to fix everything..nah
Will everyone be happy..doubt it.
But the game as of now has its issues..at least GW has made some effort to fix things. FW on the other hand hasnt and for the most part FW stuff is fine.. its the bad stuff that gets added to make things even worse.
I don't want to keep up the fighting, but it's worth noting that the 0-1 unique restriction on FW units means I won't come to Battle for Salvation, even if I wanted to (which I do, or at least did).
Some of us have spent a ton of money on awesome Forge World units, because we love the fluff or the way they look, and not getting to use them simply because people are upset about a few unrelated units is just upsetting and nonsensical, imo.
It's like banning all models with the Eldar keyword just because Scatterbikes were OP.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't want to keep up the fighting, but it's worth noting that the 0-1 unique restriction on FW units means I won't come to Battle for Salvation, even if I wanted to (which I do, or at least did).
Some of us have spent a ton of money on awesome Forge World units, because we love the fluff or the way they look, and not getting to use them simply because people are upset about a few unrelated units is just upsetting and nonsensical, imo.
It's like banning all models with the Eldar keyword just because Scatterbikes were OP.
fair enough Unit..
We have a number of players also threatening to not attend if we "dont ban FW"
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I asked for how many topping lists had Drop Pods, not battle reports.
You claimed drop pod is complete garbage, I showed you example of list that went 4-2 on tournament using 1 Drop Pod in list. The said list took 1 game of player who placed 4th, and 2 losses were against players who placed 8th ('Grey Knights' with Elysians and Celestine), and 13th ("Alpha Legion" with 2 Fire raptors, Magnus etc.)
If the drop pod(s) were consistently in top lists, we should be arguing whether the unit is OP. Unit however can be good without consistently showing up in top placements, because that is a sign of good balance.
Alternatively, if drop pod was 'complete garbage', Reece's list shouldn't have performed as well as it did, he did after all have 1/20th of his list filled by this so called complete garbage.
You're still not telling me what the highest topping list with a Pod is, which leads straight to a term we in the Fire Emblem community use, which is PEDM: Personal Experience Doesn't Matter. You can be anecdotal all you want, but we look at the math of the unit/character and can determine its usefulness. I didn't see Reece in the top 30 and I looked twice.
However, regardless of that, the Pod isn't good anymore. Hell, it was barely good to begin with to anybody outside those that never fought them before. Now they're 100 points? One of the few worthless units in the codex.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're still not telling me what the highest topping list with a Pod is, which leads straight to a term we in the Fire Emblem community use, which is PEDM: Personal Experience Doesn't Matter. You can be anecdotal all you want, but we look at the math of the unit/character and can determine its usefulness. I didn't see Reece in the top 30 and I looked twice.
However, regardless of that, the Pod isn't good anymore. Hell, it was barely good to begin with to anybody outside those that never fought them before. Now they're 100 points? One of the few worthless units in the codex.
You can keep on dreaming your stuff about what is good and bad. I applied your logic of not making it to Top 30, and following your 'procedure' Space Marine units such as Rhino, Land Raider, Predator are 'complete garbage' - none of those made it to Top 30.
And tbh I dont understand what obsession you have for unit having to place Top in order to be good. I told you, Reece used Drop Pod for good effect in this Tournament, going 4-2 (skipping last 2 games), of which 1 victory was over the player who placed 4th (That players only loss) and then losses were to players who placed 8th and 13th. There is nothing anecdotal about this. His Drop Pod performed well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're still not telling me what the highest topping list with a Pod is, which leads straight to a term we in the Fire Emblem community use, which is PEDM: Personal Experience Doesn't Matter. You can be anecdotal all you want, but we look at the math of the unit/character and can determine its usefulness. I didn't see Reece in the top 30 and I looked twice.
However, regardless of that, the Pod isn't good anymore. Hell, it was barely good to begin with to anybody outside those that never fought them before. Now they're 100 points? One of the few worthless units in the codex.
You can keep on dreaming your stuff about what is good and bad. I applied your logic of not making it to Top 30, and following your 'procedure' Space Marine units such as Rhino, Land Raider, Predator are 'complete garbage' - none of those made it to Top 30.
And tbh I dont understand what obsession you have for unit having to place Top in order to be good. I told you, Reece used Drop Pod for good effect in this Tournament, going 4-2 (skipping last 2 games), of which 1 victory was over the player who placed 4th (That players only loss) and then losses were to players who placed 8th and 13th. There is nothing anecdotal about this. His Drop Pod performed well.
You're using one person for your evidence, and a person that dropped out so didn't even complete all his games. Why are you using this particular instance as your anecdote?
zedsdead wrote: The Battle for Salvation GT coming this October Columbus day weekend
www.battleforsalvation.com will be announcing its finalized format in the next day. You can expect ITC restrictions of no more than 31 PL models and a BFS restriction on FW of 0-1 units unique.
We have been asked to ban FW...we are not.
We have been asked to keep FW unrestricted...we are not.
Take your FW units and have fun but you cant spam them.
- A unit of 3 Earthshakers... cool. Not 12 of them
- A unit of Elysian Snipers and a unit of Elysian command squad...cool just not 6 of each.
- A Malific Lord...sure...just not 13 of them
- A Decimator..yup .. not 7 of them shooting possibly up to 12 Mortal wound shots.
Is this totally fair ? maybe not
Is it going to fix everything..nah
Will everyone be happy..doubt it.
But the game as of now has its issues..at least GW has made some effort to fix things. FW on the other hand hasnt and for the most part FW stuff is fine.. its the bad stuff that gets added to make things even worse.
peace
I tip my hat to you for doing this.
I can imagine this has to be a very difficult thing for someone organizing a tournament. People will always be upset. I'm in the "ban Forgeworld completely" camp, but I can definitely appreciate the reduction in spam of what is clearly undercosted and OP units.
zedsdead wrote: The Battle for Salvation GT coming this October Columbus day weekend
www.battleforsalvation.com will be announcing its finalized format in the next day. You can expect ITC restrictions of no more than 31 PL models and a BFS restriction on FW of 0-1 units unique.
We have been asked to ban FW...we are not.
We have been asked to keep FW unrestricted...we are not.
Take your FW units and have fun but you cant spam them.
- A unit of 3 Earthshakers... cool. Not 12 of them
- A unit of Elysian Snipers and a unit of Elysian command squad...cool just not 6 of each.
- A Malific Lord...sure...just not 13 of them
- A Decimator..yup .. not 7 of them shooting possibly up to 12 Mortal wound shots.
Is this totally fair ? maybe not
Is it going to fix everything..nah
Will everyone be happy..doubt it.
But the game as of now has its issues..at least GW has made some effort to fix things. FW on the other hand hasnt and for the most part FW stuff is fine.. its the bad stuff that gets added to make things even worse.
peace
I tip my hat to you for doing this.
I can imagine this has to be a very difficult thing for someone organizing a tournament. People will always be upset. I'm in the "ban Forgeworld completely" camp, but I can definitely appreciate the reduction in spam of what is clearly undercosted and OP units.
Half and half, really, if Elysians were that crushingly OP they wouldn't roll alongside Celestine and Conscripts. And since apparently Scions are that bad, they'll end up replacing Elysians in tourneys where the latter can't be spammed.
And totally necessary. The current meta is being defined by Forgeworld units.
The current meta is being defined by AM right now. The army as a whole is too points efficient for the damage output they can generate. Besides the AM army, there are a few outliers like Primarchs, but by and far AM is dominating the meta. This really has nothing to do with FW. There aren't any FW units that are being spammed continuously that it shows a decided problem. Once the AM codex is released and they get knocked down a notch, the meta will change. I can't see any justification of saying FW is to blame through any measurable amount of data. Data does show that AM is the biggest problem as a whole by being too efficient for their points.
Wow, the current meta is absolutely not being defined by FW right now...
The Elysians were a spoiler but their roles in any of those lists could've been filled with units from the Index with only a small difference in performance.
If you're gonna ban FW, you HAVE TO ban Guilliman, Celestine, conscripts, mortar spam and flyer spam, psyker spam, taurox spam, assassin spam etc etc. The community is so ridiculous sometimes I swear.
I'll even take it a bit further than saying it's just AM. Imperial units as a whole are problematic primarily because you have such a huge pool of resources to pull from and make an army. When you have Space Marines, AM, Sisters, and others to pick the best units from, you are going to get a much higher level of efficiency than something like Necrons, Eldar, or Nids. Armies like that merely don't have the depth of units to choose from. Ynnari is a pretty decent army primarily because you are taking your pick from three separate armies and combining them. This is multiplied when you go Imperial and have a huge number more units to choose the best of the best from.
We didn't ban GW units from tournaments when knights were destroying the game. We didn't ban GW units from tournaments when summoning was destroying the game, when re-rollable 2+ invulns were destroying the game, when allies were destroying the game, when Riptides were destroying the game, when formations were destroying the game, when flyers were destroying the game, when invisibility was destroying the game. Guilliman, conscripts and certain flyers are destroying the game RIGHT NOW and still no one is suggesting banning Games Workshop units from tournaments.
The only people who advocate for banning FW wholesale are grognard fools who got into the game back when FW wasn't allowed in 90% of games and tounys, and want to "go back to the good old days".
BlaxicanX wrote: We didn't ban GW units from tournaments when knights were destroying the game. We didn't ban GW units from tournaments when summoning was destroying the game, when re-rollable 2+ invulns were destroying the game, when allies we're destroying the game, when Riptides were destroying the game, when formations were destroying the game, when flyers were destroying the game, when invisibility was destroying the game. Guilliman, conscripts and certain flyers are destroying the game RIGHT NOW and still no one is suggesting banning Games Workshop units from tournaments.
The only people who advocate for banning FW wholesale are grognard fools who got into the game back when FW wasn't allowed in 90% of games and tounys, and want to "go back to the good old days".
But if we don't put all the blame in Forgeworld using them as a scapegoat in a infantile idealization that theres a simple solution to a much bigger problem, what are we gonna do?!
I would absolutely skip an event where folks voted to ban FW, not just because I couldn't bring my DKOK, but because I just don't want to play with those people, and it's sure to be a crap time.
We lost that crowd to warmachine and kings of war before, apparently the popularity of 8th has brought them back.
The only people who advocate for banning FW wholesale are grognard fools who got into the game back when FW wasn't allowed in 90% of games and tounys, and want to "go back to the good old days".
This guy has it correct and directly called you guys out on your crap.
Though I don't agree Knights destroyed the game because they really didn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gunzhard wrote: Wow current meta is absolutely not being defined by FW right now...
The Elysians were a spoiler but their roles in any of those lists could've been filled with units from the Index with only a small difference in performance.
If you're gonna ban FW, you HAVE TO ban Guilliman, Celestine, conscripts, mortar spam and flyer spam, psyker spam, taurox spam, assassin spam etc etc. The community is so ridiculous sometimes I swear.
Replace the Elysians with Scions and Ratlings and you'll get exactly the same performance. Elysians look cool though.
