w1zard wrote:
FW may be a subsidiary company of GW

FW isn't a subsidiary company. It's a brand name used by GW for certain products. Arguing it's a subsidiary and therefore less official is like saying that Citadel model kits aren't really official and you need special permission for them.

FW has a completely different rules writing team that to my knowledge has little to no contact with the GW rules writing team.

So? How is this any different from one team member writing a codex and another team member writing a different codex? The rules are still compatible, how GW allocates its work assignments internally is irrelevant.

The fact that GW purposely nerfed many of the FW units into uselessness in the latest CA shows me that some FW units are absolutely not welcome in GWs eyes.

It shows no such thing. Only a tiny percentage of FW units were nerfed, and an even tinier percentage were nerfed for no apparent point besides "get titans out of normal games". Most of the nerfs at least had a plausible reason behind them, whether or not you disagree with the exact change that was made. And by this standard codex units are not welcome in GW's eyes because they nerfed IG conscripts into uselessness, so we should consider codex rules an optional expansion that needs special permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
This may come as a shock to you, but people on the internet may have different opinions

And people on the internet can point out when those opinions are based on ignorance and do not acknowledge the reality of the situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

phydaux wrote:
I have a standing rule - I won't play someone who fields Super Heavies.

It turns into a situation where you field a Super Heavy and you win, or you don't and you lose. Or you kit out your list specifically to take down Super Heavies, and you get tabled by a swarm assault list.

So you would refuse a game because I bring a Macharius, a unit that is considerably worse than just bringing its point cost in LRBTs?

Yes. Most of it is overpriced hot garbage anyway.

Titans would be the obvious exception.

 Peregrine wrote:

w1zard wrote:
FW may be a subsidiary company of GW

FW isn't a subsidiary company. It's a brand name used by GW for certain products. Arguing it's a subsidiary and therefore less official is like saying that Citadel model kits aren't really official and you need special permission for them.

You are wrong. On Forgeworld's page:

"Forge World is a subcompany of Games Workshop Inc. that creates models outside of the normal auspices of Games Worshop. It is a company similar to Black Enterprises and Warp Artefacts, dedicated to creating high quality, exotic miniatures for passionate gamers."

it is absolutely a subsidiary company.

 Peregrine wrote:
So? How is this any different from one team member writing a codex and another team member writing a different codex? The rules are still compatible, how GW allocates its work assignments internally is irrelevant.

Because even different team members writing different codices collaborate to iron out balance issues, and any particular codex usually has multiple authors and staff within the GW design team helping even if it is mainly authored by one person. There is no collaboration to my knowledge between GW writers and FW writers.

w1zard wrote:
You are wrong. On Forgeworld's page:

"Forge World is a subcompany of Games Workshop Inc. that creates models outside of the normal auspices of Games Worshop. It is a company similar to Black Enterprises and Warp Artefacts, dedicated to creating high quality, exotic miniatures for passionate gamers."

it is absolutely a subsidiary company.

Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

Because even different team members writing different codices collaborate to iron out balance issues, and any particular codex usually has multiple authors and staff within the GW design team helping even if it is mainly authored by one person. There is no collaboration to my knowledge between GW writers and FW writers.

Again, why does it matter how GW allocates its employees? That's GW internal policy, all that matters is the end result they publish. And what they publish is rules that are treated no differently from any other rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
I can´t understand why you are so upset about this.

Because you are posting misleading information out of self-admitted ignorance, and then doubling down on your position when confronted with evidence that you are wrong. You expect veto power over your opponent's list because you've come up with this bizarre opinion, and you don't seem to see a problem with this.

People won´t be buying anything you are selling. Why? Because it isn´t important what you say but how you say it and your tone has been shrill from the beginning on. As I have already stated, I don´t have a problem trusting a couple of people about this FW subject. I can´t even fathom why somebody should be so furious about this. How would you react when something really bad happens in your life? And having an opinion that deviates from yours is not by any means bizarre. Have a nice day.

I am on the whole not cool with Forgeworld existing as it does. On the one hand I have been straight burned by Forgeworld handling their own rules and making units worse than garbage out of the blue. On the other hand I’m sick of seeing things in Forgeworld indexs that are flat better than anything I can take out of a codex.

Lastly that I have to deal with ridiculous exchange rates and international shipping is also a PITA.

If Forgeworld were a strictly cosmetic thing I’d be fine with it but roll of the dice hope you don’t get boned pay to wind is silly beyond reason.

Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

 Peregrine wrote:
Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

I see you’ve not played against certain Tau FW models.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Because it isn´t important what you say but how you say it and your tone has been shrill from the beginning on.

IOW, "my hurt feelings are more important than the facts of the situation". You're forming your opinion out of ignorance. Sorry if that truth hurts, but it is true. If you want to care more about tone than substance then that's your problem.

I can´t even fathom why somebody should be so furious about this.

Because you're spreading ignorant statements and expecting veto power over your opponent's army when you can't even bother to learn about the rules you're trying to veto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

As you said, all third party sources. On the other hand we have evidence directly from GW that all IP for the FW brand is owned by GW, all purchases of FW brand products are billed to GW, all packages are sent from GW, etc. The entire argument that FW is some kind of subsidiary is based on nothing more than people wanting it to be true.

meleti wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

I see you’ve not played against certain Tau FW models.

As far as i can tell you can play better with an all GW list. There is no Tau unit that i woud prefer over it's GW counterpart in 8th, beyond the looks.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I don’t particularly want to face down a Warlord with a bunch of Ripper Swarms, but I like a lot of FW stuff. It’s cool to see new units that don’t normally hit the table. I have no problems with it at all.

If you don't have anything but ripper swarms in 6000 pts minimum something is seriously wrong.

And in any case warlords vs 6000 pts worth of ripper swarms would be easiest victory for tyranids ever. 181 units of swarms, he can kill 5 units max per turn. 6 turns, 30 units. You just swamp objectives and win. He kills 90 bases out of 543. Whee.

There is a single tau FW model that is even playable, and the main reason it looks so good, is that the actual codex is pretty poorly written

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
I can´t understand why you are so upset about this.

Because you are posting misleading information out of self-admitted ignorance, and then doubling down on your position when confronted with evidence that you are wrong. You expect veto power over your opponent's list because you've come up with this bizarre opinion, and you don't seem to see a problem with this.

People won´t be buying anything you are selling. Why? Because it isn´t important what you say but how you say it and your tone has been shrill from the beginning on. As I have already stated, I don´t have a problem trusting a couple of people about this FW subject. I can´t even fathom why somebody should be so furious about this. How would you react when something really bad happens in your life? And having an opinion that deviates from yours is not by any means bizarre. Have a nice day.

See and here lies the problem. At the beginning he pointed relativ calmly on the issue he had with your statement, whilest you did only provide some annecdotal evidence, he then proceded to point out that your group basically just is ignorant, while you implied the he was not genuine and that the majority here has no sway whatsoever/ has no idea about rules powerlevel of certain armies.

You of all people should know what the problem is of ignorance and just accepteing spouted annecdotal evidence. Atleast you should've heard about what happens when that happened.
And instead of accepting that you and or your group might be wrong, you harp on about his presentation, or spew bs like the majority isn't allways right on a issue where 90% of problems stem from ignorance, which i will addmit became more hostile the more you showed your preference of ignorance.
I mean i can't really blame him, because in said FW op mentality you squander alot of fluffy armies that are so far from op that many of those have begun to play after regular GW codexes, because they are infinetly better and more inbalanced torwards each other then anything else in this game.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

Umm knight might have been true per codex but with price cuts, warlord traits and relics no more

I'm completely fine with it, cause it would suck if I wanted to use a model I liked and couldn't. The only thing I'd like to know ahead of time is actual titans (knights would even be fine).

tneva82 wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

Umm knight might have been true per codex but with price cuts, warlord traits and relics no more

Honestly the whole Codex system of GW is p2w if you look at it that way, because all armies with indexes were or are atm just plain worse then their counterparts. And allready we have the problem that the SM codex one of ther earlier in 8th is not up to par beyond a a certain army that sees tournament play.

From what I understand about FW, is that they make a few very specific and undercosted units for a limited number of factions. I generally do not care what the other guy is having, because FW or not, it is going to be better then what I have. But on the other hand, although this I know only from other people telling me that, FW has the odd rule of giving or making new models for space marines, excluding GK. Given that I wouldn't want to play vs FW units, vs other people which armies have FW support, be my guest and play with what ever is legal, but I don't need to lower the expiriance any more, it is already rather low.

I've got no problem, and neither have my opponents. In fact, 4 out of the 6 of my group who regularly play 40k own and use FW in most of their games.

However, if we are going to be using quite a wild FW model or a list that uses powerful ones, we usually give a heads up for courtesy.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

Well I can say from my invoices that GW sell forgeworld models. Forgeworld isn't actually a subsidiary company it's a semi autonomous subdivision of the company thats marketed under a different brand name.

Karol wrote:
From what I understand about FW, is that they make a few very specific and undercosted units for a limited number of factions. I generally do not care what the other guy is having, because FW or not, it is going to be better then what I have. But on the other hand, although this I know only from other people telling me that, FW has the odd rule of giving or making new models for space marines, excluding GK. Given that I wouldn't want to play vs FW units, vs other people which armies have FW support, be my guest and play with what ever is legal, but I don't need to lower the expiriance any more, it is already rather low.

All of the FW units are overcosted: DKoK for exemple pays more per regular Guardsmen then AM.
Militia Squads of R&H pay equal to regular IG guardsmen but have half the armor, no orders and the profile of conscripts.
Dreads of FW are better but more expensive pts wise then regular dreads.

Not Online!!! wrote:

meleti wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

I see you’ve not played against certain Tau FW models.

As far as i can tell you can play better with an all GW list. There is no Tau unit that i woud prefer over it's GW counterpart in 8th, beyond the looks.

The Y’vahra is decent, but Tiger Shark Fighter Bombers are on the shortlist for the best model in the entire game.

meleti wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

meleti wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

I see you’ve not played against certain Tau FW models.

As far as i can tell you can play better with an all GW list. There is no Tau unit that i woud prefer over it's GW counterpart in 8th, beyond the looks.

The Y’vahra is decent, but Tiger Shark Fighter Bombers are on the shortlist for the best model in the entire game.

They still don't come close to -Bs eldar shenanigans.
Still get outperformed by the basic Tau gunline atm, granted the tau gunline is bs atm so there's that....

funny some guys are so harsh about Fw rules but they was ok to play against 200 brimstone costing 3 points and inv 4++ or old dark reapers, just to bring two well know example, and they still talk about bad FW rules/cost design.... oh maybe they was the same playing the 200 brimstone i forgot

Not Online!!! wrote:

meleti wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

meleti wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

I see you’ve not played against certain Tau FW models.

As far as i can tell you can play better with an all GW list. There is no Tau unit that i woud prefer over it's GW counterpart in 8th, beyond the looks.

The Y’vahra is decent, but Tiger Shark Fighter Bombers are on the shortlist for the best model in the entire game.

They still don't come close to -Bs eldar shenanigans.
Still get outperformed by the basic Tau gunline atm, granted the tau gunline is bs atm so there's that....

TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I don’t particularly want to face down a Warlord with a bunch of Ripper Swarms, but I like a lot of FW stuff. It’s cool to see new units that don’t normally hit the table. I have no problems with it at all.

If you don't have anything but ripper swarms in 6000 pts minimum something is seriously wrong.

And in any case warlords vs 6000 pts worth of ripper swarms would be easiest victory for tyranids ever. 181 units of swarms, he can kill 5 units max per turn. 6 turns, 30 units. You just swamp objectives and win. He kills 90 bases out of 543. Whee.

a post like sinful hero post shows a lot about general game knowledge here.

meleti wrote:
TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

I'm not seeing it, at all. Compare them to Hammerheads instead of Riptides. The Hammerhead costs 100 points base, the Tigershark costs 245 points base. So that's 200 points for a pair of Hammerheads. Both the tanks and the Tigershark can carry the same pair of ion cannons at the same price, so the only difference in firepower is 4x burst cannons on the tanks vs. 2x burst cannon and 2x missile pod on the Tigershark. The Tigershark has +1 T and -1 to hit, the Hammerheads have almost double the wounds. Mobility doesn't matter when most of your firepower has cross-table range. Maybe the Tigershark isn't a terrible unit, and there's a case to be made for taking it? But it's hardly on the "best unit in the game" shortlist.

 blackmage wrote:
funny some guys are so harsh about Fw rules but they was ok to play against 200 brimstone costing 3 points and inv 4++ or old dark reapers, just to bring two well know example, and they still talk about bad FW rules/cost design.... oh maybe they was the same playing the 200 brimstone i forgot

Considering that FW is GW in disguise, they sure have an abissmal testing and balancing team....
Also there's the fact that we have to pay for CA, which is basically a glorified balance update.....
Come to think of it, smite was their idea, -bs was their idea, scatbikes last edition were their idea, introducing SH's into baseline 40k was their idea...
One could become suspicious .

I've got no issues with it.

All these people bitching about fighting Titans obviously have a skewed view if they think everyone can drop £500-1000+ on 1 model for every single game they play.

Bloody pathetic really.
FW isn't even that common. 8th is all about dick armies. Which GW rules do better for people.

ValentineGames wrote:
I've got no issues with it.

All these people bitching about fighting Titans obviously have a skewed view if they think everyone can drop £500-1000+ on 1 model for every single game they play.

Bloody pathetic really.
FW isn't even that common. 8th is all about dick armies. Which GW rules do better for people.

you can't even field a titan except the warhound in a normal match pts. wise.
And if you field a warhound you might aswell field a full knight army, they are better and more cost effective.

I always notify my opponent before I bring out my forgeworld, I run a full Elysian drop troop army with support planes and usually get a response of it being OP and strong and then I loose almost every single time. Usually thats when they understand I buy my forgeworld because I prefer the looks and narrative of an aerial mass drop army, even used the 101st airborne transfers on them not bought them because its this months hotness (not saying you cant buy this months hotness, it just takes me that long to paint armies by the time its fully painted its about 3 steps behind everyone else). Everyone I have played has had no objection to fighting them again and I usually get asked from a bystander to play them with my Elysians slowly changing everyones opinion of forgeworld

Play with your models - any or all of them. I have no interest in disrespecting someone's hobby time and effort, not to mention their hard-earned money spent.

Sure it might be a rough go against some Forgeworld offerings, but it's a rough go against some Codex offerings, too.

I have to admit a lot of my feelings on Forgeworld IS down to ignorance. I've only ever played one or two units from Forgeworld and my main gripe is that I usually don't know what they do, a bit of pre game chat sorts that out which is why I voted for 'yes, if coordinated...'
I have a bit of a preconception from previous eras that Forgeworld units tended to have better rules which was how they got the units sold at the high prices (also being very nice models) I haven't come up against any recently so it's probably not even true any more.

ValentineGames wrote:
I've got no issues with it.

All these people bitching about fighting Titans obviously have a skewed view if they think everyone can drop £500-1000+ on 1 model for every single game they play.

