With the over abundence of FW models at the recent LVO, team GW released a bit of a shocker, they would be reviewing and revamping all the rules of FW40k models. while not a major problem to the majority of the average players, this spells doom for seemingly FW dependent lists in ITC/Competitive gaming. They singled out in an interview, The Chaplain dred, the Leviathan Dread, and the Thunderfire Cannon as things which they feel are hurting the game.
Do you think GW will muck this up or will everything become IHs now? I personally feel GW will move to make anything SM related even more powerful as that is their key selling point.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: They singled out in an interview, The Chaplain dred, the Leviathan Dread, and the Thunderfire Cannon as things which they feel are hurting the game.
What interview is this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I personally feel GW will move to make anything SM related even more powerful as that is their key selling point.
You stated GW mentioned three marine units are hurting the game, but then turn around and say they'll do exactly the opposite of addressing the units in that comment?
Seems like it's GW's endless rain of free bolt-on special rules resulting in power bloat when they put zero thought into how they will affect existing units that are the real fundamental problem.
If my DKoK ever get updated rules to even just put them on par with their codex equivalent unit entries, much less all their extra special rules, I'll be shocked and ecstatic. I'm more expecting that GW will make a big show of nerfing a couple major offenders, will introduce a few new ones, add a ton of bloat, and mostly just leave the majority of FW stuff in the "eh" state its currently in.
If GW is smart they will use the FW books to create new subfactions for everyone. Anphelion relic, WL trait and hive fleet adaptation. Minotaurs, Red Scorpions, A Necron Dynasty for Khutlak the World Killer etc etc...
Vaktathi wrote: Seems like it's GW's endless rain of free bolt-on special rules resulting in power bloat when they put zero thought into how they will affect existing units that are the real fundamental problem.
If my DKoK ever get updated rules to even just put them on par with their codex equivalent unit entries, much less all their extra special rules, I'll be shocked and ecstatic. I'm more expecting that GW will make a big show of nerfing a couple major offenders, will introduce a few new ones, add a ton of bloat, and mostly just leave the majority of FW stuff in the "eh" state its currently in.
See, I would expect that. The FW Index collection wasn't made for a post Codex: AM world. I expect they've decided that now all armies have a Codex, they know what they need to account for.
Vaktathi wrote: Seems like it's GW's endless rain of free bolt-on special rules resulting in power bloat when they put zero thought into how they will affect existing units that are the real fundamental problem.
If my DKoK ever get updated rules to even just put them on par with their codex equivalent unit entries, much less all their extra special rules, I'll be shocked and ecstatic. I'm more expecting that GW will make a big show of nerfing a couple major offenders, will introduce a few new ones, add a ton of bloat, and mostly just leave the majority of FW stuff in the "eh" state its currently in.
This almost certainly, that's how every codex release it.
Hopefully, the major offenders won't offend worse than the normal issue of non-Space Marine stuff out there.
Fingers crossed that the big winners of the spin the wheel of OP Forgeworld stuff are the Marcharius, Medusa, and Vendetta , but it'll probably be some of the Knights and the Space Marine HH stuff.
Lance845 wrote: If GW is smart they will use the FW books to create new subfactions for everyone. Anphelion relic, WL trait and hive fleet adaptation. Minotaurs, Red Scorpions, A Necron Dynasty for Khutlak the World Killer etc etc...
Yeah, a leviathan is good but in an ih list it becomes phenomenal. The fact that the hellforged version will be nerfed with the loyalist version is just rubbing salt in csm players wounds. First we're not given rules to make the legions viable without souping then they nerf our fw stuff because of all the free buffs loyalists got.
I'm still hoping they fix the points on the super heavys but if they keep the prices the same on loyalist and heretic variants while the loyalists keep all their special rules making them the better version it'll be bittersweet.
I'd like them to actually make Eldar super heavies good again. They're meant to be super advanced equal or superior to imperial equivalents but their rules have sucked.
Maybe if they had a dozen variants they could have the weapons be mediocre, but d bombards etc are the only anti titan weaponz they currently have and they suck compared to warlord guns.