The only people who advocate for banning FW wholesale are grognard fools who got into the game back when FW wasn't allowed in 90% of games and tounys, and want to "go back to the good old days".
This guy has it correct and directly called you guys out on your crap.
Though I don't agree Knights destroyed the game because they really didn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gunzhard wrote: Wow current meta is absolutely not being defined by FW right now...
The Elysians were a spoiler but their roles in any of those lists could've been filled with units from the Index with only a small difference in performance.
If you're gonna ban FW, you HAVE TO ban Guilliman, Celestine, conscripts, mortar spam and flyer spam, psyker spam, taurox spam, assassin spam etc etc. The community is so ridiculous sometimes I swear.
Replace the Elysians with Scions and Ratlings and you'll get exactly the same performance. Elysians look cool though.
The FW hate is growing root. Isn't it kind of understood high level players prefer min/max. I mean, "surprise"!?
Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
Bobthehero wrote: Half and half, really, if Elysians were that crushingly OP they wouldn't roll alongside Celestine and Conscripts. And since apparently Scions are that bad, they'll end up replacing Elysians in tourneys where the latter can't be spammed.
This – unfortunately.
As others have said, Elysians can be replaced by Scions. Earthshaker batteries can be replaced with a standard basilisk for an extra 28 points (sure it adds up when you start taking several of them, but, most lists can find the points for a couple with a bit of “jigging”). Malefic Lords can be swapped for Primaris Pskyers for +10 points, or, you could just go even more spammy and take 2 astropaths for each Lord.
Single LoW’s feels like it doesn’t do anything other than prevent Knight armies from taking part. Sure, there are a few people playing 3 baneblade tank armies etc, but, they are hardly repressive or causing a problem right now. I guess, the only broken thing it does stop is BobbyG and 3 Knights, but there are better ways to fix that issue – i.e. “If your army contains multiple LoWs, they must all share the same -sub faction- keyword. E.g. Questor Imperialis (Imperial Knights faction keyword).
If I was going to this event and was playing an AM list “meta” list, I’d have no worries going into the event. Conscripts are still a thing. BobbyG and Celestine are still good to go. Sure, batteries are restricted, but, I could still take 1 unit of 3 earthshakers, then a couple of manticores etc, followed by 900-1000 points of plasma drop scions etc and all is good. Maybe throw in 6 or so units of mortars for added “fun”.
I think restrictions should have been applied to other units in addition to the FW ones (if you are insistent on it). For example, conscripts need to go back to being 0-1 like they were in 7th. Maybe have a 0-1 on each type of Flyer (battlefield role, not keyword). Brimstones/all horror units to have a total model limit of say, 30 models (just throwing numbers around now) in order to keep them in line with a 50 man conscript unit.
Regardless of any attempts to “reduce” the impact of “OPFW”, I predict the winner of the event this week will be standard Astra Militarum with added “friends”. Behind them will be certain builds of Chaos.
Little increases add up. If AM were effectively down 100-150 points due to bringing less efficient options they would notice it.
Malefic lords stand out as obviously needing a price hike. Lots of other problems but this is a no brainer fix.
Maybe the fact the discussion is so fixated on unit statistics ratbsr tnan counterplays (not "take different units") is a sign the core rules should be revisited and the unit statistics are still mostly a symptom?
A change I personally welcome. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a competitive scene and relaxed 40k.
GW has never tried to balance the game like this before though. I think it is pretty understandable that they are going to be hitting a lot of the early speed bumps that most RTS developers hit as well. Blizzard actually wasn't that great at balancing beginning, for example, but they got there eventually.
Audustum wrote: A change I personally welcome. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a competitive scene and relaxed 40k.
GW has never tried to balance the game like this before though. I think it is pretty understandable that they are going to be hitting a lot of the early speed bumps that most RTS developers hit as well. Blizzard actually wasn't that great at balancing beginning, for example, but they got there eventually.
A problem that GW has compared to things like Blizzard and Riot is that those games have automatically recorded stats in absolute droves. It's easy to know where your balance flaws are when you have literally millions of people's aggregated data to look at. But when all you have is the results of a few pro players and the whines of internet people that want to win easily, it's a really hard thing to do. You can balance out the worst offenders, but you'll never manage to get a game as balanced as either Starcraft or League of Legends.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
The models really aren't much more than regular GW models (sometimes even, for crying out loud), and the only absurd items like Titans, which really don't get brought to games anyway and end up being display pieces for the most part.
Sorry, I'm not buying your accessibility argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also REALLY? LoW and other hated units? You mean Eldar titans and then?
The LoW slot was no more broken than the Troop slot when you had Scatterbikes and 5th Edition Grey Hunters. Please cut that crap off.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
You can find both GW and FW stuff for cheap in the used market... but that said, everything in 40K is "pay to play"... it's a privileged hobby. People who worry about feeding their kids and paying rent don't play Warhammer. Further Forgeworld isn't that much more expensive than GW unless we are talking about the enormous super heavy type models.
The old notion that Forgeworld's "pay to play" means you are getting better rules for a higher price, is not even remotely accurate and hasn't been so for a very long time (if ever). There are individual units that are not balanced correctly in the FW line... and SOOOO many more that are not balanced correctly in the GW line. They all need attention and GW/FW seems committed to giving them attention.
I'm so happy I don't play in such a constipated and close-minded atmosphere where folks are banning units out of uninformed fear.
Audustum wrote: A change I personally welcome. I don't think it's a bad thing to have a competitive scene and relaxed 40k.
GW has never tried to balance the game like this before though. I think it is pretty understandable that they are going to be hitting a lot of the early speed bumps that most RTS developers hit as well. Blizzard actually wasn't that great at balancing beginning, for example, but they got there eventually.
A problem that GW has compared to things like Blizzard and Riot is that those games have automatically recorded stats in absolute droves. It's easy to know where your balance flaws are when you have literally millions of people's aggregated data to look at. But when all you have is the results of a few pro players and the whines of internet people that want to win easily, it's a really hard thing to do. You can balance out the worst offenders, but you'll never manage to get a game as balanced as either Starcraft or League of Legends.
I'd say never say never. That said, it's a Herculean task GW has set for itself and they'll be legends if they pull it off for the exact reasons you describe.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
You can find both GW and FW stuff for cheap in the used market... but that said, everything in 40K is "pay to play"... it's a privileged hobby. People who worry about feeding their kids and paying rent don't play Warhammer. Further Forgeworld isn't that much more expensive than GW unless we are talking about the enormous super heavy type models.
The old notion that Forgeworld's "pay to play" means you are getting better rules for a higher price, is not even remotely accurate and hasn't been so for a very long time (if ever). There are individual units that are not balanced correctly in the FW line... and SOOOO many more that are not balanced correctly in the GW line. They all need attention and GW/FW seems committed to giving them attention.
I'm so happy I don't play in such a constipated and close-minded atmosphere where folks are banning units out of uninformed fear.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
You can find both GW and FW stuff for cheap in the used market... but that said, everything in 40K is "pay to play"... it's a privileged hobby. People who worry about feeding their kids and paying rent don't play Warhammer. Further Forgeworld isn't that much more expensive than GW unless we are talking about the enormous super heavy type models.
The old notion that Forgeworld's "pay to play" means you are getting better rules for a higher price, is not even remotely accurate and hasn't been so for a very long time (if ever). There are individual units that are not balanced correctly in the FW line... and SOOOO many more that are not balanced correctly in the GW line. They all need attention and GW/FW seems committed to giving them attention.
I'm so happy I don't play in such a constipated and close-minded atmosphere where folks are banning units out of uninformed fear.
It is no where near as easy to find cheap FW on the used market as it is GW, so it is somewhat disingenuous to equate the two.
Really the issue with FW right now is waiting to see if they address any balance issues. That is pretty much it.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
You can find both GW and FW stuff for cheap in the used market... but that said, everything in 40K is "pay to play"... it's a privileged hobby. People who worry about feeding their kids and paying rent don't play Warhammer. Further Forgeworld isn't that much more expensive than GW unless we are talking about the enormous super heavy type models.
The old notion that Forgeworld's "pay to play" means you are getting better rules for a higher price, is not even remotely accurate and hasn't been so for a very long time (if ever). There are individual units that are not balanced correctly in the FW line... and SOOOO many more that are not balanced correctly in the GW line. They all need attention and GW/FW seems committed to giving them attention.
I'm so happy I don't play in such a constipated and close-minded atmosphere where folks are banning units out of uninformed fear.
It is no where near as easy to find cheap FW on the used market as it is GW, so it is somewhat disingenuous to equate the two.
Really the issue with FW right now is waiting to see if they address any balance issues. That is pretty much it.
He is talking about 3rd parties, there is.... this subreddit for 1.. that can make every model for really cheap for you, and you know the worst part? they are better than finecast. i order a couple b.c i hate finecast and there are a few models that i wont buy, many finecast is fine, thicker models like fire dragons are just fine, but then there are some that just bend, melt, break etc....
I priced out a sob army via these places and it was about 70% the cost.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
You can find both GW and FW stuff for cheap in the used market... but that said, everything in 40K is "pay to play"... it's a privileged hobby. People who worry about feeding their kids and paying rent don't play Warhammer. Further Forgeworld isn't that much more expensive than GW unless we are talking about the enormous super heavy type models.
The old notion that Forgeworld's "pay to play" means you are getting better rules for a higher price, is not even remotely accurate and hasn't been so for a very long time (if ever). There are individual units that are not balanced correctly in the FW line... and SOOOO many more that are not balanced correctly in the GW line. They all need attention and GW/FW seems committed to giving them attention.
I'm so happy I don't play in such a constipated and close-minded atmosphere where folks are banning units out of uninformed fear.
It is no where near as easy to find cheap FW on the used market as it is GW, so it is somewhat disingenuous to equate the two.
Really the issue with FW right now is waiting to see if they address any balance issues. That is pretty much it.
He is talking about 3rd parties, there is.... this subreddit for 1.. that can make every model for really cheap for you, and you know the worst part? they are better than finecast. i order a couple b.c i hate finecast and there are a few models that i wont buy, many finecast is fine, thicker models like fire dragons are just fine, but then there are some that just bend, melt, break etc....
I priced out a sob army via these places and it was about 70% the cost.
That isn't the used market though, and hardly the easiest place to aquire models from.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
You can find both GW and FW stuff for cheap in the used market... but that said, everything in 40K is "pay to play"... it's a privileged hobby. People who worry about feeding their kids and paying rent don't play Warhammer. Further Forgeworld isn't that much more expensive than GW unless we are talking about the enormous super heavy type models.
The old notion that Forgeworld's "pay to play" means you are getting better rules for a higher price, is not even remotely accurate and hasn't been so for a very long time (if ever). There are individual units that are not balanced correctly in the FW line... and SOOOO many more that are not balanced correctly in the GW line. They all need attention and GW/FW seems committed to giving them attention.
I'm so happy I don't play in such a constipated and close-minded atmosphere where folks are banning units out of uninformed fear.