Bloody pathetic really.
FW isn't even that common. 8th is all about dick armies. Which GW rules do better for people.

I though people just bought them from Russia or China for 1/5th the cost? Everyone here who has some FW models, says that russian models are better quality.

Sure it might be a rough go against some Forgeworld offerings, but it's a rough go against some Codex offerings, too.

Well the question is how rough can most people take. It is one thing to get beaten by a list, but it is another when your opponent start to experiment in different ways he can beat you, having even more fun, while you get nothing of it.

Karol wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
I've got no issues with it.

All these people bitching about fighting Titans obviously have a skewed view if they think everyone can drop £500-1000+ on 1 model for every single game they play.

Bloody pathetic really.
FW isn't even that common. 8th is all about dick armies. Which GW rules do better for people.

I though people just bought them from Russia or China for 1/5th the cost? Everyone here who has some FW models, says that russian models are better quality.

Sure it might be a rough go against some Forgeworld offerings, but it's a rough go against some Codex offerings, too.

Well the question is how rough can most people take. It is one thing to get beaten by a list, but it is another when your opponent start to experiment in different ways he can beat you, having even more fun, while you get nothing of it.

Again. 90% of FW is weak atm. Waaaaay weaker then Codex armies, in many cases even more weak then Codex GK.
then there's 7.5% sidegrades and 2.5% units that are good but not GW levels incompetence broken

Well I have a strage feeling that if people were actually cool with FW stuff, the only things I would see is those 2.5% units.
I know that people that played in big tournaments here had fireraptors, and a guy has some of the big demons. No idea if they are worth playing though.
Ton of people own recasts though. In general it is hard for me to check if a model is FW or Kromlech, other then FW models having really ugly faces for models.

Ice_can wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

Well I can say from my invoices that GW sell forgeworld models. Forgeworld isn't actually a subsidiary company it's a semi autonomous subdivision of the company thats marketed under a different brand name.

So, a subsidiary? Definition:

a company controlled by a holding company.
synonyms: subordinate company, branch, branch plant, division, subdivision, derivative, subset, offshoot
"two major subsidiaries"

But are they the same, in legal terms, in the british english and american english?

I have this problem using DKoK, so I need to bring two list, one with their rules and one using the codex AM to be able to play without arguing too much with other people if they're not fine with FW

 Peregrine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm tired of FW. Quite a few armies are in the "forgeworld or lose" camp. Which is dumb.

Quite a few armies are in the "codex or lose" camp. Which is dumb. Therefore ban codex rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
The bad impression results of past experiences according to the players which I have asked. I can´t judge, if this behaviour is warranted or not because I don´t own any FW rulebook.

IOW, you have an opinion based on nothing but ignorance, and you expect veto power over your opponent's army because of that opinion. Why do you think that this is acceptable?

Everyone always have veto power over their oponents army, except if they entered a tournament.
If you don't like your oponents army, the color of his shoes, or something else, just walk away.
You might end up in a situation were no one wants to play against you, but then the problem probably wasn't with the oponents army list, but with you.

I don't have any more of a problem with forgeworld than with some other units, but I value my time and want a fun experience.
If an oponent is being an a** in any way, be that army list building or something else, I concede, pack up my models and walk away. It has happened twice in 25 years of warhammer/40k gaming, so I don't do it often, but when someone tries to push the rules or list building to far I rather be painting my models for the next game.

/ Best regards, Fredrik

Karol wrote:
But are they the same, in legal terms, in the british english and american english?

Honestly, I am not sure.

Here is the thing though, if FW is truly just a "division" in a sense of simply being another design team within GW itself, why then do they keep their "Forgeworld" label, and why are they totally insulated from pretty much everything else GW does? It would make a lot more sense to dissolve the FW brand and incorporate it completely into GW. It makes little sense to spread your customer base across multiple brands and weaken both brand names.

The fact that you can't buy FW miniatures off of the GW website, and the fact that they have two different brand names is pretty telling to me that they are two separate entities. GW completely controls FW in terms of finances (that much is pretty obvious), but FW seems pretty independent otherwise especially with rules writing and model design. I personally think FW is a division of GW in the same way that Blizzard Entertainment is a division of Activision.

No way anybody can complain about bringing FW with the state of Eldar and Dark Eldar codexes.

I could field a full fw army and still get my gak put in by some TAC Eldar/DE list.

 Huron black heart wrote:
I have to admit a lot of my feelings on Forgeworld IS down to ignorance. I've only ever played one or two units from Forgeworld and my main gripe is that I usually don't know what they do, a bit of pre game chat sorts that out which is why I voted for 'yes, if coordinated...'
I have a bit of a preconception from previous eras that Forgeworld units tended to have better rules which was how they got the units sold at the high prices (also being very nice models) I haven't come up against any recently so it's probably not even true any more.

This is probably the case for a lot of people, a lack of familiarity with Forgeworld units could exacerbate perceptions of any unit that seems strong as being "overpowered", because they don't know the unit's weaknesses or limitations.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

Well I can say from my invoices that GW sell forgeworld models. Forgeworld isn't actually a subsidiary company it's a semi autonomous subdivision of the company thats marketed under a different brand name.

So, a subsidiary? Definition:

a company controlled by a holding company.
synonyms: subordinate company, branch, branch plant, division, subdivision, derivative, subset, offshoot
"two major subsidiaries"

Not quite in the UK the company is the legal trading entities. A wholely owned subsidiary company would be a seperate legal wntity, it must be registed independently, produce its own accounts etc etc.

Forgeworld is a trading name of GW PLC it's still legally GW PLC and hence not required to be registered with companies house as Forgeworld PLC or generate accounts etc.

© Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2000 – 2018. GW, Games Workshop, Citadel, Forge World, Warhammer, the twin-tailed comet logo, Warhammer Forge, Warhammer 40,000, the ‘Aquila’ Double-headed eagle logo, Space Marine, 40K, 40,000, Imperial Armour, Warhammer Age of Sigmar, Stormcast Eternals, The Horus Heresy, The Horus Heresy Eye and all associated logos, illustrations, images, names, creatures, races, vehicles, locations, weapons, characters, and the distinctive likenesses thereof, are either ® or TM, and/or © Games Workshop Limited, variably registered around the world. All Rights Reserved. Games Workshop Limited, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, NG7 2WS. Registered in England and Wales - Company No. 01467092. VAT No. GB 580853421

If you search that on companies house

GAMES WORKSHOP LIMITED

01467092 - Incorporated on 17 December 1979
Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG7 2WS

As to why do they segregate the business so heavily, GW is heavily subdivided to limit leaks and make identifying the leaker much easier due to the tiny number of people who knew the information.

I do undestrand those that don't like to play against FW models, but let's make an assumption first. Those who play forge world models do it because they are better than what is offered by your codex. You don't play a leviathan because it's a good model, you play it because it's the best available dreadnaught.

Everyone who plays FW thematic armies or puts those 96% of perfectly fine/underpowered models of the FW line, should never meet any resistance.

I'm talking about the use that almost all players make of FW (at least in my experience), which is using it as another level of army optimization.

In this case, then FW models do have the problem of being "out of the loop" when it comes to GW "balance patches". There just aren't enough around to have a good representation of the effectiveness of those models, so the error margin is greater. In 8th GW has taken the decision to err on the overnerf side, as we have seen from the first CA, but you still have examples of this error margin creating models that are clearly not in line with other ones (malanthrope before nerf, for example).

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.


That said, i wouldn't refuse to play against a FW model, but if we are talking about particular models, i wouldn't see my opponent with the same light.

Spoletta wrote:
I do undestrand those that don't like to play against FW models, but let's make an assumption first. Those who play forge world models do it because they are better than what is offered by your codex. You don't play a leviathan because it's a good model, you play it because it's the best available dreadnaught.

Everyone who plays FW thematic armies or puts those 96% of perfectly fine/underpowered models of the FW line, should never meet any resistance.

I'm talking about the use that almost all players make of FW (at least in my experience), which is using it as another level of army optimization.

In this case, then FW models do have the problem of being "out of the loop" when it comes to GW "balance patches". There just aren't enough around to have a good representation of the effectiveness of those models, so the error margin is greater. In 8th GW has taken the decision to err on the overnerf side, as we have seen from the first CA, but you still have examples of this error margin creating models that are clearly not in line with other ones (malanthrope before nerf, for example).

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.


That said, i wouldn't refuse to play against a FW model, but if we are talking about particular models, i wouldn't see my opponent with the same light.

Again, why would you optimize a list with a Leviathan when the "Imperium" keyword offers way better alternatives?
Also CA is a thing now, as much as i hate the fact that i get additionally Nickel and dimed for it, and secondly they get Errataed just as much. Even on the same site you will need to go anyways for your pure GW army.

I think the subject is too broad. Its one thing for Op-force to show with a Termite Drill, and another to show with a Warlord.

Reemule wrote:
I think the subject is too broad. Its one thing for Op-force to show with a Termite Drill, and another to show with a Warlord.

if your playing a 10k game expect titans. If your playing a standard 2k or less points game what does it matter they are all over that cost anyway.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I do undestrand those that don't like to play against FW models, but let's make an assumption first. Those who play forge world models do it because they are better than what is offered by your codex. You don't play a leviathan because it's a good model, you play it because it's the best available dreadnaught.

Everyone who plays FW thematic armies or puts those 96% of perfectly fine/underpowered models of the FW line, should never meet any resistance.

I'm talking about the use that almost all players make of FW (at least in my experience), which is using it as another level of army optimization.

In this case, then FW models do have the problem of being "out of the loop" when it comes to GW "balance patches". There just aren't enough around to have a good representation of the effectiveness of those models, so the error margin is greater. In 8th GW has taken the decision to err on the overnerf side, as we have seen from the first CA, but you still have examples of this error margin creating models that are clearly not in line with other ones (malanthrope before nerf, for example).

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.


That said, i wouldn't refuse to play against a FW model, but if we are talking about particular models, i wouldn't see my opponent with the same light.

Again, why would you optimize a list with a Leviathan when the "Imperium" keyword offers way better alternatives?
Also CA is a thing now, as much as i hate the fact that i get additionally Nickel and dimed for it, and secondly they get Errataed just as much. Even on the same site you will need to go anyways for your pure GW army.

Because you see people doing this all the time.

Again, if accepting FW meant that you see on tables a fair share of models from that range, i would be 100% in favor of it.
What is really happening though is that accepting FW in an event means seeing the same 5-6 waac stinking models, that at that point are worst offenders than the OP stuff of GW range (which are overrated, we don't really have OP models, not at the standards we knew of 7th at least) because they are P2W^2.

Spoletta wrote:
I do undestrand those that don't like to play against FW models, but let's make an assumption first. Those who play forge world models do it because they are better than what is offered by your codex. You don't play a leviathan because it's a good model, you play it because it's the best available dreadnaught.

Everyone who plays FW thematic armies or puts those 96% of perfectly fine/underpowered models of the FW line, should never meet any resistance.

I'm talking about the use that almost all players make of FW (at least in my experience), which is using it as another level of army optimization.

In this case, then FW models do have the problem of being "out of the loop" when it comes to GW "balance patches". There just aren't enough around to have a good representation of the effectiveness of those models, so the error margin is greater. In 8th GW has taken the decision to err on the overnerf side, as we have seen from the first CA, but you still have examples of this error margin creating models that are clearly not in line with other ones (malanthrope before nerf, for example).

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.


That said, i wouldn't refuse to play against a FW model, but if we are talking about particular models, i wouldn't see my opponent with the same light.

So just like any rarely used codex unit? That argument goes for everything, but the 30% most used units in the game.

If a model from the standard range is not in the most used category, then you can be fairly sure that it's not a problem.

 blackmage wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I don’t particularly want to face down a Warlord with a bunch of Ripper Swarms, but I like a lot of FW stuff. It’s cool to see new units that don’t normally hit the table. I have no problems with it at all.

If you don't have anything but ripper swarms in 6000 pts minimum something is seriously wrong.

And in any case warlords vs 6000 pts worth of ripper swarms would be easiest victory for tyranids ever. 181 units of swarms, he can kill 5 units max per turn. 6 turns, 30 units. You just swamp objectives and win. He kills 90 bases out of 543. Whee.

a post like sinful hero post shows a lot about general game knowledge here.

Ouch, that was kind of harsh. I was just making a comment about not bringing a skewed list against a titan, not literally using nothing but Rippers against a Warlord. If we’re playing with Titans I want to bring some Hierodules, Harridans, and/or Hierophants. If you read the rest of my post you’d see I mentioned I have no problems with ForgeWorld. I quite often make use of a Malanthrope myself.

w1zard wrote:

Karol wrote:
But are they the same, in legal terms, in the british english and american english?

Honestly, I am not sure.

Here is the thing though, if FW is truly just a "division" in a sense of simply being another design team within GW itself, why then do they keep their "Forgeworld" label, and why are they totally insulated from pretty much everything else GW does? It would make a lot more sense to dissolve the FW brand and incorporate it completely into GW. It makes little sense to spread your customer base across multiple brands and weaken both brand names.

The fact that you can't buy FW miniatures off of the GW website, and the fact that they have two different brand names is pretty telling to me that they are two separate entities. GW completely controls FW in terms of finances (that much is pretty obvious), but FW seems pretty independent otherwise especially with rules writing and model design. I personally think FW is a division of GW in the same way that Blizzard Entertainment is a division of Activision.

A lot of it is risk and brand management. This is still true to a degree, but moreso when it first started. FW exists as a direct sales only sales branch that makes its models out of resin. It's a business model not all that different from most made to order resin products. As much as the internet has come to let us view all these little basement production facilities as big companies, in truth they're not getting anywhere near the level of production required to get into the business of retail distribution. That's essentially what FW is about. It's GW's way of making risky, expensive kits out of an unproven material and limit production costs to only what they'll sell. Direct sales also let them make things that post retail market would simply be too costly for any real volume of stores to carry, which is the crux of how retail distribution works. We're seeing Privateer do the exact same thing with Black Anchor for the exact same reasons. It's just about creating a brand that lets you separate your direct sale on demand products from your primarily retail channels.

I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

w1zard wrote:

Karol wrote:
But are they the same, in legal terms, in the british english and american english?

Honestly, I am not sure.

Here is the thing though, if FW is truly just a "division" in a sense of simply being another design team within GW itself, why then do they keep their "Forgeworld" label, and why are they totally insulated from pretty much everything else GW does? It would make a lot more sense to dissolve the FW brand and incorporate it completely into GW. It makes little sense to spread your customer base across multiple brands and weaken both brand names.

The fact that you can't buy FW miniatures off of the GW website, and the fact that they have two different brand names is pretty telling to me that they are two separate entities. GW completely controls FW in terms of finances (that much is pretty obvious), but FW seems pretty independent otherwise especially with rules writing and model design. I personally think FW is a division of GW in the same way that Blizzard Entertainment is a division of Activision.

Then you're wrong.