Their holofields are a joke and the skathact has objectively worse melta guns than imperial knights.
Yes, but they can reword what interacts with those units much like the helbrute, which is why i'm curious about the interview source.
That ruins consistency, though. It's strictly the supplements and Iron Hands getting a third part to their trait (double the vehicle damage chart).
As I said the supplements big deal is that they take doctrines, which stand alone add an intreasting degree of decision making to the tactics and turn it into well.. kind of a joke. with justo the doctrines you need to decide when to stay in devestator when to gak to tactical etc.
something like the IH doctrine makes it so that there's no choice at all. you STAY in devestator
I don't care about balance and they will fail to even remotely achieve it. I just want my krieg engineers to be able to arrive with the siege drill, that's all.
Yes, but they can reword what interacts with those units much like the helbrute, which is why i'm curious about the interview source.
That ruins consistency, though. It's strictly the supplements and Iron Hands getting a third part to their trait (double the vehicle damage chart).
As I said the supplements big deal is that they take doctrines, which stand alone add an intreasting degree of decision making to the tactics and turn it into well.. kind of a joke. with justo the doctrines you need to decide when to stay in devestator when to gak to tactical etc.
something like the IH doctrine makes it so that there's no choice at all. you STAY in devestator
Remove Super Doctrines, let your army start in the Doctrine it wants. Make a 2-3CP Strat that lets you change it. Make the Super Doctrines into army wide strats that last a turn and cost them appropriately. Seems much more balanced at that point if you ask me.
You need to calm down. Here in the UK many Astartes players are jumping to specific Chaos combos. There's plenty of powerful combinations with other armies.
Also 9th is coming soon. Things will change, and if you want more variety in the meantime play the CA19 missions.
You need to calm down. Here in the UK many Astartes players are jumping to specific Chaos combos. There's plenty of powerful combinations with other armies.
Also 9th is coming soon. Things will change, and if you want more variety in the meantime play the CA19 missions.
By "chaos combos " do you mean the Rube Goldberg devices that csm need to resort to to compete? The problem is certain factions don't need strategems to be effective but with the inordinate number of strategems they have they get pushed through the roof. And some armies can't function without strategems.
Back on topic: if gw wants to balance fw units with codex units then dreadclaws should get the first turn ds rule that loyalist drop pods have.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: With the over abundence of FW models at the recent LVO, team GW released a bit of a shocker, they would be reviewing and revamping all the rules of FW40k models. while not a major problem to the majority of the average players, this spells doom for seemingly FW dependent lists in ITC/Competitive gaming. They singled out in an interview, The Chaplain dred, the Leviathan Dread, and the Thunderfire Cannon as things which they feel are hurting the game.
Do you think GW will muck this up or will everything become IHs now? I personally feel GW will move to make anything SM related even more powerful as that is their key selling point.
This won't be doom for competitive lists any more than Castellans being nerfed. Competitive players move on and find the next busted thing.
Also I find it hard to believe GW won't accidentally make something else busted instead.
I had to vote yes only because of the absurd pts values most FW stuff is saddled with.
So either increase the power of many units to justify the pts, or lower the points by a hefty sum.
As for them F*** it up? I assume they will. And they won't "accidentally" break something else. Oh no. That'll be quite intentional. Afterall, they'll have just ruined your ____. They'll need to sell you a new batch of resin to replace it.
And then they'll feign surprise when you use your new shiny stuff to take advantage of the rules exactly as they're indicating you should.
So other than the astronomical points costs on some models what rules changes are we hoping for? I repeat my idea for dreadclaws getting the steel rain ability. Any others?
Rebalancing? Yes, definitely required, given all the Index rules were written in a pre-Codex world - and in a hurry, by a team that weren't given much notice of the need for the rules.
Nerfing units into the ground because of the LVO, without taking into account of whether the problem is due to interactions with rules outside of the Index datasheets? No, not necessarily.
As a sidebar, I disagree with the premise that FW units being common at an event is automatically a negative.
Ishagu wrote: Most Forgeworld units need significant power increases.