It is no where near as easy to find cheap FW on the used market as it is GW, so it is somewhat disingenuous to equate the two.
Really the issue with FW right now is waiting to see if they address any balance issues. That is pretty much it.
I see FW all over eBay, certainly there is more regular GW stock but it's not impossible to find what you want. In fact it's quite possible, to get used or new Forgeworld - it's not some unpenetrable wall some folks make it out to be. And if you don't want to buy FW - don't. This is utterly besides the point and in either case should have no bearing on 'banning' units.
As for FW addressing balance - they've already done exactly what GW has - they released an FAQ for each of their 8th edition Index.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
You can find both GW and FW stuff for cheap in the used market... but that said, everything in 40K is "pay to play"... it's a privileged hobby. People who worry about feeding their kids and paying rent don't play Warhammer. Further Forgeworld isn't that much more expensive than GW unless we are talking about the enormous super heavy type models.
The old notion that Forgeworld's "pay to play" means you are getting better rules for a higher price, is not even remotely accurate and hasn't been so for a very long time (if ever). There are individual units that are not balanced correctly in the FW line... and SOOOO many more that are not balanced correctly in the GW line. They all need attention and GW/FW seems committed to giving them attention.
I'm so happy I don't play in such a constipated and close-minded atmosphere where folks are banning units out of uninformed fear.
It is no where near as easy to find cheap FW on the used market as it is GW, so it is somewhat disingenuous to equate the two.
Really the issue with FW right now is waiting to see if they address any balance issues. That is pretty much it.
I see FW all over eBay, certainly there is more regular GW stock but it's not impossible to find what you want. In fact it's quite possible, to get used or new Forgeworld - it's not some unpenetrable wall some folks make it out to be. And if you don't want to buy FW - don't. This is utterly besides the point and in either case should have no bearing on 'banning' units.
As for FW addressing balance - they've already done exactly what GW has - they released an FAQ for each of their 8th edition Index.
It being there and it being cheap are not the same thing most FW I see on ebay is at or above retail "pro painted" or Imperial stuff, but even a lot of that is expensive. SO I still dispute the as cheap and easy as GW on the used market.
They have also not release an FAQ addressing any balance issues, they issued an FAQ addressing horrible rules that didn't work at all. GW has also released multiple FAQs and changes.
This argument is mental ...nothing in 40K is cheap. Yes, FW costs a little more, but you obviously have an internet connection since you're here - so you have very easy means to get Forgeworld. If you don't want FW, don't buy FW!
This should have nothing to do with 'banned' units. I can't afford a Land Raider, or Wraithknight, or Stormraven, or even to start adding Primarus right now -- so ban them all!
Gunzhard wrote: This argument is mental ...nothing in 40K is cheap. Yes, FW costs a little more, but you obviously have an internet connection since you're here - so you have very easy means to get Forgeworld. If you don't want FW, don't buy FW!
This should have nothing to do with 'banned' units. I can't afford a Land Raider, or Wraithknight, or Stormraven, or even to start adding Primarus right now -- so ban them all!
Dakka never fails to surprise me.
I think its more of someone hates FW b.c they had a bad experience with someone else using fw and now they are using any means to give them reason not to play with those models.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
That's pretty much it. Forge World is so expensive, then add in shipping costs and it gets plain stupid to order that stuff.
Gunzhard wrote: This argument is mental ...nothing in 40K is cheap. Yes, FW costs a little more, but you obviously have an internet connection since you're here - so you have very easy means to get Forgeworld. If you don't want FW, don't buy FW!
This should have nothing to do with 'banned' units. I can't afford a Land Raider, or Wraithknight, or Stormraven, or even to start adding Primarus right now -- so ban them all!
Dakka never fails to surprise me.
I think its more of someone hates FW b.c they had a bad experience with someone else using fw and now they are using any means to give them reason not to play with those models.
I don't hate the stuff. I think some of it is pretty snazzy and I've order a model or two before along with some doors for my older marines. The problem is cost plus shipping and lack of knowing the rules so feel people feel they are suffering from a gotcha moment when playing against it. We use several gentleman's rules in casual play, but competitive play tends to be stupid to a whole new level even without adding in elements from stuff like FW.
It's also a case where people rarely field the FW stuff that is bad or just ok. Usually it's spamming the crap that's obviously op, like the Mournghoul for AoS. So the people who run the events just find it's easier to get more players if they don't allow the stuff. Also, the local game stores can't sell the stuff, so why should they allow it in their events?
Gunzhard wrote: This argument is mental ...nothing in 40K is cheap. Yes, FW costs a little more, but you obviously have an internet connection since you're here - so you have very easy means to get Forgeworld. If you don't want FW, don't buy FW!
This should have nothing to do with 'banned' units. I can't afford a Land Raider, or Wraithknight, or Stormraven, or even to start adding Primarus right now -- so ban them all!
Dakka never fails to surprise me.
I'm not even calling for FW bans (though Lords of War typically bother me in standard game sizes, the rest of the stuff generally doesn't, and I feel the same about GW LOW). But pro-FW people always make it seem like FW has the same accessibility as GW and that simply isn't the case. No it isn't ridiculously hard to get, but because there is at least some barrier to entry player often don't play against a lot of FW stuff and so it can be more surprising. My only issue with FW right now is concerns about how they will handle balance issues.
Also it is fairly easy to get standard 40k stuff fairly cheap (like whole armies for what I've seen FW stuff sell for on ebay).
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
That's pretty much it. Forge World is so expensive, then add in shipping costs and it gets plain stupid to order that stuff.
Gunzhard wrote: This argument is mental ...nothing in 40K is cheap. Yes, FW costs a little more, but you obviously have an internet connection since you're here - so you have very easy means to get Forgeworld. If you don't want FW, don't buy FW!
This should have nothing to do with 'banned' units. I can't afford a Land Raider, or Wraithknight, or Stormraven, or even to start adding Primarus right now -- so ban them all!
Dakka never fails to surprise me.
I think its more of someone hates FW b.c they had a bad experience with someone else using fw and now they are using any means to give them reason not to play with those models.
I don't hate the stuff. I think some of it is pretty snazzy and I've order a model or two before along with some doors for my older marines. The problem is cost plus shipping and lack of knowing the rules so feel people feel they are suffering from a gotcha moment when playing against it. We use several gentleman's rules in casual play, but competitive play tends to be stupid to a whole new level even without adding in elements from stuff like FW.
It's also a case where people rarely field the FW stuff that is bad or just ok. Usually it's spamming the crap that's obviously op, like the Mournghoul for AoS. So the people who run the events just find it's easier to get more players if they don't allow the stuff. Also, the local game stores can't sell the stuff, so why should they allow it in their events?
The unfamiliarity with rules is a thing, though at least now with digital books it is a bit easier to get your hands on the rules than it used to be. Beyond that it is more common in this edition for FW stuff to have rules that seem more over the top (though you typically pay a bunch of points for those rules), than what you find in the GW books.
Cost and availability are not valid excuses. This is an expensive and frivolous hobby. Complaining that something is $$$$ making it less available than $$$ isn't rational. Not to mention, the last tourney i went to there were probably 30 Earthshakers in total over various armies and not a single one was an actual FW model. Almost every person had the same $6 WW2 howitzer 'count as'. The same goes for Elysians. I've never seen an actual Elysian model in real life. Everyone proxies them. The SM codex is currently $50 and the FW index is $20. So, that must mean that SM rules are less available and familiar than FW rules, right?
All of these Anti-Forgeworld arguments are just downright silly. If cost is the barrier, and we're still talking about: Warhammer 40K, the argument is bogus - it's all expensive.
Where do we draw the ridiculous line on what's "too expensive" to be in competitive events? ...a single stormraven is $82 and arguably "OP", the Primaris Strike Force "deal" is just a Captain and 10 Primarus marines for $105! ...ban them - too expensive! ...building an army is expensive; make competitive events just Kill Team then? -- yeah it's ridiculous. This cost argument is perhaps the most ridiculous.
If we're talking about rules... FW released an FAQ for each of their new Index. A few items are still probably unbalanced - GW despite all of their efforts and several FAQ/Errata still have TONS of imbalance issues.
This entire thread is built on the idea that some units are imbalanced - but in those winning IG lists, all of the Forgeworld elements are interchangeable with comparable units in the regular GW Index. The Broken elements of the IG lists are absolutely NOT the FW elements.
If the next pathetically flimsy argument is "unfamiliarity with rules" ...well there's never been an easier time to know all of the FW rules - they are all contained within 4 books (available online as well ). The same case cannot be made for GW anymore which has Index and Codex, both available now and more coming soon. This is a lazy excuse. Applying this argument would mean that nearly every army in 7th edition should've been banned.
Gunzhard wrote: This argument is mental ...nothing in 40K is cheap. Yes, FW costs a little more, but you obviously have an internet connection since you're here - so you have very easy means to get Forgeworld. If you don't want FW, don't buy FW!
This should have nothing to do with 'banned' units. I can't afford a Land Raider, or Wraithknight, or Stormraven, or even to start adding Primarus right now -- so ban them all!
Dakka never fails to surprise me.
I'm not even calling for FW bans (though Lords of War typically bother me in standard game sizes, the rest of the stuff generally doesn't, and I feel the same about GW LOW). But pro-FW people always make it seem like FW has the same accessibility as GW and that simply isn't the case. No it isn't ridiculously hard to get, but because there is at least some barrier to entry player often don't play against a lot of FW stuff and so it can be more surprising. My only issue with FW right now is concerns about how they will handle balance issues.
Also it is fairly easy to get standard 40k stuff fairly cheap (like whole armies for what I've seen FW stuff sell for on ebay).
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
That's pretty much it. Forge World is so expensive, then add in shipping costs and it gets plain stupid to order that stuff.
Gunzhard wrote: This argument is mental ...nothing in 40K is cheap. Yes, FW costs a little more, but you obviously have an internet connection since you're here - so you have very easy means to get Forgeworld. If you don't want FW, don't buy FW!
This should have nothing to do with 'banned' units. I can't afford a Land Raider, or Wraithknight, or Stormraven, or even to start adding Primarus right now -- so ban them all!
Dakka never fails to surprise me.
I think its more of someone hates FW b.c they had a bad experience with someone else using fw and now they are using any means to give them reason not to play with those models.
I don't hate the stuff. I think some of it is pretty snazzy and I've order a model or two before along with some doors for my older marines. The problem is cost plus shipping and lack of knowing the rules so feel people feel they are suffering from a gotcha moment when playing against it. We use several gentleman's rules in casual play, but competitive play tends to be stupid to a whole new level even without adding in elements from stuff like FW.
It's also a case where people rarely field the FW stuff that is bad or just ok. Usually it's spamming the crap that's obviously op, like the Mournghoul for AoS. So the people who run the events just find it's easier to get more players if they don't allow the stuff. Also, the local game stores can't sell the stuff, so why should they allow it in their events?
The unfamiliarity with rules is a thing, though at least now with digital books it is a bit easier to get your hands on the rules than it used to be. Beyond that it is more common in this edition for FW stuff to have rules that seem more over the top (though you typically pay a bunch of points for those rules), than what you find in the GW books.