FW is simply another brand name under the GW umbrella, just like Citadel or Black Library. It isn't a legally distinct company. Want to prove me wrong? Find Forgeworld's UK VAT registration number, not GW's but explicitly Forgeworld's. VAT registration is a matter of public record, and any company turning over more than £85k is legally obliged to register. Or find their company incorporation number, which is again a matter of public record at companies house. You'll also have to offer a compelling argument as to why FW doesn't submit its own accounts anywhere, and simply has its turnover folded in with the GW website and Black Library under the mail order sub section of its turnover breakdown.

Or you can save yourself some time and take my word that you wot find any evidence that FW are a separate company simply owned by GW, because they're not.

Companies market different product lines under different names all the time. Its simply an easy method of informing the customer in short hand of different qualities of different aspects of your range. Therefore, as a GW customer I know that if I'm buying from FW I'm buying boutique, low volume, resin models. I then also appreciate they may be more technical products requiring greater skill and/or knowledge, and, if GW are lucky, I will be more positively disposed to paying a premium. If I'm buying Citadel I'm more likely to expect more mainstream, easier to assemble, plastic kits.

If you dispose of FW then you lose that point of differentiation and risk customers buying inappropriate products.

It's the same idea as Toyota using the Lexus brand to mark a difference in the cars they're selling, the products on offer are different and appeal to a different demographic.

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.

that mean Gw models are tested? wonder who "tested" things like brimstone at 3pt inv 4++ or who tested De codex where kot of models are clearly undercosted (because we know a ravager with 3 disintegrators costs 125 is correct dont you think?)....a monkey?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

Gw didn't clearly test their codex too but they are dishonest and wont say it, they just put off a codex then ,where is the problem, customers blindly buy (6 stormraves, 200 brimstones, 9 Pbc and so on...) what they find in codex then they FAQ and get the axe over OP models, that is the solution, a good way to make business, at least FW says ok we dont test... then is up to you buy them...

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

I'm not seeing it, at all. Compare them to Hammerheads instead of Riptides. The Hammerhead costs 100 points base, the Tigershark costs 245 points base. So that's 200 points for a pair of Hammerheads. Both the tanks and the Tigershark can carry the same pair of ion cannons at the same price, so the only difference in firepower is 4x burst cannons on the tanks vs. 2x burst cannon and 2x missile pod on the Tigershark. The Tigershark has +1 T and -1 to hit, the Hammerheads have almost double the wounds. Mobility doesn't matter when most of your firepower has cross-table range. Maybe the Tigershark isn't a terrible unit, and there's a case to be made for taking it? But it's hardly on the "best unit in the game" shortlist.

My man Peregrine, you’re taking the wrong weapons! Here’s the proper load out:

2 HBC
2 BC
2 MP
2 Skyspear Missile Racks
6 Seeker Missiles

Per the errata, we’ll be using the codex versions of these weapons. That’s 24 HBC shots at BS2+, plus all the other weapons, plus a first turn alpha strike of 6 additional seeker missiles. This flyer has fangs.

I use Fw to balance my list. 3 Bloat Drones are too strong for casual play? Take a Blight Drone then to tone it down.

Same with a Plague Hulk.

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Huron black heart wrote:
I have to admit a lot of my feelings on Forgeworld IS down to ignorance. I've only ever played one or two units from Forgeworld and my main gripe is that I usually don't know what they do, a bit of pre game chat sorts that out which is why I voted for 'yes, if coordinated...'
I have a bit of a preconception from previous eras that Forgeworld units tended to have better rules which was how they got the units sold at the high prices (also being very nice models) I haven't come up against any recently so it's probably not even true any more.

This is probably the case for a lot of people, a lack of familiarity with Forgeworld units could exacerbate perceptions of any unit that seems strong as being "overpowered", because they don't know the unit's weaknesses or limitations.

Not an excuse. Did you deny Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, and Genestealer Cult armies games when they first came out because you weren't familiar with the rules?

 blackmage wrote:

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.

that mean Gw models are tested? wonder who "tested" things like brimstone at 3pt inv 4++ or who tested De codex where kot of models are clearly undercosted (because we know a ravager with 3 disintegrators costs 125 is correct dont you think?)....a monkey?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

Gw didn't clearly test their codex too but they are dishonest and wont say it, they just put off a codex then ,where is the problem, customers blindly buy (6 stormraves, 200 brimstones, 9 Pbc and so on...) what they find in codex then they FAQ and get the axe over OP models, that is the solution, a good way to make business, at least FW says ok we dont test... then is up to you buy them...

Tested doesn't mean fail proof. Yes, there were mistakes. No, it doesn't mean that the game wasn't tested. It was, it is obvious to anyone who has been in this hobby for some edition. The indices were clearly the product of a good amount of testing.
Just look at the difference between index models and FW models. If the target was 1, then the indici's model range went from 0,75 to 1,25, while FW went from 0,5 to 2! There was (and there is) an objective, obvious and clear HUGE difference in testing between these 2 lines.

Don't expect tested to mean balanced. We didn't reach that with 1 year of public testing, which counts as 10 years of internal testing.
Fact is, that 8th is without a doubt more balanced than 7th, and 7th was a consolidated product which had 4 editions of maturation. For a new edition (truly new, like 2nd to 3rd new), to be at it's basis more balanced than 7th, means that there was a really serious testing.

Spoletta wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I do undestrand those that don't like to play against FW models, but let's make an assumption first. Those who play forge world models do it because they are better than what is offered by your codex. You don't play a leviathan because it's a good model, you play it because it's the best available dreadnaught.

Everyone who plays FW thematic armies or puts those 96% of perfectly fine/underpowered models of the FW line, should never meet any resistance.

I'm talking about the use that almost all players make of FW (at least in my experience), which is using it as another level of army optimization.

In this case, then FW models do have the problem of being "out of the loop" when it comes to GW "balance patches". There just aren't enough around to have a good representation of the effectiveness of those models, so the error margin is greater. In 8th GW has taken the decision to err on the overnerf side, as we have seen from the first CA, but you still have examples of this error margin creating models that are clearly not in line with other ones (malanthrope before nerf, for example).

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.


That said, i wouldn't refuse to play against a FW model, but if we are talking about particular models, i wouldn't see my opponent with the same light.

Again, why would you optimize a list with a Leviathan when the "Imperium" keyword offers way better alternatives?
Also CA is a thing now, as much as i hate the fact that i get additionally Nickel and dimed for it, and secondly they get Errataed just as much. Even on the same site you will need to go anyways for your pure GW army.

Because you see people doing this all the time.

Again, if accepting FW meant that you see on tables a fair share of models from that range, i would be 100% in favor of it.
What is really happening though is that accepting FW in an event means seeing the same 5-6 waac stinking models, that at that point are worst offenders than the OP stuff of GW range (which are overrated, we don't really have OP models, not at the standards we knew of 7th at least) because they are P2W^2.

Acting like seeing the same "5-6 waac stinking models" doesn't happen with Games Workshop's CODEXES.

Spoletta wrote:

What is really happening though is that accepting FW in an event means seeing the same 5-6 waac stinking models,

Which is different than anything else how?

that at that point are worst offenders than the OP stuff of GW range (which are overrated, we don't really have OP models, not at the standards we knew of 7th at least) because they are P2W^2.

Um, that certainly hasn't been borne out by any major event in many editions barring some of the R&H stuff in the first few months of the edition which has since all been hammered into obscurity. Looking at the London GT, I don't believe any of the top lists used any FW models/units at all.

Spoletta wrote:

Fact is, that 8th is without a doubt more balanced than 7th, and 7th was a consolidated product which had 4 editions of maturation. For a new edition (truly new, like 2nd to 3rd new), to be at it's basis more balanced than 7th, means that there was a really serious testing.

Given how atrocious 7E was, and the fact that writers have publicly stated on places like facebook and reddit that they were told to do things like up the power on units like Wraithknights but not increase costs by management, you don't need to do much testing to fix a lot of that. That's not a high bar, you just have to stop actively and knowingly breaking the game

 oni wrote:
I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

And yet, FW stuff has little major showing in major competitive events where it's broadly allowed. Seems to be an imagined issue.

Yup, completely ok with it

Absolutely ok with it. I can also refuse to play against it just like any normal game.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Then you're wrong.

FW is simply another brand name under the GW umbrella, just like Citadel or Black Library. It isn't a legally distinct company. Want to prove me wrong? Find Forgeworld's UK VAT registration number, not GW's but explicitly Forgeworld's. VAT registration is a matter of public record, and any company turning over more than £85k is legally obliged to register. Or find their company incorporation number, which is again a matter of public record at companies house. You'll also have to offer a compelling argument as to why FW doesn't submit its own accounts anywhere, and simply has its turnover folded in with the GW website and Black Library under the mail order sub section of its turnover breakdown.

Or you can save yourself some time and take my word that you wot find any evidence that FW are a separate company simply owned by GW, because they're not.

Companies market different product lines under different names all the time. Its simply an easy method of informing the customer in short hand of different qualities of different aspects of your range. Therefore, as a GW customer I know that if I'm buying from FW I'm buying boutique, low volume, resin models. I then also appreciate they may be more technical products requiring greater skill and/or knowledge, and, if GW are lucky, I will be more positively disposed to paying a premium. If I'm buying Citadel I'm more likely to expect more mainstream, easier to assemble, plastic kits.

If you dispose of FW then you lose that point of differentiation and risk customers buying inappropriate products.

It's the same idea as Toyota using the Lexus brand to mark a difference in the cars they're selling, the products on offer are different and appeal to a different demographic.

Then why can't you buy FW models off of GW's website? They could just have a "forgeworld" section to differentiate it.

w1zard wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Then you're wrong.

FW is simply another brand name under the GW umbrella, just like Citadel or Black Library. It isn't a legally distinct company. Want to prove me wrong? Find Forgeworld's UK VAT registration number, not GW's but explicitly Forgeworld's. VAT registration is a matter of public record, and any company turning over more than £85k is legally obliged to register. Or find their company incorporation number, which is again a matter of public record at companies house. You'll also have to offer a compelling argument as to why FW doesn't submit its own accounts anywhere, and simply has its turnover folded in with the GW website and Black Library under the mail order sub section of its turnover breakdown.

Or you can save yourself some time and take my word that you wot find any evidence that FW are a separate company simply owned by GW, because they're not.

Companies market different product lines under different names all the time. Its simply an easy method of informing the customer in short hand of different qualities of different aspects of your range. Therefore, as a GW customer I know that if I'm buying from FW I'm buying boutique, low volume, resin models. I then also appreciate they may be more technical products requiring greater skill and/or knowledge, and, if GW are lucky, I will be more positively disposed to paying a premium. If I'm buying Citadel I'm more likely to expect more mainstream, easier to assemble, plastic kits.

If you dispose of FW then you lose that point of differentiation and risk customers buying inappropriate products.

It's the same idea as Toyota using the Lexus brand to mark a difference in the cars they're selling, the products on offer are different and appeal to a different demographic.

Then why can't you buy FW models off of GW's website? They could just have a "forgeworld" section to differentiate it.

I can't buy Zara clothes in Stradivarius stores, and they are still both part of the same company, just different brands.

 Galas wrote:
I can't buy Zara clothes in Stradivarius stores, and they are still both part of the same company, just different brands.

That is different, it makes sense to differentiate physical stock, but not online stock.

For example you can buy Black Library and citadel products off of GW's webstore, why not FW products?

Because it confuses the brands.

Really it's pretty bloody self evident, I'm also sure BL have their own store too.

Spoletta wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.

that mean Gw models are tested? wonder who "tested" things like brimstone at 3pt inv 4++ or who tested De codex where kot of models are clearly undercosted (because we know a ravager with 3 disintegrators costs 125 is correct dont you think?)....a monkey?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

Gw didn't clearly test their codex too but they are dishonest and wont say it, they just put off a codex then ,where is the problem, customers blindly buy (6 stormraves, 200 brimstones, 9 Pbc and so on...) what they find in codex then they FAQ and get the axe over OP models, that is the solution, a good way to make business, at least FW says ok we dont test... then is up to you buy them...

Tested doesn't mean fail proof. Yes, there were mistakes. No, it doesn't mean that the game wasn't tested. It was, it is obvious to anyone who has been in this hobby for some edition. The indices were clearly the product of a good amount of testing.
Just look at the difference between index models and FW models. If the target was 1, then the indici's model range went from 0,75 to 1,25, while FW went from 0,5 to 2! There was (and there is) an objective, obvious and clear HUGE difference in testing between these 2 lines.

Don't expect tested to mean balanced. We didn't reach that with 1 year of public testing, which counts as 10 years of internal testing.
Fact is, that 8th is without a doubt more balanced than 7th, and 7th was a consolidated product which had 4 editions of maturation. For a new edition (truly new, like 2nd to 3rd new), to be at it's basis more balanced than 7th, means that there was a really serious testing.

you dont need test to understand a unit costing 3pts cant have a 4++save, that mean just dont have hint what you are doing (then if you call index was tested well i think i have nothing more to say),, day after index was released every tournament demon player started listing 200 brimstones+lot of untargettable characters... i was still playing in ETC team that day and we was on skype already listing 200+ brims lol ,yeah yeah need really LOT of play test to figure things like that. Unconditioned defense of Gw is what makes this game what it is now. i understand we need to convince ourselves we didn't waste our money but cmon...

I didn't use to be ok with FW back in 5th/6th ed. Not because stuff was OP, but because I had all the "official" GW rules pretty well memorized to avoid "surprises" and as I did not have access to FW, it kinda sucked having to face rules I was not familiar with.

But since 7th & 8th ed dropped, GW shoots out rules at such a rapid-fire rate that I have given up trying to remember every faction's rules. So FW is just as "foreign" to me as the latest hotness off the GW presses.
I've had to learn to be ok to every single game having a "surprise", so why not FW? Bring it on.

-

w1zard wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I can't buy Zara clothes in Stradivarius stores, and they are still both part of the same company, just different brands.

That is different, it makes sense to differentiate physical stock, but not online stock.

For example you can buy Black Library and citadel products off of GW's webstore, why not FW products?

First off, FW is linked off the GW site. More importantly though, BL, Citadel stuff can all be ordered by your FLGS and sold to you at their usual retail rate. Even if something says its Webstore exclusive can be included in a retailer's product order and sold to you at retail. FW stuff cannot, at least not at a rate that provides any profit for the FLGS.

 LunarSol wrote:
First off, FW is linked off the GW site.

Link to the exact page please?

EDIT: Nevermind I found it. Point conceded. I still think Games Workshop needs to do a better job incorporating FW into their brand, and to have better collaboration between rules writers for their main product line and their FW line.

meleti wrote:

TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

You do know that the cheapest Tigershark costs almost 400p, right?

 Vector Strike wrote:

meleti wrote:

TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

You do know that the cheapest Tigershark costs almost 400p, right?

Riptides are 280 points, double that is 560. A Tiger Shark is 409 points.

w1zard wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
First off, FW is linked off the GW site.

Link to the exact page please?

EDIT: Nevermind I found it. Point conceded. I still think Games Workshop needs to do a better job incorporating FW into their brand, and to have better collaboration between rules writers for their main product line and their FW line.