Only in mind of GW who wants just collectors buy 1 of each since they don't buy multiples anyway. Gamers they want to buy plastic since 100$ on plastic is worth more to GW than 100$ on FW resin.
Ishagu wrote: Most Forgeworld units need significant power increases.
Only in mind of GW who wants just collectors buy 1 of each since they don't buy multiples anyway. Gamers they want to buy plastic since 100$ on plastic is worth more to GW than 100$ on FW resin.
This again? People who use fw are gamers as well. We just see our armies as more than playing pieces and actually care about the lore and setting.
Gw wants to sell fw. Otherwise they wouldn't make the models. Why would they make something and not care if it sells?
Not Online!!! wrote: Lol @ those that think marines or csm will be most impacted, when there are whole fw armies out there.
well If I lose 1$, and someone else loses 10000$. then even if 1$ is all I have they lost more. Makes sense marines players would feel most effected by the FW turning legend or something like that.
Not Online!!! wrote: Lol @ those that think marines or csm will be most impacted, when there are whole fw armies out there.
Most people won't complain if you use your Krieg or Elysian troops as Infantry for something else though. Kinda hard to use a Relic Contemptor if they nerf it to the ground because, let's be honest, the codex Contemptor is fething awful as is and whoever let that entry slide should be ashamed of themselves.
Doesn't it depened on the writers goals? If the end goal of making a sm codex is to make it unfun to use the majority of old marine units, then it works just fine. Same with chaos marines, if the job of the codex writer was to make it so that playing a non soup list is an act of self punishment, then the last csm book is a job well done.
Something like that could be true with FW stuff too. Leviathans and chaplain dread didn't become mind breaking good at the start of 8th. they became very good when they got access to non existing when their rules were writen chaplain bonus rules and the new rules for Iron Hands. For all we know GW may want to slowly phase out FW, or leave it to do terrain, big collector models, stuff for necromunda and blood bowl etc.
I think that whilst the rules do need a re-write and re-balance I fear they will just change what is good and what is not. I don't think they will do this in a calculating profit driven way, just in a nerf the good stuff, buff the bad stuff kind of way. When they do this they have a tendancy to alter things too much, multiple little adjustment are much better than single large ones but that is the problem of going with a printed ruleset over an living digital one.
With regard to particular units mentioned (I own and have used all of them):
The Chappy dread has always been good but expensive, dropping its points and giving it litanies whilst still keeping its old aura was just stupid, needs uping in points and possibly limited access to litanies or its own special one to replicate its old aura, its just all round to good atm.
The Leviathan is expensive! you pay alot of points for a slow short ranged model, it needs to be deadly and it is. It needs to survivable and it is. The problem arises when you add the basic dreadnought strats to it (and Iron hand CT but thats another issue), halving damage is fine on a 8W 3+ save model but not on a 14W 2+4++ model. The strats are the problem not really the basic rules, you could happily up the cost of the storm cannons as they are the cheapest and best of all the weapon (GW has a tendancy to undercost multishot weapons for some reason despite their performance against everything). Perhaps some rule preventing it from using normal dread strats.
The thunderfire is just too good, it was good in the previous codex and then they gave it a 2+ save and 2+ BS for no cost increase, doubled the techmarine's wounds and left the price the same. Add to that the combination of a strat that slows down enemies and one that lets you fire twice....... just silly.
Not Online!!! wrote: Lol @ those that think marines or csm will be most impacted, when there are whole fw armies out there.
Most people won't complain if you use your Krieg or Elysian troops as Infantry for something else though. Kinda hard to use a Relic Contemptor if they nerf it to the ground because, let's be honest, the codex Contemptor is fething awful as is and whoever let that entry slide should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh, no disagreements for me, but what about Corsairs? Or R&H with more distinct ruleset/ units?
And for the general ruleswriting , they just futureproofed their recurring sales.
I have to admit to only look at it from an IG perspective, but I think there is quite a bit of room for rebalancing.