It DOES have the same accessibility. Nothing outside Titans is much beyond what you regularly pay. No Sicaran variant is that much more expensive than a regular Predator.
Also unfamiliarity with rules is a fething joke of an excuse. You think I refused games when Genestealer Cults, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Deathwatch came out?
This edition FW rules are more poorly written and less balanced than 40k, and the chance they will be adjusted is low due to how inactive FW is as a division of GW.
That some of the FW units are bad, doesn't balance the ones that are too effective for their cost.
IIRC, while the new FW indexes are surprisingly cheap, the prior FW books were at a price point that lost my interest right away. I wasn't about to pay $70 for a book so I could use a single unit of interest to me, then have that 70$ book become obsolete after an edition change.
50$ is already more than I want to spend on a codex, but at least it's a whole army that I'm interested in.
Not that I'm against FW in tournaments, but I get some of the arguments.
That said, good on FW for bringing the price point of the Indexes to something reasonable. I probably still won't buy them, as the standard-fare GW stuff will work fine for me. But still, it's nice to see.
Insectum7 wrote: IIRC, while the new FW indexes are surprisingly cheap, the prior FW books were at a price point that lost my interest right away. I wasn't about to pay $70 for a book so I could use a single unit of interest to me, then have that 70$ book become obsolete after an edition change.
50$ is already more than I want to spend on a codex, but at least it's a whole army that I'm interested in.
Not that I'm against FW in tournaments, but I get some of the arguments.
That said, good on FW for bringing the price point of the Indexes to something reasonable. I probably still won't buy them, as the standard-fare GW stuff will work fine for me. But still, it's nice to see.
This is pretty much it. People are hating on FW because of past experiences that have nothing to do with 8th edition now. People are trying to push an agenda by any excuse they can. Anyone can get FW products online the same as GW products. Past that, many people just use proxies and counts as. The rules for a lot of units are "good" but not "broken" which is a big difference. Units that are broken are just spammed as much as possible in this edition since it's allowed. Looking at any tournaments right now, there aren't any units being spammed like previous broken units. Just because a single FW unit ends up in a winning list doesn't mean squat.
Insectum7 wrote: IIRC, while the new FW indexes are surprisingly cheap, the prior FW books were at a price point that lost my interest right away. I wasn't about to pay $70 for a book so I could use a single unit of interest to me, then have that 70$ book become obsolete after an edition change.
50$ is already more than I want to spend on a codex, but at least it's a whole army that I'm interested in.
Not that I'm against FW in tournaments, but I get some of the arguments.
That said, good on FW for bringing the price point of the Indexes to something reasonable. I probably still won't buy them, as the standard-fare GW stuff will work fine for me. But still, it's nice to see.
This is pretty much it. People are hating on FW because of past experiences that have nothing to do with 8th edition now. People are trying to push an agenda by any excuse they can. Anyone can get FW products online the same as GW products. Past that, many people just use proxies and counts as. The rules for a lot of units are "good" but not "broken" which is a big difference. Units that are broken are just spammed as much as possible in this edition since it's allowed. Looking at any tournaments right now, there aren't any units being spammed like previous broken units. Just because a single FW unit ends up in a winning list doesn't mean squat.
Multiple of the top ten lists had FW units, Elysian command squads, Elysian sniper squads, and malefic lords.
FW has broken units. Elysian command squads drop 4 BS 3+ plasma for 56 pts. That is broken. Scions command squads were considered broken for similar reasons but cost 73 to do the same shots at the same BS. GW saw the issue and addressed it in the errata so you can have 1 command squad per 1 regiment officer.
FW needs to do the same. Not just elysians either, malefic lords etc are a problem.
Insectum7 wrote: IIRC, while the new FW indexes are surprisingly cheap, the prior FW books were at a price point that lost my interest right away. I wasn't about to pay $70 for a book so I could use a single unit of interest to me, then have that 70$ book become obsolete after an edition change.
50$ is already more than I want to spend on a codex, but at least it's a whole army that I'm interested in.
Not that I'm against FW in tournaments, but I get some of the arguments.
That said, good on FW for bringing the price point of the Indexes to something reasonable. I probably still won't buy them, as the standard-fare GW stuff will work fine for me. But still, it's nice to see.
This is pretty much it. People are hating on FW because of past experiences that have nothing to do with 8th edition now. People are trying to push an agenda by any excuse they can. Anyone can get FW products online the same as GW products. Past that, many people just use proxies and counts as. The rules for a lot of units are "good" but not "broken" which is a big difference. Units that are broken are just spammed as much as possible in this edition since it's allowed. Looking at any tournaments right now, there aren't any units being spammed like previous broken units. Just because a single FW unit ends up in a winning list doesn't mean squat.
Multiple of the top ten lists had FW units, Elysian command squads, Elysian sniper squads, and malefic lords.
FW has broken units. Elysian command squads drop 4 BS 3+ plasma for 56 pts. That is broken. Scions command squads were considered broken for similar reasons but cost 73 to do the same shots at the same BS. GW saw the issue and addressed it in the errata so you can have 1 command squad per 1 regiment officer.
FW needs to do the same. Not just elysians either, malefic lords etc are a problem.
The Scions cost more because they have better armour. And even just a standard 10 man Scion squad (not Command squad) can take 4 Plasmaguns, and they're Troops! Though the difference in armour hardly matters when you can cover the entire board with cheap bodies (conscripts).
There's nothing wrong with Elysians right now.
Malefic Lords need an errata... but so do SOOO many more regular GW units.
You're comparing a 4 man unit that can be spammed, can bring 4 plasma guns(1 per model) to a ten model unit that can bring a total of four.
One costs 56 pts, the other is 118 pts. You can literally take two of the 56 pt squads for the cost of 1 Scion squad and have points to spare.
And saying Elysians are fine because their armor save is 1 less.
You are wrong. Simple as that :(
Edit-. The elysians are literally 100% more effective than the index units they mirror per point compared to special weapons teams, or Scion squads. Both of those index units are already arguably too good. I realize you play DKOK so are defensive about FW but you are not being subjective at all on the topic.
You're comparing a 4 man unit that can be spammed, can bring 4 plasma guns(1 per model) to a ten model unit that can bring a total of four.
One costs 56 pts, the other is 118 pts. You can literally take two of the 56 pt squads for the cost of 1 Scion squad and have points to spare.
And saying Elysians are fine because their armor save is 1 less.
You are wrong. Simple as that :(
Edit-. The elysians are literally 100% more effective than the index units they mirror per point compared to special weapons teams, or Scion squads. Both of those index units are already arguably too good. I realize you play DKOK so are defensive about FW but you are not being subjective at all on the topic.
So he's off base because 4 units being used are broken, and therefore blanket ban is okay?
You're comparing a 4 man unit that can be spammed, can bring 4 plasma guns(1 per model) to a ten model unit that can bring a total of four.
One costs 56 pts, the other is 118 pts. You can literally take two of the 56 pt squads for the cost of 1 Scion squad and have points to spare.
And saying Elysians are fine because their armor save is 1 less.
You are wrong. Simple as that :(
Edit-. The elysians are literally 100% more effective than the index units they mirror per point compared to special weapons teams, or Scion squads. Both of those index units are already arguably too good. I realize you play DKOK so are defensive about FW but you are not being subjective at all on the topic.
In the context of some WAACturd 'spamming' them, yes surely I do agree. But with an easy FAQ fix, like they did with Scions, they are totally fine. I mentioned the standard Scions because they are TROOPS and can take 4 Plasmaguns, whereas the Elysian troops can take 1... but if we are comparing Command squads with Command squads... Elysians are only "better" because they can currently be spammed, they're still less survivable.
In the winning IG list however, he only had 2 command squads, AND 2 commanders - something he could've also done with Scions. You're totally blowing off the armour save like it doesn't matter - and I'll even agree that in the context of an ocean of (actually broken) Conscript spam it really doesn't, but otherwise it most certainly will. The Elysians in that list were by far the least offensive models on the table.
Your claim that they are 100% more effective is just "wrong. Simple as that". Scions might cost a little more, but they're still better... if you're meaning hypothetically spamming Elysian Command Squads only... well again, yeah ok - but that's not what won the NOVA... it was psyker spam, taurox spam, mortar spam, Celestine and tons of Conscripts.
Anyway I don't think anyone has claimed that either FW or GW are perfectly balanced, but it was FAR and away broken GW units, and there are sooo many more of them, that won Nova and several other big events to date. To ban FW is just mental.
You're comparing a 4 man unit that can be spammed, can bring 4 plasma guns(1 per model) to a ten model unit that can bring a total of four.
One costs 56 pts, the other is 118 pts. You can literally take two of the 56 pt squads for the cost of 1 Scion squad and have points to spare.
And saying Elysians are fine because their armor save is 1 less.
You are wrong. Simple as that :(
Edit-. The elysians are literally 100% more effective than the index units they mirror per point compared to special weapons teams, or Scion squads. Both of those index units are already arguably too good. I realize you play DKOK so are defensive about FW but you are not being subjective at all on the topic.
In the context of some WAACturd 'spamming' them, yes surely I do agree. But with an easy FAQ fix, like they did with Scions, they are totally fine. I mentioned the standard Scions because they are TROOPS and can take 4 Plasmaguns, whereas the Elysian troops can take 1... but if we are comparing Command squads with Command squads... Elysians are only "better" because they can currently be spammed, they're still less survivable.
In the winning IG list however, he only had 2 command squads, AND 2 commanders - something he could've also done with Scions. You're totally blowing off the armour save like it doesn't matter - and I'll even agree that in the context of an ocean of (actually broken) Conscript spam it really doesn't, but otherwise it most certainly will. The Elysians in that list were by far the least offensive models on the table.
Your claim that they are 100% more effective is just "wrong. Simple as that". Scions might cost a little more, but they're still better... if you're meaning hypothetically spamming Elysian Command Squads only... well again, yeah ok - but that's not what won the NOVA... it was psyker spam, taurox spam, mortar spam, Celestine and tons of Conscripts.
Anyway I don't think anyone has claimed that either FW or GW are perfectly balanced, but it was FAR and away broken GW units, and there are sooo many more of them, that won Nova and several other big events to date. To ban FW is just mental.
This. Individual units are not dominating the scene. Being able to take the best units from a large pool (Imperium) is what is dominating the scene. Other factions that have a far more limited source of resources will not have the power to compete at that level. Just look at the winning list. There are units from, what, three or four different armies? Yet it's all Imperium. If he came with a spam of Elysians and plasma, sure I'd say it's broken. But he didn't. He won because he's able to legally cherry pick the best of the best from all the different Imperium armies.
Also REALLY? LoW and other hated units? You mean Eldar titans and then?
The LoW slot was no more broken than the Troop slot when you had Scatterbikes and 5th Edition Grey Hunters. Please cut that crap off.