Maintaining it as a thing apart is exactly the bloody point. The perceived exclusivity and rarity of Forgeworld product is part of the appeal, and to make it more mainstream would render that aspect much less significant. There is zero evidence that greater collaboration (assuming it doesn't already occur) would make any difference, given the already spotty quality of rules writing on both sides.

It doesn't mean people shouldn't be ok with playing against it, a simple glance at the data sheet in the relevant supplement should be all that's needed just like a standard codex unit a player is unfamiliar with, but the whole concept of FW as a brand goes out the window if it's made less exclusive, as well as the logistical challenges of casting resin on that scale.

w1zard wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
First off, FW is linked off the GW site.

Link to the exact page please?

EDIT: Nevermind I found it. Point conceded. I still think Games Workshop needs to do a better job incorporating FW into their brand, and to have better collaboration between rules writers for their main product line and their FW line.

Oh, I agree. Updating FW points in CA was a big step, but its probably time to put the models in Codexes proper. Personally, I do not at all understand why TAC Razorbacks are in my Codex, but I need the FW book to have the rules for a Mortis Dreadnought.

 oni wrote:
Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

GW doesn't playtest their codex rules, so I'm not sure what your point here is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:
My man Peregrine, you’re taking the wrong weapons! Here’s the proper load out:

2 HBC
2 BC
2 MP
2 Skyspear Missile Racks
6 Seeker Missiles

Per the errata, we’ll be using the codex versions of these weapons. That’s 24 HBC shots at BS2+, plus all the other weapons, plus a first turn alpha strike of 6 additional seeker missiles. This flyer has fangs.

Ok, then we put the HBC on a Hammerhead, except it's a twin HBC with 50% more shots (unofficially it should have double the shots as the intent of twin weapons). And we still take two Hammerheads. One of the few good things about 8th is that GW has separated even default weapon costs from their carrier, so most of unit analysis is looking at the carrier rather than its weapons. The Tiger Shark and Hammerhead pair both have similar weapon options and pay the same point cost for those weapons, so the primary question is how 200 points of Hammerhead compares to a 245 point Tigershark as a platform for those weapons you're buying. And yeah, you can conclude that the Tiger Shark has some arguments in its favor, but it's a case of "this might be viable" rather than "this is so obviously overpowered it's one of the best units in the game". At best it's a modest upgrade over the alternatives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Personally, I do not at all understand why TAC Razorbacks are in my Codex, but I need the FW book to have the rules for a Mortis Dreadnought.

Again, brand separation. It has two purposes:

1) Maintain the image of FW products as a "premium" line. By keeping the rules separate it says "this is something special" and justifies why you're paying all that money for a FW kit. If the rules were in the codex people would be more likely to expect the prices to be the same as that plastic kit they can buy off the shelf at their local GW store. It's all very subjective, but brand identity is a thing.

2) Maintain the idea of GW's core brand being 100% "out of the box" plastic kits. It's the same as the theme park vs. sand box debate in video games, GW wants their own retail stores to be on the theme park end of the scale. Every plastic kit has rules for using it right out of the box, every entry in the codex has a matching plastic kit you can buy. It's all very friendly to handing small children a copy of the space marine codex and getting them to beg their parents for toys. You can also see this goal in things like removing models/options from the codex if they didn't have a plastic kit available. GW doesn't want customers in their store having to hear about conversions or buying extra stuff to finish a model, they want to hand you a single plastic kit for the unit. Putting FW rules in the codex would mean having to tell those kids (and their parents!) no, you can't buy a plastic kit for this and you really shouldn't be attempting expensive resin kits at your age. And, worse, you can't even buy it through the local GW store, you have to order it from the UK. It's much better for their sales strategy to put all those rules in a separate book where only "advanced" players will find them.

There’s not a codex twin HBC, so there’s no newer profile for the twin HBC Hammerhead to use. Thus, it’s still left with the much inferior index profile. Go play a few games with two Tiger Sharks proxied. They’re one of the deadliest units in 8E.

meleti wrote:
There’s not a codex twin HBC, so there’s no newer profile for the twin HBC Hammerhead to use. Thus, it’s still left with the much inferior index profile.

But you still have two of them, one twin HBC per Hammerhead. That's a total of 32 HBC shots vs. 24 for the Tiger Shark.

Go play a few games with two Tiger Sharks proxied. They’re one of the deadliest units in 8E.

I really don't see it. You're getting firepower roughly comparable to its point cost in Hammerheads, and that's just considering other Tau units. Let's compare that Tiger Shark to its point cost in LRBTs. A LR Punisher has 49 shots (main gun and hull/sponson HBs) for 166 points. That's 98 shots, a mix of STR 5 AP - and STR 5 AP -1. Sure, the shots are individually a bit weaker, but you're talking about over double the shot count compared to the Tiger Shark. For a supposed "deadliest unit in 8th" it's sure an underwhelming comparison.

 oni wrote:
I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

Kinda hard to playtest a rule set when you are given a month to wright the rules for your entire model line.

FW also in the same sentence at the seminar stated they couldn't play test all the rules for units as they were told about 8th edition at the same time as the rest of us.
Like they were writing new material for 7th edition while the main studio was testing 8th and no-one told forgeworld they were wasting time and money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
There’s not a codex twin HBC, so there’s no newer profile for the twin HBC Hammerhead to use. Thus, it’s still left with the much inferior index profile.

But you still have two of them, one twin HBC per Hammerhead. That's a total of 32 HBC shots vs. 24 for the Tiger Shark.

Go play a few games with two Tiger Sharks proxied. They’re one of the deadliest units in 8E.

I really don't see it. You're getting firepower roughly comparable to its point cost in Hammerheads, and that's just considering other Tau units. Let's compare that Tiger Shark to its point cost in LRBTs. A LR Punisher has 49 shots (main gun and hull/sponson HBs) for 166 points. That's 98 shots, a mix of STR 5 AP - and STR 5 AP -1. Sure, the shots are individually a bit weaker, but you're talking about over double the shot count compared to the Tiger Shark. For a supposed "deadliest unit in 8th" it's sure an underwhelming comparison.

A hammer head doesn have 2 twin heavy burst cannons it only has 1 for 16 shots IRCC.

Yeah because leman russes arn't totally undercosted OP nonsence.
Only kept in check by eldar stacking -1 to hit modifier nonsence.

Yea, a shark is not that great even compared to a hammer-and a hammer isn't impressive in the grand scheme to begin with.

Never thought the day would come that I side with peregrine, but he's right, and you (meleti) are delusional.


Ice can-his point is that you can get 2 hammerheads for each tigershark pointwise.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Yea, a shark is not that great even compared to a hammer-and a hammer isn't impressive in the grand scheme to begin with.

Never thought the day would come that I side with peregrine, but he's right, and you (meleti) are delusional.


Ice can-his point is that you can get 2 hammerheads for each tigershark pointwise.

Ah really wasn't getting that.
But also a bs2+ tigershark is 60 points less than 2 bs3+ Hamerheads with THBC's

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
There’s not a codex twin HBC, so there’s no newer profile for the twin HBC Hammerhead to use. Thus, it’s still left with the much inferior index profile.

But you still have two of them, one twin HBC per Hammerhead. That's a total of 32 HBC shots vs. 24 for the Tiger Shark.

Go play a few games with two Tiger Sharks proxied. They’re one of the deadliest units in 8E.

I really don't see it. You're getting firepower roughly comparable to its point cost in Hammerheads, and that's just considering other Tau units. Let's compare that Tiger Shark to its point cost in LRBTs. A LR Punisher has 49 shots (main gun and hull/sponson HBs) for 166 points. That's 98 shots, a mix of STR 5 AP - and STR 5 AP -1. Sure, the shots are individually a bit weaker, but you're talking about over double the shot count compared to the Tiger Shark. For a supposed "deadliest unit in 8th" it's sure an underwhelming comparison.

You’re forgetting that the old profile is only one damage instead of two.

LRBTs are 4+ BS, not 2+. They don’t have an invulnerable save, minus to hit, or the alpha strike from 6 missiles. The Punisher is a one damage gun that wounds DE vehicles and Custodes on a 5 instead of a 4. IG lack a stratagem to add +1 to wound and thus wound T11 and lower on a 4. The shots are much worse, and at a worst ballistic skill. Tiger Sharks can drown anything from Plaguebearers to Vertus Praetors to Dominus Knights in a hail of fire. And that’s just the main guns. There’s still another 2d6 shots (averaging half a HBC) from the Stormspear missiles, two more Missile Pods, two regular burst cannons, and 6 Seeker missiles each doing d6 damage.

Play some test games. I’m not saying that Tiger Sharks break the game, but there’s nothing in the Tau codex (or most codexes) that has such a mix of firepower, high accuracy, speed, and toughness.

Yeah, I don't think FW is as bad as people think anymore. 8th toned them down as well, the wonderful updates keep them in line too. So heck yeah.

meleti wrote:
You’re forgetting that the old profile is only one damage instead of two.

LRBTs are 4+ BS, not 2+. They don’t have an invulnerable save, minus to hit, or the alpha strike from 6 missiles. The Punisher is a one damage gun that wounds DE vehicles and Custodes on a 5 instead of a 4. IG lack a stratagem to add +1 to wound and thus wound T11 and lower on a 4. The shots are much worse, and at a worst ballistic skill. Tiger Sharks can drown anything from Plaguebearers to Vertus Praetors to Dominus Knights in a hail of fire. And that’s just the main guns. There’s still another 2d6 shots (averaging half a HBC) from the Stormspear missiles, two more Missile Pods, two regular burst cannons, and 6 Seeker missiles each doing d6 damage.

Play some test games. I’m not saying that Tiger Sharks break the game, but there’s nothing in the Tau codex (or most codexes) that has such a mix of firepower, high accuracy, speed, and toughness.

To be honest I expect it to see a points increase in CA 2018 as it was costed for the old HBC and has got a firepower increase from the codex without a corresponding points change.

 Peregrine wrote:


Well yes, but so is everyone else at GW.

The "nobody is perfect" argument. Perfection isn't a binary state. There is a significant delta between GW and FW in terms of overall quality of rules. Compare the Xiphon to the Predator, for example.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's just weird to single out one particular author when everyone else at GW regularly publishes a mix of blatantly overpowered mistakes and units that are unplayable

It's really not, considering FW has generally been producing awful rules since the start of 8th.

Again, field it, i don't care. I don't expect anyone to take it easy on me.

Ice_can wrote:

meleti wrote:
You’re forgetting that the old profile is only one damage instead of two.

LRBTs are 4+ BS, not 2+. They don’t have an invulnerable save, minus to hit, or the alpha strike from 6 missiles. The Punisher is a one damage gun that wounds DE vehicles and Custodes on a 5 instead of a 4. IG lack a stratagem to add +1 to wound and thus wound T11 and lower on a 4. The shots are much worse, and at a worst ballistic skill. Tiger Sharks can drown anything from Plaguebearers to Vertus Praetors to Dominus Knights in a hail of fire. And that’s just the main guns. There’s still another 2d6 shots (averaging half a HBC) from the Stormspear missiles, two more Missile Pods, two regular burst cannons, and 6 Seeker missiles each doing d6 damage.

Play some test games. I’m not saying that Tiger Sharks break the game, but there’s nothing in the Tau codex (or most codexes) that has such a mix of firepower, high accuracy, speed, and toughness.

To be honest I expect it to see a points increase in CA 2018 as it was costed for the old HBC and has got a firepower increase from the codex without a corresponding points change.

Probably. It’s ridiculously cheap for what it is, like the Fire Raptor once was. If you’ve been watching Tau lists you’ll have noticed that several top players have begun running 1-2 Tiger Sharks at recent GTs. I fully expect to see Tiger Sharks at at least one of the Majors later this year.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


Well yes, but so is everyone else at GW.

The "nobody is perfect" argument. Perfection isn't a binary state. There is a significant delta between GW and FW in terms of overall quality of rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's just weird to single out one particular author when everyone else at GW regularly publishes a mix of blatantly overpowered mistakes and units that are unplayable

It's really not, considering FW has generally been producing awful rules since the start of 8th.

I'll just come in and say brimstone horrors, Tau overwatch, terminators, tac /csm. Smite spam, de codex, eldar -bs shenanigans, guard mortars, needing to introduce the rule of three in order to get some controll over spam, stratagems nerfs /limits, kurovs aquilla, soup with relic benefits,
Do I need to go on or do you realise that Gw is the bigger culprit of inbalance?

Ice_can wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Yea, a shark is not that great even compared to a hammer-and a hammer isn't impressive in the grand scheme to begin with.

Never thought the day would come that I side with peregrine, but he's right, and you (meleti) are delusional.


Ice can-his point is that you can get 2 hammerheads for each tigershark pointwise.

Ah really wasn't getting that.
But also a bs2+ tigershark is 60 points less than 2 bs3+ Hamerheads with THBC's

A BS2+ hammer hits an average of 20 hits. when moving its 16 hits
The BS3+ hammers hit an average of 10.66 hits each, so 21 hits combined. when moving they hit 8 each.

The pair of hammerheads are getting things done slightly better than the shark when stationary (or 4 markers), and exactly the same number of hits when moving.
And the big issue-the tigershark HAS to move, the hammerhead does not.
And that's with the hammerhead profile not getting updated yet, as its technically another gun and does not inherit the index->codex changes.
Or the fact that hammers gain from a fifth marker, while shark doesn't

meleti wrote:
LRBTs are 4+ BS, not 2+.

The Tigershark is BS 3+, not 2+, for its HBCs. Only the missile pods and burst cannons get to fire at BS 2+.

They don’t have an invulnerable save, minus to hit, or the alpha strike from 6 missiles.

They don't have the same defense, but they do have 24 total wounds vs. 16 and a much smaller profile that lets them stay out of LOS of some threats (assuming you play with sensible terrain and terrain rules).

As for the alpha strike, so what? It's not like those missiles are free, you're paying full price for them and you could just put them on any other vehicle in your army. The LRBTs can take a pair of hunter-killer missiles if you want to, and you can spam more of the missiles on all of your other IG vehicles. And TBH seeker missiles aren't very impressive anyway. You save 1 point per missile over HKs, but you need markerlights to fire them. If you're investing a lot of points in one-shot missiles you're probably better off buying conventional weapons with those points.

The Punisher is a one damage gun that wounds DE vehicles and Custodes on a 5 instead of a 4.

Again, twice the shots. You have slightly better shots, but you have half the volume of fire. Against multi-wound targets you maybe break even, against single-wound targets (the thing you want to throw tons of low-strength shots at) you do a lot less damage.

IG lack a stratagem to add +1 to wound and thus wound T11 and lower on a 4.

And? If you're going to get into buffs then you need to consider all buffs. Tau get a stratagem that costs 3 CP, locks you into using a specific sept which gives zero benefit to the Tigershark, and requires you to get a wound through with another unit before you can activate it. IG can take the Cadian doctrine and re-roll 1s, take a tank commander and get BS 3+ as well as re-rolling 1s, have a Cadian stratagem that gives a similar +1 to hit if another unit wounds first except it only costs 2 CP instead of 3, a Vostroyan stratagem that adds a flat +1 to hit to a single unit for 1 CP, and I'm probably missing a buff or two. Oh, and on top of having the cheapest units to fill up detachments and get a huge CP pool to power those stratagems IG also have the best CP regen in the game. So no, I wouldn't consider a Tau stratagem to be very impressive here.