I really like the look of the Macharius and Malcador tanks and the artillery pieces, it would be nice if they would fit better in between the Leman Russ and Baneblades regarding their power/cost ratio, so that one might see more mixed vehicle pools.
Also even if I don't play them, the Death Korps has such a cool look and interesting background and really deserve to be brought up to the standard regiments, were they are lacking.
And R&H also deserve some love in my personal opinion.
Not Online!!! wrote: Lol @ those that think marines or csm will be most impacted, when there are whole fw armies out there.
Most people won't complain if you use your Krieg or Elysian troops as Infantry for something else though. Kinda hard to use a Relic Contemptor if they nerf it to the ground because, let's be honest, the codex Contemptor is fething awful as is and whoever let that entry slide should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh, no disagreements for me, but what about Corsairs? Or R&H with more distinct ruleset/ units?
And for the general ruleswriting , they just futureproofed their recurring sales.
You've probably heard me ramble about how I would handle Renegade Marine Chapters. If not I'll repeat it even though it'll likely annoy everyone else. I would basically handle R&H the same way: once you switch out the keywords and all that fun stuff, you lose your Regiment's regular special units, and you get a small slew of new ones.
TBF, i fully expect nothing to happen to R&H and somewhere this summer gw thrwoing out another dex for Traitor guard / lost and the damned on the basis off their Traitorguard models from BSF.
completely missing the point of the army.
Also on the krieg side, they axed an whole list (krieg had 2 one for line battles and one for assault i believe), which just doesn't exist anymore both with unique mechanics.
Not Online!!! wrote: Lol @ those that think marines or csm will be most impacted, when there are whole fw armies out there.
Most people won't complain if you use your Krieg or Elysian troops as Infantry for something else though. Kinda hard to use a Relic Contemptor if they nerf it to the ground because, let's be honest, the codex Contemptor is fething awful as is and whoever let that entry slide should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh, no disagreements for me, but what about Corsairs? Or R&H with more distinct ruleset/ units?
And for the general ruleswriting , they just futureproofed their recurring sales.
You've probably heard me ramble about how I would handle Renegade Marine Chapters. If not I'll repeat it even though it'll likely annoy everyone else. I would basically handle R&H the same way: once you switch out the keywords and all that fun stuff, you lose your Regiment's regular special units, and you get a small slew of new ones.
Then you have no idea what R&H was and represents and thank god you are not designing it.
There is no Legends-equivalent for Forge World. Not sure it's even worth it to try and re-do matched-play balanced rules for OOP Forge World stuff, even if it just for Legends.
More likely, they just disappear, would be my guess.
There is no Legends-equivalent for Forge World. Not sure it's even worth it to try and re-do matched-play balanced rules for OOP Forge World stuff, even if it just for Legends.
More likely, they just disappear, would be my guess.
They'll probably start a legends entry for fw. It's just online so the cost would be minimal. They are probably holding off for these books. Might be able to sell a few more old ia books for people running oop models.
Yes, FW needs to be addressed across the board, but, if they do it properly then the vast majority of stuff will get improved, rather than nerfed. Which will be good imo.
Yes, a couple of units need to be looked at in relation to their available rules, but I wouldn’t expect too heavy a nerf as someone taking a unit in a “non-competitive” Chapter will be a concern for GW.
Things like the Levi dread might just see a points increase on the cannons, as opposed to the base unit for example.
GW balances things through giant pendulum swings. They'll see the effects these units are having, not realise that it's the Iron Hands causing this issue, and "balance" them for everyone.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I hope so. I own a Plague Hulk and a Blight Drone, both are very similar to GW units - but cost 80points more for weaker weaponry.
I own both Hierodules, and cannot fathom a world in which either are useful, so I sympathise.
The Hierodules are well over 400 points each, and slightly tougher than a Tyrannofex.
Unfortunately even dropping their points by 150-200 wouldn't make them useful, it'd just make them cheaper. They need to do serious revisions to the units themselves, not just tweak their points values (although sometimes it is points values, like the Malanthrope, a unit that can hardly fight and has a tiny, tiny aura jumping to 120 points from 90).