No I don't mean titans, those things are not even existing for me. I mean imperial knights, wraitknights, stompas, baneblades, stormsurges, magnus.... this kind of stuff. Not everyone likes huge models in medium sized games like the 2000 points format. Imho the huge stuff should be the dreadnought, terminators and the land raider. And their equivalents of course.
It's not exclusively a matter of rules, there's not only the competitive gaming.
I've defeat an army with 3 knights and magnus but I'll never play against that list in my life, it was so boring.
I've got no problem to face a list with ONE LoW, but I hate them and I won't bring them, even if they are the most competitive units in my armies, simple.
"constipated and close-minded atmosphere"?? In my group we play with ALL the units (unless we don't have the models of course) in the indexes, not only the most performing ones. Playing competitive games is as fun as playing fluffy lists, the only important thing is to balance the two lists. The close-minded atmosphere is the one tipycal of WAAC players who only play one single list with a few variations and with only the most effective stuff. If you usually bring only 8-10 units including FW and LoWs while I alternate 20+ different choices I would not define my meta to be costipated and close minded, rather the opposite.
I don't run the events locally and have no say in what's allowed. Was just sharing what happens here. I won't turn down a game that has FW models in them, but there are many who would. Like I said, I own a few (mostly for painting though). The only model from FW I detest playing against is from AoS outside of Lord of War choices for 40k, and those I just don't like in general unless it's just a single one. That said, I'm not a fan of playing against Conscript spam, flier spam or the G-Man either.
You're comparing a 4 man unit that can be spammed, can bring 4 plasma guns(1 per model) to a ten model unit that can bring a total of four.
One costs 56 pts, the other is 118 pts. You can literally take two of the 56 pt squads for the cost of 1 Scion squad and have points to spare.
And saying Elysians are fine because their armor save is 1 less.
You are wrong. Simple as that :(
Edit-. The elysians are literally 100% more effective than the index units they mirror per point compared to special weapons teams, or Scion squads. Both of those index units are already arguably too good. I realize you play DKOK so are defensive about FW but you are not being subjective at all on the topic.
In the context of some WAACturd 'spamming' them, yes surely I do agree. But with an easy FAQ fix, like they did with Scions, they are totally fine. I mentioned the standard Scions because they are TROOPS and can take 4 Plasmaguns, whereas the Elysian troops can take 1... but if we are comparing Command squads with Command squads... Elysians are only "better" because they can currently be spammed, they're still less survivable.
In the winning IG list however, he only had 2 command squads, AND 2 commanders - something he could've also done with Scions. You're totally blowing off the armour save like it doesn't matter - and I'll even agree that in the context of an ocean of (actually broken) Conscript spam it really doesn't, but otherwise it most certainly will. The Elysians in that list were by far the least offensive models on the table.
Your claim that they are 100% more effective is just "wrong. Simple as that". Scions might cost a little more, but they're still better... if you're meaning hypothetically spamming Elysian Command Squads only... well again, yeah ok - but that's not what won the NOVA... it was psyker spam, taurox spam, mortar spam, Celestine and tons of Conscripts.
Anyway I don't think anyone has claimed that either FW or GW are perfectly balanced, but it was FAR and away broken GW units, and there are sooo many more of them, that won Nova and several other big events to date. To ban FW is just mental.
Quick note - Scions cost 104 points for 1 commander and 4 plas command squad.
Elysian's cost 96 points for the same. (101 if you take a plasma pistol on the commander)
So, for 3 less points you get +1 plasma shot at 12" range, +1 ld and -1 armour save. You also get a pretty pointless morale re-roll rule via the commander and 2 different orders - of which you'll never be using for these squads anyway. Would you say that a +1 armour save is worth 0.75 points per model?
The really difference comes in when you compare a 10 troop squad from each. If you give each one 10 men, 1 plasma and 1 plasma pistol the Scions cost 110 points, and the Elysian's cost 62. Now, the big trade off here is the +1 BS Scions have and the hot shot lasguns vs the normal lasgun. Taking the lasguns out gives a cost of 101, so a 39 point difference, which is 3.9 points per model for +1 BS and +1 save. In this, either the Scions are arguably over costed. BUT, when you then look at a normal infantry squad, the cost is only 52 points - 10 points cheaper than the Elysian's.
The other thing to note is, obviously the Scions get access to way way way more plasma than the Elysian's. For 128 points you get 4 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol. Total difference of 66 points. Herein lies the question. Would you pay 66 points for 3 extra deep-striking plasma guns? Is the ability to deal 18 plasma wounds from deep-strike worth it?
The difference between the 2 sets of squads works out to be 69 points, and when you set them both against each other the Tempestus "should" win every time. The tempestus would do 6.667 wounds on average to the Elysian's, while the Elysian's would do 4.32 (and that's with the commander also firing while the MT commander cant! - also not including order re-rolls or overcharging). Sure the Elysian's can do some insane tricks with grenades in the turn after they arrive from deep-strike, but, lets face it, if you're worried about 10 krak grenades, it'd be extremely easy to remove the threat of it in your own turn.
Sure, you could take an Elysian Veteran plasma squad for 96 points containing 3 plasma guns and 1 pistol in order to match the 3+ BS, but you are then 1 plasma gun down on the Scions, and don't have the hot shot. Again, taking the hot shot out and 1 plas out, the difference is 18 points. 18 points for a better save, which is then 1.8 points per model. These are also then taking up an elite slot, compared to a troop slot, in an army/game that tends to be very very very heavy on elite options.
Sure the Elysian's are cheaper - slightly - than Scions, but there are differences that make Scions better when they match up for a relatively small points cost.
Snipers. Ok, so another sticking point is the Elysian sniper squads.
For 21 points you get 3 shots, 6 wounds, 3+ BS t3 and 5+ save.
Ratlings cost 35 for 5 shots, 5 wounds, 3+ BS t2 and a 6+ save.
So, instantly there is a trade off for shots for wounds. Both have deployment tricks. However, Ratlings also get a shoot and move ability and an additional +1 save while in cover, so, both units rock a 4+ save in cover.
Unit vs unit, the Ratlings do more damage than the Elysian when shooting at each other, but the Elysian's have a better points per wound score. However, when both shooting at the same GEQ unit, their points per wound are pretty much exactly the same. There is a difference of 0.0106 between the two units, in favour of the Elysian's. Hardly what i'd call "game breaking". In addition to that - the moment each squad looses 2 wounds, the difference between the two units increases. A lot. Ratlings come out on top with a difference of 5.8773 for points per wound efficiency.
So, i guess you have to then look at the special rules for each unit. Deep strike vs setup after deployment and shoot and move. It is also worth noting that, deep-strike will also lower the BS of the Elysian's to a 4+ and thus reduce their efficiency to below the level of the Ratling squad. Both deployment setups have their advantages, but, i believe, in the current meta, the Ratlings win out, simply because they give you an additional screening unit for the first turn whilst maintaining their 3+ BS for the first turn. Deep-striking on turn 2 or 3 has it's objective advantages, but then compared to the Ratlings you've already lost 1 or 2 turns of shooting. Sure the Ratlings could be targetted first turn, but, then it is a question of overall army comparison and whether or not you have any "higher threat/higher priority targets" in your list.
So, overall, in individual comparison, Elysian command squads are of course "more efficient", but, when looked at in terms of overall requirement to field the units, Scions are arguably just as good, if not better due to the difference only being 3 points. Scion trooper squads, vs Elysian trooper squads is a no contest straight to the Scions. Snipers, again, is a tough call, but arguably Ratlings are better as well.
Now - when we then take into account the November codex, we also have to consider how things are going to work out. As it stands, both sets of units tend to be run in "soup" armies. While soup armies are strong, we will need to consider whether or not they will remain worth it for Astra Militarum after the codex. The main reasons being objective secured and "chapter tactics". As it stands, Scions will have access to every single normal Astra Militarum unit, where the Elysian's will not. This in itself, potentially, puts the Scions ahead of the Elysian's, even if it just because of conscripts.
Got a bit longer than i expected when typing, but, let me know your thoughts and feel free to add to/correct anything.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Locally, all Forgeworld models are banned from tournaments and only one LoW model is allowed per army.
Forgeworld is not banned because of power, but because of the lack of accessibility people have to the models and rules. Many feel it's a pay to win thing. I'm all for limiting the LoW choices to 1.
I've ordered from their website just fine. What's this lack of accessibility argument really coming from?
The fact that models cost twice or more their equivalents that are present in the GW catalogue, probably. And not only those resin models are super expensive but there's also no chance to get new FW models with a 25%-30% price cut. Not in my area at least.
That's why FW models here are extremely uncommon. FW prices is the reason why that stuff is unpopular here and we have a sort of implied agreement that bans FW stuff.
LoWs are other hated units.
You can find both GW and FW stuff for cheap in the used market... but that said, everything in 40K is "pay to play"... it's a privileged hobby. People who worry about feeding their kids and paying rent don't play Warhammer. Further Forgeworld isn't that much more expensive than GW unless we are talking about the enormous super heavy type models.
The old notion that Forgeworld's "pay to play" means you are getting better rules for a higher price, is not even remotely accurate and hasn't been so for a very long time (if ever). There are individual units that are not balanced correctly in the FW line... and SOOOO many more that are not balanced correctly in the GW line. They all need attention and GW/FW seems committed to giving them attention.
I'm so happy I don't play in such a constipated and close-minded atmosphere where folks are banning units out of uninformed fear.
It is no where near as easy to find cheap FW on the used market as it is GW, so it is somewhat disingenuous to equate the two.
Really the issue with FW right now is waiting to see if they address any balance issues. That is pretty much it.
I see FW all over eBay, certainly there is more regular GW stock but it's not impossible to find what you want. In fact it's quite possible, to get used or new Forgeworld - it's not some unpenetrable wall some folks make it out to be. And if you don't want to buy FW - don't. This is utterly besides the point and in either case should have no bearing on 'banning' units.
As for FW addressing balance - they've already done exactly what GW has - they released an FAQ for each of their 8th edition Index.
It being there and it being cheap are not the same thing most FW I see on ebay is at or above retail "pro painted" or Imperial stuff, but even a lot of that is expensive. SO I still dispute the as cheap and easy as GW on the used market.
They have also not release an FAQ addressing any balance issues, they issued an FAQ addressing horrible rules that didn't work at all. GW has also released multiple FAQs and changes.
From what was apparently said at Nova (according to the Frontline gaming podcast) is that the Chapter Approved book is apparently going to be including points and rules changes for BOTH GW and FW. This might be the reason why FW hasn't released any more FAQs after the initial batch. These means to me, that the GW guys are now going to be having oversight and/or input into FW rule and points creation. This, in my view, will help a lot in terms of addressing peoples concerns and ensuring -GENUINE- issues get resolved properly and centrally.
Great breakdown Kdash. It's been said (to death) here but the Elysians were the least offensive units in that IG list and are indeed interchangeable with other units from the GW Index.
As for both FW and GW needing further attention to game balance - we all agree - but it does appear that they are interested in doing so; and there's no denying the GW side is by far the worst offender currently.