I’m not saying that Tiger Sharks break the game, but there’s nothing in the Tau codex (or most codexes) that has such a mix of firepower, high accuracy, speed, and toughness.

Maybe that is true, but only because the Tau codex is fairly weak. Compared to stronger armies the Tigershark is, at best, comparable to some of the standard tournament units/lists. It's hardly the kind of game-breaking thing that is justification for banning FW.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
Personally, I do not at all understand why TAC Razorbacks are in my Codex, but I need the FW book to have the rules for a Mortis Dreadnought.

Again, brand separation. It has two purposes:

1) Maintain the image of FW products as a "premium" line. By keeping the rules separate it says "this is something special" and justifies why you're paying all that money for a FW kit. If the rules were in the codex people would be more likely to expect the prices to be the same as that plastic kit they can buy off the shelf at their local GW store. It's all very subjective, but brand identity is a thing.

2) Maintain the idea of GW's core brand being 100% "out of the box" plastic kits. It's the same as the theme park vs. sand box debate in video games, GW wants their own retail stores to be on the theme park end of the scale. Every plastic kit has rules for using it right out of the box, every entry in the codex has a matching plastic kit you can buy. It's all very friendly to handing small children a copy of the space marine codex and getting them to beg their parents for toys. You can also see this goal in things like removing models/options from the codex if they didn't have a plastic kit available. GW doesn't want customers in their store having to hear about conversions or buying extra stuff to finish a model, they want to hand you a single plastic kit for the unit. Putting FW rules in the codex would mean having to tell those kids (and their parents!) no, you can't buy a plastic kit for this and you really shouldn't be attempting expensive resin kits at your age. And, worse, you can't even buy it through the local GW store, you have to order it from the UK. It's much better for their sales strategy to put all those rules in a separate book where only "advanced" players will find them.

I'd agree with this 100%, but the point is the only place you can get a Twin Assault Cannon for the Razorback is from Forge World, but the option is in my Codex.

On the subject on whether or not FW is a separate company, its probably worth noting that for Blood Bowl, Forge World sells bungles that include their FW resin players AND the plastic team they play for. Probably not something you'd see if they were separate.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd agree with this 100%, but the point is the only place you can get a Twin Assault Cannon for the Razorback is from Forge World, but the option is in my Codex.

This is a rarity though. TBH I'm kind of surprised that GW didn't remove the option from the codex, since it doesn't fit their policy of having a plastic kit for everything in the codex and removing any options that don't have one.

Yeah, S6 2D is more than twice as good as S5 1D against T6 multiwound models, which just happen to be some of the most important units in the game - Vertus Praetors, Ravagers, Raiders, Hemlocks, Eldar flyers, Necrons vehicles, etc. You’re confusing HBCs with generic Dakka.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd agree with this 100%, but the point is the only place you can get a Twin Assault Cannon for the Razorback is from Forge World, but the option is in my Codex.

Lots of people have had Twin Assault cannons for years now that are GW plastic. I remember early on getting them fromLRC Kit but I thought there were an option in plastic in the Razorback kit now. Weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have no particular issue one way or the other with FW. I own some and so do people in my group. It's been common for years.
Why would I have an issue.

meleti wrote:
Yeah, S6 2D is more than twice as good as S5 1D against T6 multiwound models, which just happen to be some of the most important units in the game - Vertus Praetors, Ravagers, Raiders, Hemlocks, Eldar flyers, Necrons vehicles, etc. You’re confusing HBCs with generic Dakka.

But, again, half the volume of fire. S6 D2 may be twice as good, but the LRBTs have twice the shots. That's a break-even situation, in the best case scenario for the Tigershark. Facing hordes of guardsmen/orks/etc? LRBTs win decisively. Facing proper tanks? Neither is great, take real anti-tank weapons*. The Tigershark is only winning against a particular class of targets, and not by a very impressive margin. Maybe that's enough to put it in the category of units that have a role to fill and see some use, but it's hardly the kind of thing that gets it the "one of the most overpowered units in the game" title.

*A Tigershark's HBCs do 5.333 wounds to a T7/8 SV3+ tank. A pair of LR Punishers does 5.444 wounds, even assuming the HBs don't get their AP because I'm lazy. A Shadowsword, for only a small point increase over the Tigershark, removes the tank from the table.

I don't see how people can call the Tau Codex mediocre. Is full of good units. Broadsides, Riptides, Stormsurge, Fire Warriors, Breacher Teams, Shield Drones, Commanders of all tipes, Vespids, Stealth Suiths, Ghostkheells, Kroots, Kroot Hounds , etc...

Of course some are more powerfull than others and only 3-4 (Broadsides, Riptides and Stormsurges+Shield drones) make the cut into the ULTRA COMPETITIVE META where you are fighting for the 1-3 spot, but most of the codex is absolutely usable in a competitive scene, and in a casual-competitive one I believe nearly all of it is. So basically like codexs as Drukarhi, Craftworld Eldar, Astra Militarum, Adeptus Custodes or Tyranids, the top dogs.Codex with a ton of good and usable units, but the most competitive lists are mostly composed of 3-4 units.

Yeah, they could have been more inspired in Sept tactics, stratagems, etc... but whatever. Of the six armies I play (Dark Angels, Adeptus Custodes, Tau, Necrons, Imperial Knights+Astra Militarum), even if the one I have played most are Dark Angels, without a doubt Tau are in my top 2 of most fun, behind Imperial Knights+Imperial Guard.

 Galas wrote:
I don't see how people can call the Tau Codex mediocre. Is full of good units. Broadsides, Riptides, Stormsurge, Fire Warriors, Breacher Teams, Shield Drones, Commanders of all tipes, Vespids, Stealth Suiths, Ghostkheells, Kroots, Kroot Hounds , etc...

Of course some are more powerfull than others and only 3-4 (Broadsides, Riptides and Stormsurges+Shield drones) make the cut into the ULTRA COMPETITIVE META where you are fighting for the 1-3 spot, but most of the codex is absolutely usable in a competitive scene, and in a casual-competitive one I believe nearly all of it is. So basically like codexs as Drukarhi, Craftworld Eldar, Astra Militarum, Adeptus Custodes or Tyranids, the top dogs.Codex with a ton of good and usable units, but the most competitive lists are mostly composed of 3-4 units.

Yeah, they could have been more inspired in Sept tactics, stratagems, etc... but whatever. Of the six armies I play (Dark Angels, Adeptus Custodes, Tau, Necrons, Imperial Knights+Astra Militarum), even if the one I have played most are Dark Angels, without a doubt Tau are in my top 2 of most fun, behind Imperial Knights+Imperial Guard.

I'd say it is because of the mostly uninspired Sept rules (though you gotta admit that at least the Farsight one is creative at minimum) and that it didn't exactly fix some of the core issues with the Index, like how Crisis Suits are still junk.

I can understand people being upset because Crisis aren't as good as they should. Even having 9 I don't like them that much, and as the Codex made usable and good some of my favourite units (Vespids, Stealth Suits, Fire Warriors, etc...) I'm very happy with it.

My biggest grievance with the codex is the fact that it didn't fixed my favourite units, Broadsides and Hammerheads with Rail Rifles.

Hilariously, the supposed "best unit in 8th" Tigershark isn't even the best large FW flyer. The Marauder Destroyer is what the Tigershark wishes it could be. Better guns, equal durability, and the ability to delete half a unit each game with mortal wounds. All that for less than 100 points more.

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
Yeah, S6 2D is more than twice as good as S5 1D against T6 multiwound models, which just happen to be some of the most important units in the game - Vertus Praetors, Ravagers, Raiders, Hemlocks, Eldar flyers, Necrons vehicles, etc. You’re confusing HBCs with generic Dakka.

But, again, half the volume of fire. S6 D2 may be twice as good, but the LRBTs have twice the shots. That's a break-even situation, in the best case scenario for the Tigershark. Facing hordes of guardsmen/orks/etc? LRBTs win decisively. Facing proper tanks? Neither is great, take real anti-tank weapons*. The Tigershark is only winning against a particular class of targets, and not by a very impressive margin. Maybe that's enough to put it in the category of units that have a role to fill and see some use, but it's hardly the kind of thing that gets it the "one of the most overpowered units in the game" title.

*A Tigershark's HBCs do 5.333 wounds to a T7/8 SV3+ tank. A pair of LR Punishers does 5.444 wounds, even assuming the HBs don't get their AP because I'm lazy. A Shadowsword, for only a small point increase over the Tigershark, removes the tank from the table.

Not at home right now so I can’t post the mathhammer. But are you reading what I’m posting? HBC are best at shooting multiwound targets below T7, and those happen to be abundant right now because there’s at least five armies (DE, CWE, Harlequins, Custodes, Necrons) which are fairly popular and have units like that in abundance. You still take FW to deal with 1 wound infantry and QFCs to deal with heavy armor. Tiger Sharks are the super efficient target that’s decent against both of those while being super effective against what’s dominant in the competitive meta right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Hilariously, the supposed "best unit in 8th" Tigershark isn't even the best large FW flyer. The Marauder Destroyer is what the Tigershark wishes it could be. Better guns, equal durability, and the ability to delete half a unit each game with mortal wounds. All that for less than 100 points more.

Said it was one of the best. There’s a lot of great units.

Not to derail the thread too much, I think pointing out some of the flaws in the tau codex are requried.

First up, the traits are widespread known to be mostly uninspiring and honestly meaningless at many cases, and the stratagems are often poor as well-and the sept specific ones are probably the worst "subfaction specific" stratagems in the entire game. (lets not mention the god-aweful sept spesific warlod traits, not that the regulars are much better)
Overall, unlike other armies you don't have a single sept that allows you to plan a unique stratagy around, except maybe T'au to crutch on longstrike to make hammerheads viable.

On to units, many are just...bad. anything with a rail-type weapon is pointless, the only transport is an expensive brick that actually costs far more than the things it moves around (and unlike the ghost arc, WS and the like-don't bring added value), our "commander" for some reason is the only leader-type HQ in the game who's aura is single use, and its single use army-wide even, not even per commander.

Then comes the biggest issue-the sheer insult of having "buffs" who are either useless, or non-stacking yet repeat over and over again. here are a few examples:

You want to advance and shoot your assault weapons without penalty? Vior'la sept does that. also one of the warlord traits does it, or level 4 markerlights, or calling mont'ka, or having a target lock. 5 way. some have added parts to them, but overall its 5 times you got the same non-stacking buff.

how about rerolling 1s to shooting?
Ethreal gives reroll 1s to infantry and suits.
Multi-tracker rerolls 1s, though for some reason its both expensive AND only works on 5 or more models in a unit, making it useless.
Level 1 markerlights also let you reroll 1s.
Kay'oun gives a one-time reroll to all.

How about markerlights?
1st marker, reroll 1s to hit is nice, but as shown above you got so many sources of that already.
2nd, you can fire missiles at full BS....thank you? heck missiles are non-viable because they can't be even used without markers, so nobody takes them, making this level do nothing.
3rd remove cover bonuses. so its useful, unless shooting at a target that isn't in cover, or your gun AP is overkilling their armor armyway, or they got invuls-especially demons. situational buff but at least its SOMETHING (and you actually dont acquire it elsewhere!)
4th gives you advace+shoot at full BS or move+shoot at full BS. nice, except you also have repear sources for this, and your units that need this buff took this darn ability elsewhere because they can't rely on having 4 markerlights.
5th gives +1BS, and FINALLY you get something worthwhile.


And when you go through all that poor writing, you have to cope with being the only army in the game that has a hard-limit on his supposed "commander HQ", and is forced into taking mini-buffers to build a battalion.
Sucks twice as much if you wanted to play viorla-who find fireblades rather pointless, or FSE who can't even take ethereal and find fireblades (who are now the only option left) equally pointless.




And to return to why the tigershark seems so good-he gets around all this crap because he is built around the assumption that sept tenets have no effect on him (they really dont), he don't have support systems, he don't really play into the whole "buffs" system the tau has going, etc.
Tigershark works well because he can ignore the rest of the tau codex except his guns.

meleti wrote:
HBC are best at shooting multiwound targets below T7

Only by a small margin. Remember, the LRBTs have more than double the shots. The Tigershark is throwing 36+2D6 shots (average 43) if you give up the drones, the LRBTs have 98. You have to out-perform them by a huge margin per-shot to even come close to beating the overall firepower.

Said it was one of the best. There’s a lot of great units.

If there are lots of great units then "one of the best" becomes a meaningless term. You've redefined it to mean "possibly tournament viable" instead of "one of the few overpowered units that most exceed the level of what is appropriate", at which point who cares if it reaches that threshold?

I’m not saying that it’s “possibly tournament viable.” I’m saying it’s the best non-Commander unit available to Tau. There was a 2 Tiger Shark list that took 4th at Dallas Open GT. There was a 1 Tiger Shark list that finished near the top (I think top 4) of Flying Monkey Open. This is an emerging unit that not a lot of Tau players have the model for yet, but the fact that the #1 Tau ITC player has been running two of them should tip you off to how effective it is.

I say “one of the best” as there’s way too many caveats to identify the absolute best unit. It’s going to vary by your individual meta, and a powerful unit in a top tier faction will always look better than a more powerful unit in a mid tier faction.

Anyways, let’s look at some math assuming 1 markerlight or two for seekers:

Against Vertus Praetors:
Tiger Shark (no missiles or burst cannons): 10.32 unsaved wounds
Seeker missiles: 4.09 wounds

2 LRBT (3 HBs), re-roll 1s: 3.76 wounds

So, without even firing the 8 burst cannon shots, the Tiger Shark is doing more than than 2.5x the unsaved wounds, and there’s still seeker missiles that can be fired as well.

Shooting at other T6 targets is going to demonstrate the same thing. Having a torrent of low quality shots doesn’t come close to higher strength multiwound shooting. And, as you’d expect, going from 1-2 ML to 5 giving the Tiger Shark a 1+ BS that ignores movement penalties makes it that much deadlier against any unit, but especially ones with hit penalties.

This is all on a faster unit with an invulnerable save, Fly, and -1 to hit, too.

meleti wrote:
2 LRBT (3 HBs), re-roll 1s: 3.76 wounds

Uh, no. It's more than that. The punisher cannons alone are doing 5.18 wounds, and then the heavy bolters add another 1.75 wounds for a total of 6.93. So, your Tigershark is doing less than twice the damage against tanks when compared to an anti-horde LRBT. And it should be noted that a third of your firepower is coming from the highly variable 2D6 missile shots.

Just for fun, let's do the average damage for a Shadowsword, since we're discussing LoW-class models against tanks. The Cadian (because why not re-roll 1s when you never need to move your 120" range gun) Shadowsword does 20.45 wounds to the Predator with its primary weapon, annihilating it with a substantial margin for bad dice, then puts another 7.4 wounds into a second Predator with its secondary weapons. Tigershark doesn't look so hot anymore, does it?

and there’s still seeker missiles that can be fired as well.