I don't own any FW stuff, but the fact that someone at GW thought it was a good idea to price a twin psycannon turret as if it was a hvy psycannon on a razorback is maybe not comperable, because of the difference in money cost of a turret and a hierodul, but still funny. At least to me.
They are just gonna copy-paste all the index entries, less the ones whose models were discontinued, with the same pts and everything. Except the Leviathan and Chaplain Dread which will see drastic pts increases. And DKoK infantry which will inexplicably go up to 55 pts per model.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: They are just gonna copy-paste all the index entries, less the ones whose models were discontinued, with the same pts and everything. Except the Leviathan and Chaplain Dread which will see drastic pts increases. And DKoK infantry which will inexplicably go up to 55 pts per model.
Not Online!!! wrote: Lol @ those that think marines or csm will be most impacted, when there are whole fw armies out there.
Most people won't complain if you use your Krieg or Elysian troops as Infantry for something else though. Kinda hard to use a Relic Contemptor if they nerf it to the ground because, let's be honest, the codex Contemptor is fething awful as is and whoever let that entry slide should be ashamed of themselves.
Custodes are in a weird spot though because they don't just have more FW options than they do plastic ones, they're practically relying on FW to make them viable at all because they have so few plastic kits out.
Dudeface wrote: We also got chaos marines 2.0, space marines 1.0 and the entirety of every book in 8th.
Not really. We got CSM 1.5, PA was more CSM 2.0 than the codex that got released last year. It wasn't like after last year's codex people were suddenly 'Hmm, Night lords...' or 'omg, Emperor's Children...', PA at least caused a conversation about them, even if it ultimately ended up coming back around to 'Yeah, still Alpha Legion...'.
Iron Hands are the biggest offender for sure. But lets not stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact Space Marines as a whole right now are incredibly strong even without all the supplements. For instsnce the Thunderfire cannon and strat are in the base codex.
pretty much this, so the question really is will they fix / nerf the right units, I'm leaning towards not really, and of course no Corsairs cos fup you Xenos dinks no fun subfactions for you
Iron Hands are the biggest offender for sure. But lets not stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact Space Marines as a whole right now are incredibly strong even without all the supplements. For instsnce the Thunderfire cannon and strat are in the base codex.
only before the new codex and rules. marines weren't really that good. So the nerfs are suppose to take us back to that, where the majority of players have an army on avarge weaker then other armies? I guess it would be nice for non marine player, but why should the minority of players have a good time playing?
I hope they do get some buffs with the nerfs. There are plenty of units with amazing models that are terrible. my fav eldar model is the Wraithseer but since I have been playing I cannot recall it ever being good.
my custom stompas have always been bad. I don't need them being the best model but would be fun to throw em down against imeprial knight lists and have a chance. same for squigoths.
I also woudl love to see tau tetras see play along with all the cool necron fw units that i have literally never seen on a tabletop so i am assuming they are bad.
Iron Hands are the biggest offender for sure. But lets not stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact Space Marines as a whole right now are incredibly strong even without all the supplements. For instsnce the Thunderfire cannon and strat are in the base codex.
It's like when Ynnari was the biggest offender and they nerfed Shining Spears.
Iron Hands are the biggest offender for sure. But lets not stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact Space Marines as a whole right now are incredibly strong even without all the supplements. For instsnce the Thunderfire cannon and strat are in the base codex.
And now the Thunderfire is actually good. Shocker I know. Complain about Stratagems all you want, but units need to be viable without them at least. Thunderfire Cannons do that and thank goodness.
Not Online!!! wrote: Lol @ those that think marines or csm will be most impacted, when there are whole fw armies out there.
Most people won't complain if you use your Krieg or Elysian troops as Infantry for something else though. Kinda hard to use a Relic Contemptor if they nerf it to the ground because, let's be honest, the codex Contemptor is fething awful as is and whoever let that entry slide should be ashamed of themselves.
Custodes are in a weird spot though because they don't just have more FW options than they do plastic ones, they're practically relying on FW to make them viable at all because they have so few plastic kits out.