They've both released FAQ right out of the gate... GW released several more but they still have so many glaring balance issues left unresolved (Conscript spam, assassin spam, etc etc etc) that could've been fixed in any of those updates. Hopefully the Chapter Approved does some work.
It is just sad to see that uninformed fear is causing folks to ban "FW" of all things, at certain events - worse at events in the Northeast that I might otherwise attend.
Also REALLY? LoW and other hated units? You mean Eldar titans and then?
The LoW slot was no more broken than the Troop slot when you had Scatterbikes and 5th Edition Grey Hunters. Please cut that crap off.
No I don't mean titans, those things are not even existing for me. I mean imperial knights, wraitknights, stompas, baneblades, stormsurges, magnus.... this kind of stuff. Not everyone likes huge models in medium sized games like the 2000 points format. Imho the huge stuff should be the dreadnought, terminators and the land raider. And their equivalents of course.
It's not exclusively a matter of rules, there's not only the competitive gaming.
I've defeat an army with 3 knights and magnus but I'll never play against that list in my life, it was so boring.
I've got no problem to face a list with ONE LoW, but I hate them and I won't bring them, even if they are the most competitive units in my armies, simple.
"constipated and close-minded atmosphere"?? In my group we play with ALL the units (unless we don't have the models of course) in the indexes, not only the most performing ones. Playing competitive games is as fun as playing fluffy lists, the only important thing is to balance the two lists. The close-minded atmosphere is the one tipycal of WAAC players who only play one single list with a few variations and with only the most effective stuff. If you usually bring only 8-10 units including FW and LoWs while I alternate 20+ different choices I would not define my meta to be costipated and close minded, rather the opposite.
Wraithknights were the only unit you listed that was busted in any way. So basically you don't like them "out of principle", which is arguably pretty ignorant to be honest.
I've got no problem to face a list with ONE LoW, but I hate them and I won't bring them, even if they are the most competitive units in my armies, simple.
"constipated and close-minded atmosphere"?? In my group we play with ALL the units (unless we don't have the models of course) in the indexes, not only the most performing ones. Playing competitive games is as fun as playing fluffy lists, the only important thing is to balance the two lists. The close-minded atmosphere is the one tipycal of WAAC players who only play one single list with a few variations and with only the most effective stuff. If you usually bring only 8-10 units including FW and LoWs while I alternate 20+ different choices I would not define my meta to be costipated and close minded, rather the opposite.
I think people need to often take a step back when considering their lists. For events like Nova and other tournaments, you have to approach it from a more WAAC viewpoint than normally, whereas, if you are playing at your local club for some fun, this is where you then tone it down (unless of course your opponent agrees and/or you are practising a list for a tournament). Understanding the balance is something some people struggle with.
What causes the problems are when people attempt to compare a highly competitive, event winning army, to their own or to the armies in their group. There is a very very high chance that these event armies will be way stronger than most of the clubs armies, but, it is a different arena and a different concept. The two shouldn't be compared, or attempted to be. Unfortunately, people see 1 thing being spammed, or another thing appearing in loads of different armies and they immediately think it is broken or OP, whether it is FW or GW, and then complain about it without first taking a look at everything. Elysian's is a very good example of this. LoW are sometimes also an example of this, BobbyG being an example. In my view, the only time LoWs become a problem, is if you aren't setup to deal with them. This happens more so in casual games, but in a tournament setup, you need to expect to come across some. Sure it can be dull to play against 3 knights and Magnus/RG but in an event, it shouldn't be the end of the world. If it's a casual game, then, by all means set some restrictions, however, i'd advise to first try some matchups against the things you want to restrict, rather than just restricting them. A lot of units can be very fun and offer different challenges and people would find that some things really aren't that "scary".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gunzhard wrote: Great breakdown Kdash. It's been said (to death) here but the Elysians were the least offensive units in that IG list and are indeed interchangeable with other units from the GW Index.
As for both FW and GW needing further attention to game balance - we all agree - but it does appear that they are interested in doing so; and there's no denying the GW side is by far the worst offender currently.
They've both released FAQ right out of the gate... GW released several more but they still have so many glaring balance issues left unresolved (Conscript spam, assassin spam, etc etc etc) that could've been fixed in any of those updates. Hopefully the Chapter Approved does some work.
It is just sad to see that uninformed fear is causing folks to ban "FW" of all things, at certain events - worse at events in the Northeast that I might otherwise attend.
I I think, well, hope at least, that once Chapter Approved is released and every army has a codex things will settle down and those with the "auto ban FW" mindset will be able to re-assess their position. One thing Reece from FLG did say on the podcast about Chapter Approved, is that he fully expects their to be no requirement to have a power level cap on ITC events after it's release. To me, that is pretty big and implies that the units that need "adjustment" will be looked at. I think that the upcoming LVO will potentially be one of the turning points.
1. Availability, can I go to my local game store and have them order me a FW kit? Probably not I would either have to order it myself or get a group together and do it. I usually always support the local game store but I also call them out on BS practices but the fact is until FW is able to sell through distrubitors so that a local game store could put in a order, I don't want to support that. So I support the decision to keep FW out of competitive events for that reason but its not the only reason.
2. It is clearly a huge benefit to Imperial/chaos players than any other faction in the game, Tau and CWE are close but nowhere near the size of the Imperium list. I play DE and I have 3 options from FW, only 3 with no hints at future models, I get that Imperial players are the most numerous and so they have to cater but come on throw us xenos players a bone. I could take the tantalous and its a great vehicle mind you, I love the model but I know if I allow that then I have to allow whatever BS imperial FW option that completely invalidates it while costing less.
On a side note I don't think Superheavies or primarch level LOWs should be allowed in competitive events either, they should have stayed in apocalypse where they belong.
1. Availability, can I go to my local game store and have them order me a FW kit? Probably not I would either have to order it myself or get a group together and do it. I usually always support the local game store but I also call them out on BS practices but the fact is until FW is able to sell through distrubitors so that a local game store could put in a order, I don't want to support that. So I support the decision to keep FW out of competitive events for that reason but its not the only reason.
2. It is clearly a huge benefit to Imperial/chaos players than any other faction in the game, Tau and CWE are close but nowhere near the size of the Imperium list. I play DE and I have 3 options from FW, only 3 with no hints at future models, I get that Imperial players are the most numerous and so they have to cater but come on throw us xenos players a bone. I could take the tantalous and its a great vehicle mind you, I love the model but I know if I allow that then I have to allow whatever BS imperial FW option that completely invalidates it while costing less.
On a side note I don't think Superheavies or primarch level LOWs should be allowed in competitive events either, they should have stayed in apocalypse where they belong.
As to your point 1 - I still don't get how that translates to keeping FW out of competitive events? ...and why it should matter at all? You're saying you choose not to buy FW for your own reasons, so nobody else can use it either. I refuse to buy Primarus marines for my own reasons - don't think they should be banned though.
As to your point 2 - well... the same attention to Imperial/Chaos can be said of GW, on a much bigger scale - so your argument is totally bogus.
1. Availability, can I go to my local game store and have them order me a FW kit? Probably not I would either have to order it myself or get a group together and do it. I usually always support the local game store but I also call them out on BS practices but the fact is until FW is able to sell through distrubitors so that a local game store could put in a order, I don't want to support that. So I support the decision to keep FW out of competitive events for that reason but its not the only reason.
2. It is clearly a huge benefit to Imperial/chaos players than any other faction in the game, Tau and CWE are close but nowhere near the size of the Imperium list. I play DE and I have 3 options from FW, only 3 with no hints at future models, I get that Imperial players are the most numerous and so they have to cater but come on throw us xenos players a bone. I could take the tantalous and its a great vehicle mind you, I love the model but I know if I allow that then I have to allow whatever BS imperial FW option that completely invalidates it while costing less.
On a side note I don't think Superheavies or primarch level LOWs should be allowed in competitive events either, they should have stayed in apocalypse where they belong.
I can't walk into a GW store and grab certain kits because they might not be available. In fact, anytime I've been in their store I've never seen a Sternguard kit. Should Sternguard be banned?
OR I can stop whining and order online.
Second point is bad because lots of races still get benefit. Necrons currently NEED those units available to them as they're one of the weakest armies currently just as an example. Eldar get Spectres which are a pretty competitive choice.
On a side note I don't think Superheavies or primarch level LOWs should be allowed in competitive events either, they should have stayed in apocalypse where they belong.
As to your point 1 - I still don't get how that translates to keeping FW out of competitive events? ...and why it should matter at all? You're saying you choose not to buy FW for your own reasons, so nobody else can use it either. I refuse to buy Primarus marines for my own reasons - don't think they should be banned though.
As to your point 2 - well... the same attention to Imperial/Chaos can be said of GW, on a much bigger scale - so your argument is totally bogus.
Primarus are in the index and codexes that GW has made so that invalidates your argument there. Let say that GW made all the rules and indexes for FW, and lets keep it that FW is still in the situation they are in now. I would be totally fine with it as 1. there is a single group making rules for the game whether for better or worse and 2. GW is known to be bad to local game stores anyways so whats new?
2nd point: I guess? It would be nice if they would break the habit and support the other lines. Though I totally blame them for the resurgence of primarchs.
Uhh What? ...how does Primarus being in codex invalidate my point? ...answer - it doesn't.
The FW index are currently cheap, and can you buy online versions. If you choose to buy 'local only' that's cool - but that doesn't mean everyone should have to follow your code.
Wraithknights were the only unit you listed that was busted in any way. So basically you don't like them "out of principle", which is arguably pretty ignorant to be honest.
My point is that I consider that these units belong to apocalypse or any possible large scale matches. I couldn't care less about the OPness of the units, I prefer fighting against 300 conscripts than facing an imperial knight. Not because the big guy is broken, the conscripts are way more difficult (if not impossible sometimes) to deal with, but because IMHO it shouldn' belong to casual games with mid sized points formats.
I'm not interested in being competitive at any cost, I play all kind of games, super competitive, super fluffy and something in between, it doesn't matter. Of course it's a matter of personal tastes, I don't want FW or LoW to be banned out of principle, but I'm reluctant to play against those stuff because I don't like them in 2000 points (or lower format) games. In my group there's no reat FW or LoW ban, we just prefer playing with other options. I'm just saying that I understand why people hate FW or other huge models.
Again, competitive 40k is not the only way to play 40k. It's a game and people have fun playing it for different reasons and in different ways.
On a side note I don't think Superheavies or primarch level LOWs should be allowed in competitive events either, they should have stayed in apocalypse where they belong.
As to your point 1 - I still don't get how that translates to keeping FW out of competitive events? ...and why it should matter at all? You're saying you choose not to buy FW for your own reasons, so nobody else can use it either. I refuse to buy Primarus marines for my own reasons - don't think they should be banned though.
As to your point 2 - well... the same attention to Imperial/Chaos can be said of GW, on a much bigger scale - so your argument is totally bogus.