Seekers suck, and you aren't taking them, especially in a Tigershark list where the biggest advantage is independence from markerlights. But, as I said, you have to pay for them, and you can put them anywhere in your list. The IG list can match those seekers with HK missiles of its own, and the HK missile alpha strike doesn't rely on markerlight hits. Seeker/HK capacity is of very little value.

Having a torrent of low quality shots doesn’t come close to higher strength multiwound shooting.

Actually it does, when you have more than double the shot count.

And, as you’d expect, going from 1-2 ML to 5 giving the Tiger Shark a 1+ BS that ignores movement penalties makes it that much deadlier against any unit, but especially ones with hit penalties.

Ok, sure, but now you're including a bunch of points in buff units when a major benefit of the Tigershark is that you already have reliable shooting without markerlights (unlike pretty much everything else in the codex). And the LRBTs can get buffs of their own. Want +1 BS? Upgrade them to tank commanders for the cost of a Pathfinder squad that averages 5 ML hits, and the IG +1 BS buff is just always applied instead of depending on keeping your ML sources alive and able to shoot. Oh, and because your tank commanders can order themselves to re-roll 1s you are free to make them Vostroyan instead of Cadian, which means you get to use that 1 CP stratagem which gives another +1 BS to a unit. Now instead of BS 3+ with a re-roll to hit you have BS 2+ with a re-roll, essentially guaranteeing that all 49 of your shots will hit. And god help your opponent if they're playing Chaos, since another 1 CP gives you full re-rolls to hit and wound for a unit.

This is all on a faster unit with an invulnerable save, Fly, and -1 to hit, too.

Which is offset by the LRBTs having 50% more wounds. And remember, that save doesn't matter against anything with worse than AP -3, against another Tigershark (since you praise them so much) the invulnerable save is blank text.

Using this calculator: http://mathhammer.thefieldsofblood.com

80 punisher shots, rerolling 1s at BS4+, is 2.59 wounds.
18 heavy bolter shots is 1.17 wounds.

That’s how I get to 3.76 wounds.

And no, Tiger Sharks aren’t a head to head with Shadowswords against tanks. That’s not what TS are for. They’re decent enough at it, but you aren’t taking a TS to deal with Predators. You take QFCs or quad CIB Commanders for that, and let the Tiger Shark do what it does (launch seekers into vehicles while aiming the volume fire at infantry, probably).

edit: Wait. You seem to think Custodes bikes have a 3+ instead of a 2+? That explains your numbers. I’m not sure I should talk to you about competitive balance if you don’t know what a Vertus Praetor does at this point...

So much for the topic

Funnily enough tigershark is the one FW model I thought was sort of balanced and a fun alternative to what I usually do. But seriously why try to mathhammer a tigershark against 2 hammerheads? It would always be a hammerhead and Longstrike! Or if you're already going that way 3 hammerheads and longstrike.

I can understand wanting to get away from markerlights but they're not that difficult to get a pair of hits from considering the stratagem, marksmen, and embedding one on a shas'ui. Personally i love seeker missiles, 8 extra chances of hitting a knight with d6dmg is no small thing. Sure it's more work than imperium but its still got value to me.

Now Y'vahra is the issue for me since its rules interact with the codex but hasn't been updated since afaik. Which bring my point back that FW doesn't update its rules, which were designed to be drastically different from the rest of the faction/game, when the core gets updated.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
So much for the topic

Funnily enough tigershark is the one FW model I thought was sort of balanced and a fun alternative to what I usually do. But seriously why try to mathhammer a tigershark against 2 hammerheads? It would always be a hammerhead and Longstrike! Or if you're already going that way 3 hammerheads and longstrike.

I can understand wanting to get away from markerlights but they're not that difficult to get a pair of hits from considering the stratagem, marksmen, and embedding one on a shas'ui. Personally i love seeker missiles, 8 extra chances of hitting a knight with d6dmg is no small thing. Sure it's more work than imperium but its still got value to me.

Now Y'vahra is the issue for me since its rules interact with the codex but hasn't been updated since afaik. Which bring my point back that FW doesn't update its rules, which were designed to be drastically different from the rest of the faction/game, when the core gets updated.

Yeah, I wasn’t intending to derail this topic by just pointing out how good Tiger Sharks are but that’s the way it ended up.

Funnily enough, I voted for being totally OK with FW units. I have no problem with them, and I love many of the models. I just took exception to the whole “FW is never better than the codex” thing so I pointed out the best FW unit I’m familiar with.

meleti wrote:
Wait. You seem to think Custodes bikes have a 3+ instead of a 2+? That explains your numbers. I’m not sure I should talk to you about competitive balance if you don’t know what a Vertus Praetor does at this point...

Oh, oops. I misread that as "versus Predators".

But sure, let's kill some jetbikes, because the only thing better than killing space marines is killing gold space marines. The Shadowsword, having made an utter joke out of the Tigershark's performance against Predators, puts an average of 19.18 wounds into the idiots in sparkly armor in the shooting phase and then charges them (spending 1 CP to become a god of combat) for another 5 wounds. Granted, the Shadowsword is a bit more prone to overkilling single models because of its greater damage per wound, but I think it's safe to say that some jetbikes are thoroughly dead.

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
Wait. You seem to think Custodes bikes have a 3+ instead of a 2+? That explains your numbers. I’m not sure I should talk to you about competitive balance if you don’t know what a Vertus Praetor does at this point...

Oh, oops. I misread that as "versus Predators".

But sure, let's kill some jetbikes, because the only thing better than killing space marines is killing gold space marines. The Shadowsword, having made an utter joke out of the Tigershark's performance against Predators, puts an average of 19.18 wounds into the idiots in sparkly armor in the shooting phase and then charges them (spending 1 CP to become a god of combat) for another 5 wounds. Granted, the Shadowsword is a bit more prone to overkilling single models because of its greater damage per wound, but I think it's safe to say that some jetbikes are thoroughly dead.

That makes sense. I think you’ve made a mistake on the bikes, though, as they’re actually a multiple model unit and most of that damage you’re mentioning is just the Volcano Cannon doing an average of 1.25 unsaved wounds, meaning a lot of that damage is wasted as one unsaved wound can only do a maximum of 4 damage. Also, if you’re factoring in sponsons, that’s going to significantly increase the cost of the Shadowsword over a TS.

The volcano cannon is doing “10.2 wounds” but like I said that’s actually 1.25 unsaved wounds so it’s likely one dead Custodes.

meleti wrote:
I think you’ve made a mistake on the bikes, though, as they’re actually a multiple model unit and most of that damage you’re mentioning is just the Volcano Cannon doing an average of 1.25 unsaved wounds, meaning a lot of that damage is wasted as one unsaved wound can only do a maximum of 4 damage.

That's what I mentioned about overkill. The Shadowsword has a high chance of overkilling models and won't do its full ~25 wounds every turn, but the Tigershark also loses some damage (granted, not as much) to overkill. Even if you assume that half its volcano cannon wounds are lost to overkill (~6.5 wounds) it's still out-performing the Tigershark by a solid margin in the shooting phase and then charging for even more damage.

I’m also not sure what sponsons you’re running, but that Shadowswords is likely significantly more expensive than a TS.

Four sponsons, each with a twin HB and a lascannon. The total is 540 points, compared to ~350-400 points for the Tigershark (depending on how you arm it). That's a significant difference, but the Shadowsword is also out-performing the Tigershark by a significant margin against pretty much any target type. Even against hordes of guardsmen/orks/etc the titan killer specialist is putting out the same average volume of fire, then piling on even more damage in the assault phase. The best you can say for the Tigershark is that in some cases it compares reasonably well with the Shadowsword in damage per point, and it probably won't cost you the game if you bring a Tigershark or three. Which goes back to the original point: the Tigershark looks better than the codex options because most of the Tau codex is underwhelming and the Tigershark avoids several of its flaws, not because it's amazingly powerful compared to tournament-tier units/armies in general.

409/379 for the Tiger Shark with/without Seekers yeah. It’s comparable to a naked Shadowsword. Not so much a unit that’s 140-170 points more.

Not sure about charging with a Shadowsword against Custodes, by the way. Sometimes you can, but if you’re against a list with multiple bike squads a careful Custodes player will just respond by charging your tank in your own charge phase (that’s a thing, yeah) and take a free fight phase against you. Watch out for that, as it could lose you your tank.

I play a lot of 30k sooo it goes with the territory, never had a problem.

meleti wrote:
409/379 for the Tiger Shark with/without Seekers yeah. It’s comparable to a naked Shadowsword. Not so much a unit that’s 140-170 points more.

But the point is that the Shadowsword out-performs the Tigershark by a greater margin than the increase in point cost. You pay ~33% more points for more than 33% more power in most situations. In terms of power per point the Shadowsword wins. The Tigershark is not a terrible unit, as it's at least in the same conversation as the Shadowsword, but its perceived power level has far more to do with the Tau codex being deeply flawed than the Tigershark being overpowered relative to tournament-tier stuff in general.

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
409/379 for the Tiger Shark with/without Seekers yeah. It’s comparable to a naked Shadowsword. Not so much a unit that’s 140-170 points more.

But the point is that the Shadowsword out-performs the Tigershark by a greater margin than the increase in point cost. You pay ~33% more points for more than 33% more power in most situations. In terms of power per point the Shadowsword wins. The Tigershark is not a terrible unit, as it's at least in the same conversation as the Shadowsword, but its perceived power level has far more to do with the Tau codex being deeply flawed than the Tigershark being overpowered relative to tournament-tier stuff in general.

The more you mention that Tau are “deeply flawed” the less I am convinced you’re a serious tournament player, or at least an objective one. I’m a bigger Tau homer than anybody but Tau are clearly in the discussion of competitive 40k. Tau sometimes win tournaments and more often Tau finish highly at tournaments. Do you have an axe to grind or something?

meleti wrote:
The more you mention that Tau are “deeply flawed” the less I am convinced you’re a serious tournament player, or at least an objective one. I’m a bigger Tau homer than anybody but Tau are clearly in the discussion of competitive 40k. Tau sometimes win tournaments and more often Tau finish highly at tournaments. Do you have an axe to grind or something?

I'm not talking about just a competitive tournament context. The Tau codex is underwhelming in a lot of areas, especially for veteran players who played Tau in previous editions. Crisis suits are weak, railguns are weak, our tanks still can't move and shoot effectively, etc. It feels like a lot of the codex is a house of cards where everything, especially the magic laser pointers, has to work together perfectly just to equal what other factions can do with single units. After getting frustrated with crisis suits having poor accuracy and apparently being intended to win through ork-style rolling tons of dice it seems too good to be true when you get a unit like the Tigershark that just plain works. It delivers cost-effective shooting every turn without depending on stratagems or aura bubbles or magic laser pointers. It has BS 3+ by default, no buffs needed. But it's still only comparable to good units from other factions.

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
The more you mention that Tau are “deeply flawed” the less I am convinced you’re a serious tournament player, or at least an objective one. I’m a bigger Tau homer than anybody but Tau are clearly in the discussion of competitive 40k. Tau sometimes win tournaments and more often Tau finish highly at tournaments. Do you have an axe to grind or something?

I'm not talking about just a competitive tournament context. The Tau codex is underwhelming in a lot of areas, especially for veteran players who played Tau in previous editions. Crisis suits are weak, railguns are weak, our tanks still can't move and shoot effectively, etc. It feels like a lot of the codex is a house of cards where everything, especially the magic laser pointers, has to work together perfectly just to equal what other factions can do with single units. After getting frustrated with crisis suits having poor accuracy and apparently being intended to win through ork-style rolling tons of dice it seems too good to be true when you get a unit like the Tigershark that just plain works. It delivers cost-effective shooting every turn without depending on stratagems or aura bubbles or magic laser pointers. It has BS 3+ by default, no buffs needed. But it's still only comparable to good units from other factions.

That makes sense. I’m a pretty competitive player and from my perspective this Tau codex has been a very powerful codex capable of hanging with the very best armies in the game, even if it might not be ‘the best codex.” So I don’t find anything underwhelming at all other than the fact that I’ve got some models that aren’t as good as they once were (RIP fish of fury).

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
The more you mention that Tau are “deeply flawed” the less I am convinced you’re a serious tournament player, or at least an objective one. I’m a bigger Tau homer than anybody but Tau are clearly in the discussion of competitive 40k. Tau sometimes win tournaments and more often Tau finish highly at tournaments. Do you have an axe to grind or something?

I'm not talking about just a competitive tournament context. The Tau codex is underwhelming in a lot of areas, especially for veteran players who played Tau in previous editions. Crisis suits are weak, railguns are weak, our tanks still can't move and shoot effectively, etc. It feels like a lot of the codex is a house of cards where everything, especially the magic laser pointers, has to work together perfectly just to equal what other factions can do with single units. After getting frustrated with crisis suits having poor accuracy and apparently being intended to win through ork-style rolling tons of dice it seems too good to be true when you get a unit like the Tigershark that just plain works. It delivers cost-effective shooting every turn without depending on stratagems or aura bubbles or magic laser pointers. It has BS 3+ by default, no buffs needed. But it's still only comparable to good units from other factions.

You hit the nail on the head.

For the same reason you gotta remember how competitive Tyranids were in 6th/7th, even though it was strictly Flyrants/Rippers and Mucolids/Mawlocs. The poor quality of codex writing didn't stop it from topping with just those units

 Azreal13 wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
First off, FW is linked off the GW site.

Link to the exact page please?

EDIT: Nevermind I found it. Point conceded. I still think Games Workshop needs to do a better job incorporating FW into their brand, and to have better collaboration between rules writers for their main product line and their FW line.

Maintaining it as a thing apart is exactly the bloody point. The perceived exclusivity and rarity of Forgeworld product is part of the appeal, and to make it more mainstream would render that aspect much less significant. There is zero evidence that greater collaboration (assuming it doesn't already occur) would make any difference, given the already spotty quality of rules writing on both sides.

It doesn't mean people shouldn't be ok with playing against it, a simple glance at the data sheet in the relevant supplement should be all that's needed just like a standard codex unit a player is unfamiliar with, but the whole concept of FW as a brand goes out the window if it's made less exclusive, as well as the logistical challenges of casting resin on that scale.

What worse it might move some money from buying plastic to buying resin. Disaster for gw

 Strg Alt wrote:
As I have already stated, I don´t have a problem trusting a couple of people about this FW subject. I can´t even fathom why somebody should be so furious about this. How would you react when something really bad happens in your life? And having an opinion that deviates from yours is not by any means bizarre. Have a nice day.

As much as I understand you trusting the opinions of people you actually know, I do think you are missing the point that from the point of view of the person who has bought the model (often having had to save for longer, put in a few more hours at work etc to afford it compared to a citadel equivalent) then had the nightmare of assembling it, spending hours painting it, then wrote a list including it and developing tactics that incorporate it, then made the journey to a game, only to be told to "take it off the table or play someone else" is a very frustrating experience. Even more so if the reason for that demand isn't really well substantiated. Even more so again if the model isn't particularly powerful for its points. I'd be angry if I'd made time for a game, made the effort to get to the venue and didn't get one because your friends don't like an arbitrary subdivision of a hobby company.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Maintaining it as a thing apart is exactly the bloody point. The perceived exclusivity and rarity of Forgeworld product is part of the appeal, and to make it more mainstream would render that aspect much less significant.