Custodes will suffer the most, absolutely. They get good Dreads (well one good and one that's simply better than the codex Contemptor), a Troop choice that can actually contribute to a fight from afar so that holding objectives isn't a hassle, and more importantly gain weapons access and vehicles to tackle larger targets. Theoretically you could run Custodes pure simply thanks to FW if it weren't for the poor as feth core rules.
Iron Hands are the biggest offender for sure. But lets not stick our heads in the sand and ignore the fact Space Marines as a whole right now are incredibly strong even without all the supplements. For instsnce the Thunderfire cannon and strat are in the base codex.
And now the Thunderfire is actually good. Shocker I know. Complain about Stratagems all you want, but units need to be viable without them at least. Thunderfire Cannons do that and thank goodness.
Not Online!!! wrote: Lol @ those that think marines or csm will be most impacted, when there are whole fw armies out there.
Most people won't complain if you use your Krieg or Elysian troops as Infantry for something else though. Kinda hard to use a Relic Contemptor if they nerf it to the ground because, let's be honest, the codex Contemptor is fething awful as is and whoever let that entry slide should be ashamed of themselves.
Custodes are in a weird spot though because they don't just have more FW options than they do plastic ones, they're practically relying on FW to make them viable at all because they have so few plastic kits out.
Custodes will suffer the most, absolutely. They get good Dreads (well one good and one that's simply better than the codex Contemptor), a Troop choice that can actually contribute to a fight from afar so that holding objectives isn't a hassle, and more importantly gain weapons access and vehicles to tackle larger targets. Theoretically you could run Custodes pure simply thanks to FW if it weren't for the poor as feth core rules.
Um the thunderfire cannon was already amazing before the buffs. The ability to just halve a units movement is insane. Its made even more powerful by the fact that there is almost zero way to play around it. The gun just had to hit you not wound just hit. Hide outside of LOS? Doesn't matter can still hit you. Out range it? Good luck it has a 60in range. And then they went and added all the buffs. Most of the Marine Codex wasn't in even a remotely as bad of a place as the internet whining made it out to be. They were solidly upper middle tier. Also does no one else think that it might be a sign that your codex is too strong when all of 8th edition has been dominated by some form of soup allies. But all of the sudden your Codex is the only codex that can compete on its own? I'm ok with stuff being strong. Strong stuff is good for the game. Blatantly broken on the other hand is not good for the game.
The hype was Thousand Sons were going to be amazing, and no word what so ever on Grey Knights, honestly i feel bad for my doppelgangers they deserved better.
Grey Knights don't have anything to complain about, and nothing to worry about.
Space Marines earned this moment in the sun but GW is going to curb stomp them soon enough, and they are rarely even handed about this type of
back on topic, i'd glady fork over some cash if FWs ruleset was brought in line with the GW products, so i'm cautiously optimistic
It's a two fold answer, yes they need re balancing, but GW is about as bad as a company can be at balancing anything so I feel like all this attempt will show is how terrible they are at such a venture.
I like to think of Forge World and GW headquarters as rival neighborhoods, and when one goes over to the other- they all grab baseball bats and knuckledusters and switchblades and start making veiled threats about coming into their neighborhoods.
Then, Duncan comes out dressed like Michael Jackson and they all dance like the "Beat It" music video.
All that aside, the idea of GW 'balancing' anything seems about as reliable as a remake of Airwolf starring Kobe Bryant.
We also got chaos marines 2.0, space marines 1.0 and the entirety of every book in 8th.
Which were both great.
Space Marines 1.0 had one army in the previous LVO shadow round, but fail to go through to the final 8. That's about average what any given book out of around 16 or so Codexes should do. Add shock assault and bolter drill that came after, and the CA 2019 point drops, and the Marine Codex 1.0 is spot on where Marines should be. Even just 1.0 with the Faith & Fury strats probably makes it a slightly too powerful army compared to the majority of the field.
Chaos 2.0 with Faith & Fury would (and is) some of the most broken stuff in the game outside of Marines. But Chaos 2.0, with perhaps book-locked spells like Eldar and perhaps 5 pt Cultists and 9-10 point Plaguebearers would hit the average power of the books we have (outside of new broken Marines and Eldar broken thanks to copy&paste marine rules).