Primarus are in the index and codexes that GW has made so that invalidates your argument there. Let say that GW made all the rules and indexes for FW, and lets keep it that FW is still in the situation they are in now. I would be totally fine with it as 1. there is a single group making rules for the game whether for better or worse and 2. GW is known to be bad to local game stores anyways so whats new?
2nd point: I guess? It would be nice if they would break the habit and support the other lines. Though I totally blame them for the resurgence of primarchs.
So, does that mean, the lords of war and superheavies in the indexs are allowed, or not allowed?
Also, as i previously said, GW will be addressing parts of FW in the Chapter Approved book in December, so, you should be good to allow them either now or soon.
Who knows what will happen next year, as that is still their intended "Xenos year". As for the Primarchs, i think in a way they had to bring them back eventually, especially the Daemon ones. This is simply because of the fluff. They often show up, or are hinted at, but we've not seen them on the table. You could argue though, that the Loyalist ones could remain "missing/dead/out of action". Sure, they produce a certain, scary, challenge, but they can be beaten - though i agree in part, that i think a limit like in 30k should be introduced. No LoW in games less than 1500 points, as certain units are either unkillable or are able to table the opponent in 2 or 3 turns (these units are MAINLY GW units...). As for 2k points, i'd always allow them, but you could potentially limit them as i've previously said. For example, you can only have 1 LoW in your 2k army, unless your army is entirely made up of units with the same sub faction. (i.e Astra Militarum not Imperium). This would still allow people to run their Knight armies, while also preventing insane things like 3 Knights and Magnus/BobbyG.
Things die quickly and easily in 8th edition, and for the things you can't kill, there the missions tend to allow you some chance of success.
Wraithknights were the only unit you listed that was busted in any way. So basically you don't like them "out of principle", which is arguably pretty ignorant to be honest.
My point is that I consider that these units belong to apocalypse or any possible large scale matches. I couldn't care less about the OPness of the units, I prefer fighting against 300 conscripts than facing an imperial knight. Not because the big guy is broken, the conscripts are way more difficult (if not impossible sometimes) to deal with, but because IMHO it shouldn' belong to casual games with mid sized points formats.
I'm not interested in being competitive at any cost, I play all kind of games, super competitive, super fluffy and something in between, it doesn't matter. Of course it's a matter of personal tastes, I don't want FW or LoW to be banned out of principle, but I'm reluctant to play against those stuff because I don't like them in 2000 points (or lower format) games. In my group there's no reat FW or LoW ban, we just prefer playing with other options. I'm just saying that I understand why people hate FW or other huge models.
Again, competitive 40k is not the only way to play 40k. It's a game and people have fun playing it for different reasons and in different ways.
So let me get this straight.
You admit that the Imperial Knight really isn't an issue to handle. Conscripts are an issue to handle. Yet you prefer facing the 300 or so Conscripts because, and I quote, "it shouldn't belong to casual games", when Conscripts are less a casual unit than the Imperial Knight, simply because it's in a LoW slot and you just believe, out of a principle, it doesn't belong. Even though 100+ conscripts, which takes up MUCH more table space and is only 300 points points compared to the Imperial Knight, which is 400+. Which is odd if you want a skirmish game isn't it?
What principle is this, really? People shouldn't be allowed to run models they want when they aren't broken in any way, shape, or form? What you exhibit is a refusal to accept any change in the game, and what is clearly a change for the better. That we've had a few broken choices in that slot (SO you have Wraithknights last edition and to a MUCH lesser extent Stormsurges, though one could argue for just buying more Riptides, and then this edition you have Roboute) ain't a good argument because you aren't looking at how many broken choices we've had in different slots over the years.
In the end, you have the ability to decide who to play and who not to play. Just remember that your reasons, to be honest, pretty dumb. I'd rather play against someone that's WAAC and a poor sportsman than someone just believes certain units don't belong in THEIR game. Because, ya know, it's everyone's game.
BlaxicanX wrote: We didn't ban GW units from tournaments when knights were destroying the game. We didn't ban GW units from tournaments when summoning was destroying the game, when re-rollable 2+ invulns were destroying the game, when allies we're destroying the game, when Riptides were destroying the game, when formations were destroying the game, when flyers were destroying the game, when invisibility was destroying the game. Guilliman, conscripts and certain flyers are destroying the game RIGHT NOW and still no one is suggesting banning Games Workshop units from tournaments.
The only people who advocate for banning FW wholesale are grognard fools who got into the game back when FW wasn't allowed in 90% of games and tounys, and want to "go back to the good old days".
Nailed it.
Exactly. The post above where it was said that FW is defining the 8th edition meta made me laugh out loud. Well, there's also folks who think the earth is flat.
Regarding pay to win: 40K is pay to win both with and without FW. There is no non-subjective way to place the bar on where "pay to win" begins. Ergo, anyone saying FW is pay to win is just declaring it based on nothing but subjective scale. A game either is pay-to-win or it isn't, saying a game becomes pay-to-win at a certain amount of euros/dollars/you name it is ridiculous, subjective, and dumb.
Someone with not that much income might consider the Triumvirate of the Imperium pay-to-win (since you need Guilliman from there). To someone else with bigger income it might be the Tau'nar, which costs way more. No one is more right or wrong in the matter, and the manufacturer is irrelevant. The only undisputable fact is that WH40K is pay-to-win to beginwith; you pay money to better your chances at victory (if you want to win that is, for after a certain point strategy alone won't cut it anymore when you're trying to beat the AMFOTM list with your Blood Angels Tactical Squads riding in Rhinos).
BlaxicanX wrote: We didn't ban GW units from tournaments when knights were destroying the game. We didn't ban GW units from tournaments when summoning was destroying the game, when re-rollable 2+ invulns were destroying the game, when allies we're destroying the game, when Riptides were destroying the game, when formations were destroying the game, when flyers were destroying the game, when invisibility was destroying the game. Guilliman, conscripts and certain flyers are destroying the game RIGHT NOW and still no one is suggesting banning Games Workshop units from tournaments.
The only people who advocate for banning FW wholesale are grognard fools who got into the game back when FW wasn't allowed in 90% of games and tounys, and want to "go back to the good old days".
Nailed it.
Exactly. The post above where it was said that FW is defining the 8th edition meta made me laugh out loud. Well, there's also folks who think the earth is flat.
Regarding pay to win: 40K is pay to win both with and without FW. There is no non-subjective way to place the bar on where "pay to win" begins. Ergo, anyone saying FW is pay to win is just declaring it based on nothing but subjective scale. A game either is pay-to-win or it isn't, saying a game becomes pay-to-win at a certain amount of euros/dollars/you name it is ridiculous, subjective, and dumb.
Someone with not that much income might consider the Triumvirate of the Imperium pay-to-win (since you need Guilliman from there). To someone else with bigger income it might be the Tau'nar, which costs way more. No one is more right or wrong in the matter, and the manufacturer is irrelevant. The only undisputable fact is that WH40K is pay-to-win to beginwith; you pay money to better your chances at victory (if you want to win that is, for after a certain point strategy alone won't cut it anymore when you're trying to beat the AMFOTM list with your Blood Angels Tactical Squads riding in Rhinos).
Well, put it this way.
100 conscripts will cost £180 for 300 points.
1 Leviathan dreadnought with 2 grav flux will cost £72 for 309 points.
Now, it will take the Leviathan 4 or 5 turns to clear the conscripts on his own, but, the conscripts have no chance of killing the Leviathan. (400 shots in the first turn will only do 4.3 wounds - then after the Leviathan shooting, that number will drop to around 272 shots, for another 2.9 wounds, then 145 shots etc etc (not including the heavy flamers))
An Elysian command squad and Commander will cost £44, but, to get a 4 plas Scion team you'd need to spend £84. (only has 1 plasma gun in each £21 box.........)
Guilliman essentially costs £55 (gotta by the full Triumvirate box). Magnus costs £80, Mortarian costs £85. A stormraven costs £50.
And there are plenty more examples. The Renegade HQs cost £16 for 2 moedls on FW for the models that could be used for the Malefic lords or rogue psykers. Sure, the artillery carriages cost a lot (as they are a huge block of resin), but, as everyone wants to play the battery version instead, they either proxy or spend £31 on a normal basilisk and basically remove the chimera part due to the model being OOP.
So, when you actually look at breaking things down a lot of the units being used from FW generally cost WAY less than a standard unit of 50 conscripts. Lets face it, you can buy TWO Imperial Knights for LESS than 100 conscripts. (I used the leviathan as the initial example, as it is not only a good counter to hordes, but worked out nicely with the points value when compared to conscripts)
100 conscripts will cost £180 for 300 points.
1 Leviathan dreadnought with 2 grav flux will cost £72 for 309 points.
Now, it will take the Leviathan 4 or 5 turns to clear the conscripts on his own, but, the conscripts have no chance of killing the Leviathan. (400 shots in the first turn will only do 4.3 wounds - then after the Leviathan shooting, that number will drop to around 272 shots, for another 2.9 wounds, then 145 shots etc etc (not including the heavy flamers))
Yeah but the POINT of the Conscripts is to keep the rest of your army alive and sit objectives....... Not everything in Warhammer needs to make their points back. Lets say a unit of yours that cost 300pts but only kills 10pts of models, now lets say that unit got 4 VP's making you win the game. Did that unit get its points back? No, but it doesnt matter b.c you won the game.
100 conscripts will cost £180 for 300 points.
1 Leviathan dreadnought with 2 grav flux will cost £72 for 309 points.
Now, it will take the Leviathan 4 or 5 turns to clear the conscripts on his own, but, the conscripts have no chance of killing the Leviathan. (400 shots in the first turn will only do 4.3 wounds - then after the Leviathan shooting, that number will drop to around 272 shots, for another 2.9 wounds, then 145 shots etc etc (not including the heavy flamers))
Yeah but the POINT of the Conscripts is to keep the rest of your army alive and sit objectives....... Not everything in Warhammer needs to make their points back. Lets say a unit of yours that cost 300pts but only kills 10pts of models, now lets say that unit got 4 VP's making you win the game. Did that unit get its points back? No, but it doesnt matter b.c you won the game.
I think you mis-understood my point and comparison. People are saying the price and rules etc makes FW pay-2-win, especially in the current meta, due to it "not being accessible" for a lot of players. I chose conscripts cos there are thousands of them around right now, and the Leviathan, cos it is also considered a beast of a model and can somewhat counter hordes. Both happened to be the same in game points value.
The point i was making, is that the most common, over powered unit in the game right now, is literally twice as expensive to buy (therefore, in theory making it twice as in-accessible) as a lot of other big units in the game. That unit happens to be GW's not FW's. My 2k space marine army (which includes 2 FW models) will cost me £374 if i went out and brought everything now (oh god why did i do that? D: ) So, for roughly the price of 4 50 man conscript squads i can get, what i feel, is a very competitive all comers list.
So, what seems more pay to win? An army containing FW, or conscript spam?
I'd rather play against someone that's WAAC and a poor sportsman than someone just believes certain units don't belong in THEIR game. Because, ya know, it's everyone's game.