And this is also the reason why a lot of people have problems playing against forgeworld, and why forgeworld isn't totally "accepted" yet. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Well I'm a DKoK player so obviously I'm ok with it. I play my army strictly by the rules provided in the index so if anything I've got a handicap because I'm essentially playing a very restricted guard army. No one I know complains about it and generally I get a few spectators when I play.

Personally I've no problem with FW and divide it into three parts:

1) Models/upgrade parts that add things present in the army Warscroll/codex. These should be usable without any prior agreement nor limit as they provide content which is already within the "core" rules of the game itself and thus can be an expected part of a battle.

2) Armies that are majority or totally FW produced. Because of the nature of these armies being produced by FW they are, by default, "pre arranged FW content" since you typically know what faction your opponent is playing when you agree to setup a game.

3) Use of FW exclusive models in regular armies with opponents permission agreed in advance before the game.



I hold the view that the "core" of any GW game is basically the content within the Battletome/codex of any army. With the way GW releases models now any unit released and sold by GW with a dataslate/warscroll of its own is also part of the "core" of the game.

Rules expansions such as Cities of Death, Malign Sorcery etc... are all expansions to the core rules that you agree to use with your opponent prior to the game (in the case of Malign you might even decide to include which specific parts - eg Endless spells, realm spells, realm artifacts*).
In this context bringing models from the FW site into regular matches is also adding to the base content of the game - ergo its expanded content.

This has nothing to do with how powerful/limited release etc... it is. It is purely you and your opponent saying "ok we are playing 40K and I'll be bringing Tyranids and also some Imperial Armour models for Tyranids" before the match. You are informing your opponent what army you are playing and what expanded rules you are using for that army. If they agree it also allows them to bring the IA content for their own army. If they disagree then you can debate on what expanded content you are both allowing for the game or not.


I don't hold that just because I've bought FW models that I've some inherent "right" to use them in any game. They are expansion content to the core game and as such is it not only part of the game rules but also a point of wargaming manners to inform my opponent and to agree with them the use of the Imperial Armour expansion content (and the same for Sigmar stuff etc...).

I often feel that online there is a higher density of FW owning players which creates an atmosphere of automatic FW acceptance in general. Ergo most people online have and want to/do use FW stuff and thus online its seen as pretty standard. In reality a lot of people don't use/have access to FW stuff and thus might well not permit its use in games for a variety of reasons. The reasons honestly don't matter - like any wargame - you agree with your opponent(s) as to what the game will entail. Being informative up front simply saves headaches later.









*This is even noted at the start of the rules within the Malign Sorcery boxed set

I love that the one thing someone is crying OP over is a single model with lots of wounds. As someone who has been running knights for all of 8th, big models are kinda terrible in 8th. This is the boyz before toyz edition if there ever was one. If you honestly think that a 16 wound t8 model with a -1 to hit is the worst thing ever, What are you going to do when you face 3 aliotic wrathlords with double starcannons

I can only think of 1 or 2 armies who would want to use FW regularly to patch holes in their army, and those are AdMech for termites, and CSM for butcher cannons & soulburners.

In my view FW debates online get distracted by the whole "how balanced is it" argument which is a moot point. It doesn't matter if FW stuff is perfectly balanced or horribly overpowered. In my view its still adding content to the base game thus its polite and important to inform your opponent that they might well encounter things not in the codex/battletome.

The manners and good sportsmanship is the important part; the balance debate is for specific situations and is a separate debate.

 Overread wrote:
I hold the view that the "core" of any GW game is basically the content within the Battletome/codex of any army.

GW disagrees with you, and does not separate army rules into "core" and "expansion".

Rules expansions such as Cities of Death, Malign Sorcery etc... are all expansions to the core rules that you agree to use with your opponent prior to the game (in the case of Malign you might even decide to include which specific parts - eg Endless spells, realm spells, realm artifacts*).
In this context bringing models from the FW site into regular matches is also adding to the base content of the game - ergo its expanded content.

This is not at all the same. Playing a Cities of Death game adds rule changes that affect both players. They change objectives, terrain setup, mission rules, etc. It is not possible to bring a Cities of Death army while your opponent plays without Cities of Death, so of course you have to agree on the use of the expansion. FW rules do not work the same way at all. Bringing a FW unit is no different from bringing a scout squad instead of a tactical squad. It changes what is in your army, but it has no effect on your opponent's army. Therefore the only reason to consider it "optional" and demand special permission is that you feel entitled to veto your opponent's list-building choices if you don't like the units they're taking. It is no better than attempting to tell your opponent that they aren't allowed to bring any transports for their space marines because you don't like that your shooting units have to kill transports before they can get to the passengers.

In reality a lot of people don't use/have access to FW stuff and thus might well not permit its use in games for a variety of reasons.

There is no such thing as not having access to FW stuff. It is 2018, online shopping is the default for everyone over 18. You can choose not to buy FW rules/models, but don't try to claim that it isn't possible for you to do so unless you are a small child who doesn't have money of their own.

The reasons honestly don't matter - like any wargame - you agree with your opponent(s) as to what the game will entail.

Of course the reasons matter. There are legitimate reasons and there are TFG reasons for accepting or rejecting a game. You can't force someone to accept a game because you don't like their reasons, but you can certainly be honest in describing their TFG behavior as exactly that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
In my view its still adding content to the base game thus its polite and important to inform your opponent that they might well encounter things not in the codex/battletome.

But why draw the line there? I could equally reasonably argue that the original index books are the "base game" and everything else is an expansion, so you'd better be polite and ask permission before using a codex army.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I hold the view that the "core" of any GW game is basically the content within the Battletome/codex of any army.

GW disagrees with you, and does not separate army rules into "core" and "expansion"..

" It is important to note that the rules presented here are optional; they can be used , or not, in any combination that you and your table top adversaries find enjoyable"

GW agrees with me, that's from the first page of the rule segment in Malign Sorcery. The core game has always been the main rule book and codex/battletomes. Nearly every other publication that GW produces is an expansion to those core components; with the exception in recent years of models sold by GW central with Warscrolls/dataslates - as in the past those would have been in the codex/battletome but not released whereas now GW releases the rules after with the model (due to issues with 3rd parties making alternate sculpts before GW can bring them to market themselves).

 Peregrine wrote:

This is not at all the same. Playing a Cities of Death game adds rule changes that affect both players. They change objectives, terrain setup, mission rules, etc. It is not possible to bring a Cities of Death army while your opponent plays without Cities of Death, so of course you have to agree on the use of the expansion. FW rules do not work the same way at all. Bringing a FW unit is no different from bringing a scout squad instead of a tactical squad. It changes what is in your army, but it has no effect on your opponent's army. Therefore the only reason to consider it "optional" and demand special permission is that you feel entitled to veto your opponent's list-building choices if you don't like the units they're taking. It is no better than attempting to tell your opponent that they aren't allowed to bring any transports for their space marines because you don't like that your shooting units have to kill transports before they can get to the passengers.

When players agree to a game then they go into that agreement with some basic understandings which influence what they choose to take within their armies. Knowing the points value, the mission/objectives and what army the opponent is taking are all factors that come into what army they choose to field. It is part of the game process to list build to ensure that your army is going to work for the game you are going to play. As such agreeing to include units from outside of the codex/battletome in advance is part of what will influence what a player takes in their army.
It also confirms for a player that FW is allowed and thus influences their choices on what models they can take as they too can then take FW models as well. Treating the FW Warscrolls/Imperial Armour as an expansion in this form is a point of manners; you are confirming the game state for you and your opponent.

Your latter example of randomly selecting items from the codex to exclude is a separate issue as you are then drawing random lines. You are, as clarified later in this post again, fully within your right to request such a change for a game if you so wish. Of course you might find it harder to find an opponent willing to agree to such; but that's beside the point. You can draw random lines in the sand if you want. GW allows it (heck with open and narrative play they actually encourage it).

 Peregrine wrote:

There is no such thing as not having access to FW stuff. It is 2018, online shopping is the default for everyone over 18. You can choose not to buy FW rules/models, but don't try to claim that it isn't possible for you to do so unless you are a small child who doesn't have money of their own.

Far as I'm aware many overseas have to pay a lot in postage/import costs for FW models so that's in initial extra barrier right there. Plus many people are under 18 in this game. There are still those with more limited access to FW models/unit options - yes even in 2018,

 Peregrine wrote:

But why draw the line there? I could equally reasonably argue that the original index books are the "base game" and everything else is an expansion, so you'd better be polite and ask permission before using a codex army.

Yes and you've every right too.
Heck you can even play 3rd edition if you want.

The key is that you and your opponent agree to what you are both going to play in advance of the game beginning and you putting models on the table. All I'm saying is that when it comes to the inclusion of FW models its a point that is raised as an extra as opposed to accepted as the default state for a game.

Of course at the local level each club will have its own rough standards. In some FW models will be so accept that you don't generally have to ask, save for a new person joining the club, because the models are so readily accepted by the majority. At others there might be very few to no FW model use.

 Overread wrote:
" It is important to note that the rules presented here are optional; they can be used , or not, in any combination that you and your table top adversaries find enjoyable"

GW agrees with me, that's from the first page of the rule segment in Malign Sorcery. The core game has always been the main rule book and codex/battletomes. Nearly every other publication that GW produces is an expansion to those core components; with the exception in recent years of models sold by GW central with Warscrolls/dataslates - as in the past those would have been in the codex/battletome but not released whereas now GW releases the rules after with the model (due to issues with 3rd parties making alternate sculpts before GW can bring them to market themselves).

First of all, that's an AoS book and not relevant here. Second, I said they don't separate army rules. They separate out expansions for different ways of playing the game: different missions, campaigns, etc. But they don't set aside certain unit/upgrade rules and say "these are an optional expansion".

As such agreeing to include units from outside of the codex/battletome in advance is part of what will influence what a player takes in their army.

Knowing if your opponent is taking IG LoW spam or a green tide ork army influences what you take in your army. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that you need to state up front that you're taking some boyz in your army and ask for special permission to do so.

It also confirms for a player that FW is allowed and thus influences their choices on what models they can take as they too can then take FW models as well.

FW being allowed is confirmed by the fact that FW rules are part of the standard game as published by GW. No further confirmation is needed. It may be helpful to confirm that your opponent is not TFG, but I prefer to assume that by default until proven otherwise.

Far as I'm aware many overseas have to pay a lot in postage/import costs for FW models so that's in initial extra barrier right there. Plus many people are under 18 in this game. There are still those with more limited access to FW models/unit options - yes even in 2018,

"This model costs more than I want to pay for it" is not the same as not having access. Otherwise guess what, your codex costs more than I want to pay so you're only allowed to use the index rules.

And sure, there are people under 18. Most of them are people I have zero interest in playing, and therefore their concerns don't really matter to me. They can have their special starter set only game in the corner and leave the rest of us alone.

The key is that you and your opponent agree to what you are both going to play in advance of the game beginning and you putting models on the table. All I'm saying is that when it comes to the inclusion of FW models its a point that is raised as an extra as opposed to accepted as the default state for a game.

And all I'm saying is that when it comes to the inclusion of codex rules its a point that is raised as an extra as opposed to accepted as the default state for a game. Your position is no more reasonable than mine.

I'm totally fine with it. I'm one of the harder players at my GW (not tournament level or anything, but we're a relatively casual place) so if someone wants to bring Forgeworld for pretty much any reason? They can go nuts. Only thing is I need to see their rules.

StarHunter25 wrote:
There are a handful of things currently that could be considered strong from forgeworld. Most core GW units are better than what FW produces. The few that are strong are generally with armies that aren't all that hot in their own right. Space Marine Leviathan Dreads, CSM Fire Raptors. Anyone who complains about FW being overpowered then plops down 30 dark reapers with 3 Black heart ravagers is as disingenuous as it gets.

But what's stronger is insanely stronger.

All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.

I've got no problem with it but id always inform a player before showing up for a random pick up game with FW. But imo that's no different than saying something along the lines of "hey I'm practicing for a tournament so I'm going to bring a competitive list" or "I'm looking for a fun narrative game". The more communication before a random pick up game the more likely you are to have a fun enjoyable experience for both players.

Danny slag wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
There are a handful of things currently that could be considered strong from forgeworld. Most core GW units are better than what FW produces. The few that are strong are generally with armies that aren't all that hot in their own right. Space Marine Leviathan Dreads, CSM Fire Raptors. Anyone who complains about FW being overpowered then plops down 30 dark reapers with 3 Black heart ravagers is as disingenuous as it gets.

But what's stronger is insanely stronger.

All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.

Can you list FW models that appeared in recent top tournament scenes?

w1zard wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Maintaining it as a thing apart is exactly the bloody point. The perceived exclusivity and rarity of Forgeworld product is part of the appeal, and to make it more mainstream would render that aspect much less significant.

And this is also the reason why a lot of people have problems playing against forgeworld, and why forgeworld isn't totally "accepted" yet. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So how is my opponent playing a FW model I'm unfamiliar with any different from them playing a GW unit, or even entire faction I'm unfamiliar with?

Relative rarity is completely irrelevant, the process remains the same, chat to your opponent about the unfamiliar model and give the rules a once over, then get on with it. If your opponent doesn't have the official rules to hand, that's a different conversation, but making the assumption that most reasonable players will bring the appropriate rules with them, there's really no problem.

I mean, I've never played against nor read the codex for GSC, Death Guard or 1K Sons, or pretty much any of the new factions and sub factions that have been introduced since 7th, so there's absolutely no difference should I find myself opposing them than if my opponent brought a FW unit.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there's possibly more people out there with FW units in their collection than there are players of those factions in total.

I made that argument for Genestealer Cults and Cult Mechanicus for 7th.

Danny slag wrote:
All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.

Just like they spam broken codex models, therefore ban codex rules.

For those whom wont play vs forgeworld I ask the following. Would you find it to be acceptable if the forgeworld player agreed to remove his units but also asked you to remove units he disliked as well? Because that is exactly what is going on.

Forgeworld is official. It is accepted as 40k legal as long as it has a 40k unit entry. Forgeworld is owned by GW. Forgeworld models are produced to be used in either 30k or 40k games. Forgeworld is 100% legal from a RAW perspective. As long as you know this and accept that a forgeworld player can ask you to remove units in kind I don't see this as a problem.

If you do not want to remove units and still expect the FW player to do so then its best to be truthful with yourself and your perspective opponent and just say that you think your army cant handle FW units. Because once more, FW models are 100% legal RAW. Its as valid as a land raider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny slag wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
There are a handful of things currently that could be considered strong from forgeworld. Most core GW units are better than what FW produces. The few that are strong are generally with armies that aren't all that hot in their own right. Space Marine Leviathan Dreads, CSM Fire Raptors. Anyone who complains about FW being overpowered then plops down 30 dark reapers with 3 Black heart ravagers is as disingenuous as it gets.