We also got chaos marines 2.0, space marines 1.0 and the entirety of every book in 8th.
Which were both great.
Space Marines 1.0 had one army in the previous LVO shadow round, but fail to go through to the final 8. That's about average what any given book out of around 16 or so Codexes should do. Add shock assault and bolter drill that came after, and the CA 2019 point drops, and the Marine Codex 1.0 is spot on where Marines should be. Even just 1.0 with the Faith & Fury strats probably makes it a slightly too powerful army compared to the majority of the field.
Chaos 2.0 with Faith & Fury would (and is) some of the most broken stuff in the game outside of Marines. But Chaos 2.0, with perhaps book-locked spells like Eldar and perhaps 5 pt Cultists and 9-10 point Plaguebearers would hit the average power of the books we have (outside of new broken Marines and Eldar broken thanks to copy&paste marine rules).
We also got chaos marines 2.0, space marines 1.0 and the entirety of every book in 8th.
Which were both great.
Space Marines 1.0 had one army in the previous LVO shadow round, but fail to go through to the final 8. That's about average what any given book out of around 16 or so Codexes should do. Add shock assault and bolter drill that came after, and the CA 2019 point drops, and the Marine Codex 1.0 is spot on where Marines should be. Even just 1.0 with the Faith & Fury strats probably makes it a slightly too powerful army compared to the majority of the field.
Chaos 2.0 with Faith & Fury would (and is) some of the most broken stuff in the game outside of Marines. But Chaos 2.0, with perhaps book-locked spells like Eldar and perhaps 5 pt Cultists and 9-10 point Plaguebearers would hit the average power of the books we have (outside of new broken Marines and Eldar broken thanks to copy&paste marine rules).
Chaos relies, especially in the case of CSM on two gimmicks to even get units up to an acceptable value.
That imo makes not for a b balanced book, same with tau and their one decent build.
Yoyoyo wrote: Iron Hands Leviathan wound-passing qualifies as a gimmick fairly easily too. It's a problem that goes beyond any one faction.
Absolutely.
However leviathans are not even required for IH, which goes back to the point allready made, not everyone has equal long pikes because gw once again pulled an 180 in ruledesign...
Not Online!!! wrote: Lol @ those that think marines or csm will be most impacted, when there are whole fw armies out there.
Most people won't complain if you use your Krieg or Elysian troops as Infantry for something else though. Kinda hard to use a Relic Contemptor if they nerf it to the ground because, let's be honest, the codex Contemptor is fething awful as is and whoever let that entry slide should be ashamed of themselves.
Custodes are in a weird spot though because they don't just have more FW options than they do plastic ones, they're practically relying on FW to make them viable at all because they have so few plastic kits out.
Custodes will suffer the most, absolutely. They get good Dreads (well one good and one that's simply better than the codex Contemptor), a Troop choice that can actually contribute to a fight from afar so that holding objectives isn't a hassle, and more importantly gain weapons access and vehicles to tackle larger targets. Theoretically you could run Custodes pure simply thanks to FW if it weren't for the poor as feth core rules.
That is actually what I was trying to get at, more or less. Everything Custodes have in the base codex is designed to go forward into melee and their base shooting is really bad. That can work right up to the point where you want to play scenario with them, then you have a problem because all of their good units for holding objectives are FW.
...and they're probably still tad overpriced even after the CA point cuts. There are a few too many guns in this game that will casually wipe a T5 W3 2+ 4++ unit for Custodian Guard to cost 50+ points.
Shoulda been 50 points for shield version 45 for spear. Wardens can be 50pts with axe.
Allaurus gain +1 wound, deep strike, and a crappy gun so they should be 58ish
Aquillons should be 65ish with the fist and bolter 72 with the flamer.
Bikes should be 70.
Vexilla should be 65 base. 72 for termy armor.
sag guard should be 47-50 apiece
Venetari should be 55 apiece for pistol version.