Fair enough. I just want a fair game which is based on infantries and transports. it's ok to bring LoW and huge models, but I won't play against lists that are basically built around them and at the same I won't bring (and even buy) those units. It's everyone's game of course but if I don't like some kind of games, which means armies with only a few immortal huge dudes, I'm free to decline playing against those armies. The purpose of playing 40k is to have fun, nothing more and nothing less, if I don't have fun playing against certain lists why should I face them just the same? The list with 3 knighs and magnus was too boring to play against, I won against that guy but who cares? With only 4 dudes every game against that list is going to be the same. No thanks.
Hundreds of conscripts are more casual than a knight because AM is supposed to be lots of cheap bodies, artillery and tanks, no matter of the scale of the battle. Now they may be OP but AM was designed to field a huge number of soldiers, you may play it with a different style but that's their fluff, I'd hate if AM gets new rules that actually make infantries disappear. I can't stand huge models, not because some of them are broken, I couldn't care less about that, but because 1500-2000 points formats are not apocalypse games. And when people abuse them, let me hate those kinds of lists
I'm not saying that everyone should do that but I'm offering an explanation about the hate that some people have toward LoWs or gigantic stuff, usually coming from FW, but not only.
This is completely out of topic though, I'm not even interested in arguing about this matter.
I'd rather play against someone that's WAAC and a poor sportsman than someone just believes certain units don't belong in THEIR game. Because, ya know, it's everyone's game.
Fair enough. I just want a fair game which is based on infantries and transports. it's ok to bring LoW and huge models, but I won't play against lists that are basically built around them and at the same I won't bring (and even buy) those units. It's everyone's game of course but if I don't like some kind of games, which means armies with only a few immortal huge dudes, I'm free to decline playing against those armies. The purpose of playing 40k is to have fun, nothing more and nothing less, if I don't have fun playing against certain lists why should I face them just the same? The list with 3 knighs and magnus was too boring to play against, I won against that guy but who cares? With only 4 dudes every game against that list is going to be the same. No thanks.
Hundreds of conscripts are more casual than a knight because AM is supposed to be lots of cheap bodies, artillery and tanks, no matter of the scale of the battle. Now they may be OP but AM was designed to field a huge number of soldiers, you may play it with a different style but that's their fluff, I'd hate if AM gets new rules that actually make infantries disappear. I can't stand huge models, not because some of them are broken, I couldn't care less about that, but because 1500-2000 points formats are not apocalypse games. And when people abuse them, let me hate those kinds of lists
I'm not saying that everyone should do that but I'm offering an explanation about the hate that some people have toward LoWs or gigantic stuff, usually coming from FW, but not only.
This is completely out of topic though, I'm not even interested in arguing about this matter.
Not to keep hammering this but all of the units you listed are standard GW... Knights, Magnus, 'tanks', ...add Guilliman, now Mortarion etc... there were not many "gigantic stuff" from FW in top performing armies and there is typically very little anyway.
You seem to associate Forgeworld with WAAC or 'not fun' and that's just not right. Building pretty much any full Forgeworld army is a labor of love, it's generally WAY more narrative based as well. Yeah some WAACer might cherry-pick a unit or two to flush out the rest of his entirely broken (standard GW) list, but don't lump FW into that pile indiscriminately.
I don't have a dog in the fight. I just know its the LGS's here that run the tournies and they ban FW 90% or more of the time. Having owned an LGS before, I'm guessing because they can't order and sell the product (Just like GW stores not allowing non-GW models as conversions).
As for the LoW choices, I don't mind facing one big baddie. When the bulk of the army is that stuff, it just isn't any fun to play against. Playing against a knight list is extremely tedious. There are other legally allowed lists I dislike for similar reasons. 120 Conscripts aren't fun because it's just seeing who rolls the dice better with little other thought involved.
There is bad and good in everything though and in the end, it's a game, not a job.
GhostRecon wrote: Orks had a list that finished 9th; otherwise the top 10 is littered with Imperial/Chaos Soup armies largely favoring Elysians, Conscripts, Cultists, and aura-Special Character spam.
Are you really surprised? Of course the top ten's gonna be all the Humies.
Good thing the Boiz made it Orky.
I really don't understand the concept of FW things being "too expensive" for people to buy.
I own a LOT of FW now (Mainly for my heresy World Eater force). Recently ordered the Kytan Rampager, it was £90. Compared to Magnus, which is £80.
The price is hugely relative and in fact Magnus is MUCH more of a offender then the Kytan ever will be in regards to power level / points efficiency. They're both similliar scale and in fact Magnus is cheaper, and much better then then my Kytan. So with regards to the fact "FW make OP units/it's too expensive" it just doesn't hold up. The main offenders right now (Imperium soup, CSM soup, Tau commanders) are infact 90% GW. What, Malefic lords and Elysians are FW problem right now?
The people saying "I can't go into a store and buy it" that arguments blows my fething mind. Should we ban all GW mail order only? Have you only ever purchased things from a store and NEVER ordered online?
I don't really play in 40k events and when I do they are small, local things. Nothing like the LVO qualifiers etc, but the arguments coming from people to ban FW is pure madness.
My anti-LOW feeling mostly come from the fact that most games against multiple super heavies results in a game I don't find enjoyable (win or lose), and that I don't feel that most feel well balanced in a standard size game. In casual games I don't care too much because you can plan around playing them to make an enjoyable game. That said they are considerably more tolerable this edition than they were in the past.
Breng77 wrote: My anti-LOW feeling mostly come from the fact that most games against multiple super heavies results in a game I don't find enjoyable (win or lose), and that I don't feel that most feel well balanced in a standard size game. In casual games I don't care too much because you can plan around playing them to make an enjoyable game. That said they are considerably more tolerable this edition than they were in the past.
See, I love superheavies. I find the game unenjoyable without them (they are the reason I play 40k rather than a 'better game'). I went 4-4 at Nova and I think each of my opponents enjoyed their games; I bought them each a drink (bar one or two who had other commitments) afterwards and chatted about it, and they were usually pretty enthusiastic about the army, the fluff, the rules around superheavies, how I make them work with support units (Trojans, Salamanders, Psykers) the unique tactical challenges I face since they operate so differently than a regular army, etc.
Even my most recent opponent this weekend sat outside and had a cigar with me after our game and we chatted about it and it was fun & awesome. I've only run into a couple people who say "I don't like playing your army" and that's usually a pre-existing 'anti-superheavy' issue that shows up before the game, endures through it, and keeps right on steaming after the game, even if they won.
Breng77 wrote: My anti-LOW feeling mostly come from the fact that most games against multiple super heavies results in a game I don't find enjoyable (win or lose), and that I don't feel that most feel well balanced in a standard size game. In casual games I don't care too much because you can plan around playing them to make an enjoyable game. That said they are considerably more tolerable this edition than they were in the past.
See, I love superheavies. I find the game unenjoyable without them (they are the reason I play 40k rather than a 'better game'). I went 4-4 at Nova and I think each of my opponents enjoyed their games; I bought them each a drink (bar one or two who had other commitments) afterwards and chatted about it, and they were usually pretty enthusiastic about the army, the fluff, the rules around superheavies, how I make them work with support units (Trojans, Salamanders, Psykers) the unique tactical challenges I face since they operate so differently than a regular army, etc.
Even my most recent opponent this weekend sat outside and had a cigar with me after our game and we chatted about it and it was fun & awesome. I've only run into a couple people who say "I don't like playing your army" and that's usually a pre-existing 'anti-superheavy' issue that shows up before the game, endures through it, and keeps right on steaming after the game, even if they won.
It depends on the armies. Most games I have played against superheavies (at least mass superheavies) seem to be as follows.
1.) I bring enough anti-armor weapons, and destroy them quickly leaving very little left early in the game.
2.) I don't and have no answer at all. For instance Knights were basically a hard counter to my late 6th ed Nurgle Daemon army, because I had very little that could hurt AV 13, and D-weapons + stomp basically eliminated tarpitting as an answer.
More recently their inclusion seems to me to be a reason not to take any "big" fun things in my army, as many delete larger standard vehicles in a turn, but are relatively useless against hordes. But as I said in 8th it isn't as bad because everything at least can potentially be killed.
I would be interested in know how many of your games at NOVA were close, I've seen you post that you got tabled by turn 3(I think) in several games. To me this isn't a fun game. A cool opponent makes things better of course, but games that are non-competitive don't tend to be super enjoyable.
Breng77 wrote: My anti-LOW feeling mostly come from the fact that most games against multiple super heavies results in a game I don't find enjoyable (win or lose), and that I don't feel that most feel well balanced in a standard size game. In casual games I don't care too much because you can plan around playing them to make an enjoyable game. That said they are considerably more tolerable this edition than they were in the past.
See, I love superheavies. I find the game unenjoyable without them (they are the reason I play 40k rather than a 'better game'). I went 4-4 at Nova and I think each of my opponents enjoyed their games; I bought them each a drink (bar one or two who had other commitments) afterwards and chatted about it, and they were usually pretty enthusiastic about the army, the fluff, the rules around superheavies, how I make them work with support units (Trojans, Salamanders, Psykers) the unique tactical challenges I face since they operate so differently than a regular army, etc.
Even my most recent opponent this weekend sat outside and had a cigar with me after our game and we chatted about it and it was fun & awesome. I've only run into a couple people who say "I don't like playing your army" and that's usually a pre-existing 'anti-superheavy' issue that shows up before the game, endures through it, and keeps right on steaming after the game, even if they won.
It depends on the armies. Most games I have played against superheavies (at least mass superheavies) seem to be as follows.
1.) I bring enough anti-armor weapons, and destroy them quickly leaving very little left early in the game.
2.) I don't and have no answer at all. For instance Knights were basically a hard counter to my late 6th ed Nurgle Daemon army, because I had very little that could hurt AV 13, and D-weapons + stomp basically eliminated tarpitting as an answer.
More recently their inclusion seems to me to be a reason not to take any "big" fun things in my army, as many delete larger standard vehicles in a turn, but are relatively useless against hordes. But as I said in 8th it isn't as bad because everything at least can potentially be killed.
I would be interested in know how many of your games at NOVA were close, I've seen you post that you got tabled by turn 3(I think) in several games. To me this isn't a fun game. A cool opponent makes things better of course, but games that are non-competitive don't tend to be super enjoyable.
I had 2 close games out of eight, I think. Other notables: I tabled my opponent in Game 4 but lost.
To be fair, in 8th I think it's hard to have close games without superheavies.
Also, fair enough to you. To me, seeing awesome fluffy armies on the table is fun, regardless of the result/competitiveness.
I've had mostly close games in 8th, with 3 exceptions
1.) A game involving a Helforged Cerberus and Magnus (2 Lords of war)
2.) A game using a competitive DA list against a Deathwatch player with a suboptimal list.
3.) A game using Malestrom of War which due to random objectives swung wildly in my favor. Though this game was still close from a killing standpoint, just not VP.
Every other game I've played has been back and forth.
You're missing three 107pt strike squads too. So ~half of the army was 