But what's stronger is insanely stronger.

All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.

So a CSM player who includes drop pods and fire raptors is trying to spam to win a game? Its more like they are trying to patch a HUGE hole that their GW codex has left. CSM have both drop pods and proper flyers in the lore. However the codex provides none of these options. The Heldrake is no longer a true flyer as it has neither supersonic or the -1 to be hit.

Table wrote:
For those whom wont play vs forgeworld I ask the following. Would you find it to be acceptable if the forgeworld player agreed to remove his units but also asked you to remove units he disliked as well? Because that is exactly what is going on.

Forgeworld is official. It is accepted as 40k legal as long as it has a 40k unit entry. Forgeworld is owned by GW. Forgeworld models are produced to be used in either 30k or 40k games. Forgeworld is 100% legal from a RAW perspective. As long as you know this and accept that a forgeworld player can ask you to remove units in kind I don't see this as a problem.

If you do not want to remove units and still expect the FW player to do so then its best to be truthful with yourself and your perspective opponent and just say that you think your army cant handle FW units. Because once more, FW models are 100% legal RAW. Its as valid as a land raider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny slag wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
There are a handful of things currently that could be considered strong from forgeworld. Most core GW units are better than what FW produces. The few that are strong are generally with armies that aren't all that hot in their own right. Space Marine Leviathan Dreads, CSM Fire Raptors. Anyone who complains about FW being overpowered then plops down 30 dark reapers with 3 Black heart ravagers is as disingenuous as it gets.

But what's stronger is insanely stronger.

All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.

So a CSM player who includes drop pods and fire raptors is trying to spam to win a game? Its more like they are trying to patch a HUGE hole that their GW codex has left. CSM have both drop pods and proper flyers in the lore. However the codex provides none of these options. The Heldrake is no longer a true flyer as it has neither supersonic or the -1 to be hit.

Pretty much all the arguments against FW boil down to two reasons

1) FW stuff was considered overpowered in previous editions

2)People are poor.

Both are really bad excuses yet they get used frequently.

I don't have an issue with FW models, I have an issue with WAAC players and their bs.

I will play against anything if the person using it is not an arsehole.

I said maybe. Usually for a pick up game, sure. But I like to be told before the game.

Edit: and I just went and read the rest of this thread.
After seeing many of the posts here, I should probably change my answer to no. I'd rather not play against cultists.

I think this argument will never die, the anti FW crowd move the goal posts every time.

It’s not official!

So gw puts it in chapter approved

Ah ha! But only WAAC players use it!

Proven false time and again.

Ah ha! But they are OP

No more than anything else in 40k and GW main is worse.

The otherside of that is:

"I don't play forgeworld"

WHAT!!! HERE'S five reasons why you're a horrible person that I'll scream at you for 30 pages in every thread that even mentions forgeworld.

Who cares if someone you'll never meet doesn't want to play with an expansion set? You're literally not going to play them, and by screaming at them all you're making them do is dig in.

 Elbows wrote:
I said "Yes with an agreement ahead of time", but only because if you show up with a Titan, that's not a fun game.

Do you mean the titan that costs 2K points or the titans that cost way more than that?

If you're playing 4K+ games you should be used to titans showing up. If you're playing 2K or less then you don't need to worry about it.

 Formosa wrote:
I think this argument will never die, the anti FW crowd move the goal posts every time.

The simple truth is that there is variety on the opinion of if FW should be standard or expansion. Therefore the sensible approach is to, when dealing with a new person you don't know, to approach it as an expansion. Therefore you spend a few moments going "hey lets have a battle, are we including FW or not". You then both agree to include or not to include and go from either place.

The only ones that will get disgruntled are when you get a die-hard no and yes person together and neither one is willing to give in to the other. And honestly such situations are super rare. The pages and hours of arguing online is represented in the real world with a few moments of pre-game chatter that is typically amicable.

 Mmmpi wrote:
I said maybe. Usually for a pick up game, sure. But I like to be told before the game.

Edit: and I just went and read the rest of this thread.
After seeing many of the posts here, I should probably change my answer to no. I'd rather not play against cultists.

But Cultists are in the Codex.

*ba-dum-tss*

No?

Nobody?

Fine.


Anyway, I think the issue with the "cultists" as you put it isn't actually that they're frothing at the mouth over people disliking FW, it's just the direction that these arguments tend to take.

Nowadays Forgeworld is an absolutely valid part of 40k. Nothing about it requires an opponent's permission, even if it might be considered good manners to let an opponent know before you bring Forgeworld units, in case they're the sort of player that still doesn't like them. Most of the arguments that people make against Forgeworld are therefore not rooted in game rules but in the fact that they personally don't like it. It might be that they had a bad experience playing against a Forgeworld model in the past, that they heard that FW was overpowered, that it required an opponent's permission in past editions, that they don't want to play against something they're not familiar with or simply that they can't afford FW and therefore don't want their opponent to have it either.

There's nothing wrong per se about refusing to play against FW for any of those reasons - it's your game and you can choose who and what you play against. But to the player who has saved, bought and painted an FW unit because they think it's cool, a lot of those reasons will sound unreasonable.

The same thing can be said of the arguments that people make against FW in these sorts of threads. They tend to base them on the OP/unbalanced side of things, or the status of FW in past editions. The pro-FW people are able to refute these arguments fairly easily - the main studio is also capable of unbalanced and OP awfulness, and the status of FW in past editions has no relevance nowadays, for example. In effect the pro-FW posters have the locigal and "technically correct" argument. The anti-FW people are approaching it from a more emotional position and aren't prepared to be swayed by the logical argument and tend to repeat their statements or switch to the other anti-FW arguments, any of which the pro-FW people believe they have already refuted. The pro-FW people start to become irritated because they've explained how and why FW is a valid part of the game yet the anti-FW crowd don't seem to get it. The anti-FW people become irritated because they don't know why the pro-FW people are attacking them for what is effectively a personal preference and they couldn't give two hoots whether it's a technically incorrect position.

The whole thing snowballs and you get "screaming" on both sides.

Much oddness abounds.

If I stick a Leman Russ Annihilator on the table i have to give my opponent the power to refuse my allowance to use it...as FW = overpowered.

But I can't then say anything about seeing Gulliman and 4 quad lascannon Predators in a salamander army...because reasons...

 Mmmpi wrote:
The otherside of that is:

"I don't play forgeworld"

WHAT!!! HERE'S five reasons why you're a horrible person that I'll scream at you for 30 pages in every thread that even mentions forgeworld.

Who cares if someone you'll never meet doesn't want to play with an expansion set? You're literally not going to play them, and by screaming at them all you're making them do is dig in.

There's nothing wrong with you not taking Forgeworld in your own army.

But saying "I don't play AGAINST Forgeword" - okay, so why? Surely there must be a reason why not. If you won't play against FW, then you surely shouldn't also want to play GW units either - what's the difference?

And that's where the problem comes in, because people rarely have well reasoned and rational beliefs as to why they shouldn't play against FW. Of course, you can't be forced into playing against it. You can't be forced into it. But your opponent reserves every right to call you out as narrow minded if you can't justify to them why you won't play against toy soldiers with a different name to the other toy soldiers.

ValentineGames wrote:
Much oddness abounds.

If I stick a Leman Russ Annihilator on the table i have to give my opponent the power to refuse my allowance to use it...as FW = overpowered.

But I can't then say anything about seeing Gulliman and 4 quad lascannon Predators in a salamander army...because reasons...

Well as your playing a 3k game 4 quad lascannon predators arn't exactlly game breaking. Also when a LR with BC does more damage per point than a quad lascannon predator while being 3 times more efficient at killing guardsmen I don't think anyone has any basis to claim spacemarine units are OP.

But yes complaining about FW is basically saying "Thats odd I won't allow you to play with it."

Also do people actually write their lists at the table for real?
Just not playing with 500 points less by removing my FW from my marine list isn't going to take 5 minutes assuming I have enough models to swap in.

Danny slag wrote:
But what's stronger is insanely stronger.

All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.

Like what? Name me a single Forge World unit that is regularly spammed in tournament winning lists.

This isn't pre-Chapter Approved. The big offenders from early in the edition are all nigh-useless in tournament play now due to their excessive point increases. The last real hold-out was the Fire Raptor and even that got nerfed hard recently. Even though Leviathans are arguably the best Forge World unit for Space Marines, they're still pretty darned rare in tournaments. The same is true for quite a few other "power" units. Generally, what wins tournaments these days is good old plastic crack.

Hard to spam now anyway.

What I will say is my leman Russ conqueror out performs other Russes

My artemia hellhound out performs a regular hellhound

And my twin punisher vulture always does good work

None of them break the game though.

 Ezaviel wrote:
I don't have an issue with FW models, I have an issue with WAAC players and their bs.

I will play against anything if the person using it is not an arsehole.

Agreed, and well said.

 Mmmpi wrote:
The otherside of that is:

"I don't play forgeworld"

WHAT!!! HERE'S five reasons why you're a horrible person that I'll scream at you for 30 pages in every thread that even mentions forgeworld.

Who cares if someone you'll never meet doesn't want to play with an expansion set? You're literally not going to play them, and by screaming at them all you're making them do is dig in.

No the other side of that is asking why you won’t and expecting a rational answer, which so far not a single anti FW person has done, not one, in all these threads that pop up, so are you surprised that when you say “no” you get 10 people saying “why not”

NO, IT SHOULD BE ONE COMPANY SELLING THINGS UNDER ONE NAME. NOT CONFUSING PEOPLE WITH SOME SUBCOMPANY WITH DIFFERENT MATERIAL BULL CRAP


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BOYCOTT FW!

 Stormatious wrote:
NO, IT SHOULD BE ONE COMPANY SELLING THINGS UNDER ONE NAME. NOT CONFUSING PEOPLE WITH SOME SUBCOMPANY WITH DIFFERENT MATERIAL BULL CRAP


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BOYCOTT FW!

What’s with the caps lol


And it’s not even remotely confusing, I buy my battletech books from catalyst games and models from ral partha, easy peasy.

It is confusing, iv never seen a fw shop, and i cant even find nz online shops. But iv seen plenty of GW shops selling large seletions of many models but not ONE fw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
caps lock*

 Stormatious wrote:
It is confusing, iv never seen a fw shop, and i cant even find nz online shops. But iv seen plenty of GW shops selling large seletions of many models but not ONE fw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
caps lock*

The argument that "FW isn't valid because they have no store" is actually incorrect. There's a FW store in Nottingham Warhammer World. Sure, it's not practical for the majority of the world to get to, but then, at the same time, GW in general is impractical in Australasia due to shipping costs.

FW's absolute valid to get. Just buy it online.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
It is confusing, iv never seen a fw shop, and i cant even find nz online shops. But iv seen plenty of GW shops selling large seletions of many models but not ONE fw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
caps lock*

The argument that "FW isn't valid because they have no store" is actually incorrect. There's a FW store in Nottingham Warhammer World. Sure, it's not practical for the majority of the world to get to, but then, at the same time, GW in general is impractical in Australasia due to shipping costs.

FW's absolute valid to get. Just buy it online.

?? I said NZ not australia, theres a gw shop near me.

 Stormatious wrote:


?? I said NZ not australia, theres a gw shop near me.

He said Australasia, not Australia, i.e. Aus & NZ. Grouped together in this instance because you have in common the fact that GW prices are absurd in your part of the world.

You won't ever see FW in a shop aside from at Warhammer World, that new citadel thing or whatever they're calling it in Texas and an FW stand at events. The production quantities are just too small to be able to supply it to stores. I don't think you can even order it into a GW store because if they made it available to their own stores then if I recall correctly, legally they would have to allow other stockists to order it in.

FW make low volume specialist kits. The people who want it will order it from the FW website. Non-Brits unfortunately have to get it shipped around the world and potentially pay import costs and duties, but that's just one of the downsides of buying FW. It's nice to live within easy visit distance of Warhammer World!

 Stormatious wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
It is confusing, iv never seen a fw shop, and i cant even find nz online shops. But iv seen plenty of GW shops selling large seletions of many models but not ONE fw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
caps lock*

The argument that "FW isn't valid because they have no store" is actually incorrect. There's a FW store in Nottingham Warhammer World. Sure, it's not practical for the majority of the world to get to, but then, at the same time, GW in general is impractical in Australasia due to shipping costs.

FW's absolute valid to get. Just buy it online.

?? I said NZ not australia, theres a gw shop near me.

Australasia. That includes New Zealand.

 Mmmpi wrote:
The otherside of that is:

"I don't play forgeworld"

WHAT!!! HERE'S five reasons why you're a horrible person that I'll scream at you for 30 pages in every thread that even mentions forgeworld.

Who cares if someone you'll never meet doesn't want to play with an expansion set? You're literally not going to play them, and by screaming at them all you're making them do is dig in.

it is not a expansion set. it is 100% legal unit entries to the base game.

All of my armies are built with Forge World models because I think they're neat.

2nd Concordian? Stormhammers.
Arsenal World regiment? Malcadors
Slaanesh Daemons? Zarakynel

Saying "should always treat it like an expansion" is saying "your armies, Unit, don't get to play this game by default assumption"

thanks guys.

aslong as the player has the rules for the models whit them so i can read them before the game starts, i have no probs playing agasint FW.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
aslong as the player has the rules for the models whit them so i can read them before the game starts, i have no probs playing agasint FW.

Frankly, any opponent should have the rules for their units, FW or not.

Table wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
The otherside of that is:

"I don't play forgeworld"

WHAT!!! HERE'S five reasons why you're a horrible person that I'll scream at you for 30 pages in every thread that even mentions forgeworld.

Who cares if someone you'll never meet doesn't want to play with an expansion set? You're literally not going to play them, and by screaming at them all you're making them do is dig in.

it is not a expansion set. it is 100% legal unit entries to the base game.

Wait until he starts trying to argue that its a separate company again...

Haha, please tell me my Crassus is OP.
Tell me my Macharius with fewer shots than a Russ and not-updated Steel Behemoth is OP.
Tell me my Land Speeder Tempest that can’t hit a barn door and dies to a stiff breeze is OP.

“FW = BROKEN” died with the launch of 8th. People really oughtta get over it. Really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
aslong as the player has the rules for the models whit them so i can read them before the game starts, i have no probs playing agasint FW.

Frankly, any opponent should have the rules for their units, FW or not.

Yup.

Oh yeah. If you don't have rules, I'd rather not play against you.

But that's true of anything I don't know-if you bring Genestealer Cults against me without an Index, I won't play you because I don't know their rules.

Ice_can wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Much oddness abounds.

If I stick a Leman Russ Annihilator on the table i have to give my opponent the power to refuse my allowance to use it...as FW = overpowered.

But I can't then say anything about seeing Gulliman and 4 quad lascannon Predators in a salamander army...because reasons...

Well as your playing a 3k game

Quickest way to completely dodge the point I guess...
(Who even has 12 hours to play a game that size in 8th?)

 Formosa wrote:
I buy my battletech books from catalyst games and models from ral partha, easy peasy.

INSANITY!

What next Black Library books sold in none black library stores?!?!?!