Pallas should be 85 points because while its more durable than a landspeeder, it really doesn't do much dmg.
Caladius with accelerator should be 200 and with heavy adrathic should be 185.
The smaller dreads should all be priced just like a space marine venerable dread base, but have their gear prices adjusted and the larger one should cost like a Redemptor dread with +25 points for better BS/WS/Sv values.
The guard varients shouldn't exist as separate units, they should just be weapon options on the normal custodian guard squads.
Custodes also need to be able to Re-roll 1's in the charge phase and gain +1 FNP (so wardens have a 5+++).
Do this and we'll be caught up with the rest of the power creep.
I would settle for these major changes in Custodes:
Strat for re-roll charges 1 CP
Making Swords Pistol 3 12"
and makieaxes spears assault 4
making melta spears optional for regular guard
make all Land Raider variants possible for Venerable Status. I'd (love to see this one)
Make tajann S6 so he hits at S12. I'm sick of seeing T6s shake off hits by the single greatest living warrior in the imperium. (Actually this is now up for debate, because Sly/Rowboat)but I'm gibing it to the guy that is over a centurey old and was a watcher of the throne for 22 years.
I said that FW do need balancing, but not "OMG they're so OP". Just simply that many FW units are written as if it's still Index days, and many of them don't share numerous rules updates with later codices, etc.
While errata/FAQs occasionally tackle this stuff, a lot of the units are just out of touch with the current game. Many have ridiculous points costs for their performance (as in, they cost too much). With everything from normal GW books dropping points so often, many FW units barely get a glance or adjustment from GW, so many have been left behind.
Entire units like the traitor guard, etc. need to be set aside or updated properly - one of the two. Not left to flounder in a grey area.
I think GW and Forge World really, REALLY need to sit down and get on the same sheet of music, together. There's no reason that these rules for the same game should be written by different teams or at completely different times.
As it stands now, quite a few Forge World models are what I would describe as "overpriced shelf models". I'm not sure which ones are 'overpowered', but I'd certainly like to know- that'd be at least something from Forge World that almost justifies its absurd price point for being inferior materials and sculpts.
Now, I won't sit here and say I've got experience with all the Forge World models, because I've never even seen most of them in person. But, based on my own experience with Loyalist Marines and Chaos Marines:
Forge World models cost more points than other units that can do nearly the same thing or better, all while coming with a price tag that would let me buy two of those equal/better units and I don't need to buy another book to use it.
The only reasons I've ever had to use Forge World models in Warhammer 40k?
-they look cool
-I bought it for Horus Heresy but I rarely get to play, so I use it in 40k
For the money GW is asking for Forge World models, not to mention the frustration that comes with having to deal with poor quality control- some real balancing and incentive might be required if they want to actually sell those overpriced resin toys.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I think GW and Forge World really, REALLY need to sit down and get on the same sheet of music, together. There's no reason that these rules for the same game should be written by different teams or at completely different times.
As it stands now, quite a few Forge World models are what I would describe as "overpriced shelf models". I'm not sure which ones are 'overpowered', but I'd certainly like to know- that'd be at least something from Forge World that almost justifies its absurd price point for being inferior materials and sculpts.
Now, I won't sit here and say I've got experience with all the Forge World models, because I've never even seen most of them in person. But, based on my own experience with Loyalist Marines and Chaos Marines:
Forge World models cost more points than other units that can do nearly the same thing or better, all while coming with a price tag that would let me buy two of those equal/better units and I don't need to buy another book to use it.
The only reasons I've ever had to use Forge World models in Warhammer 40k?
-they look cool
-I bought it for Horus Heresy but I rarely get to play, so I use it in 40k
For the money GW is asking for Forge World models, not to mention the frustration that comes with having to deal with poor quality control- some real balancing and incentive might be required if they want to actually sell those overpriced resin toys.
Dude, the whole of 8th the GW team did write the rules for FW units
Not Online!!! wrote: Dude, the whole of 8th the GW team did write the rules for FW units
...before, or after several rounds at Bugman's?
But then again, this is a thread about GW 'balancing' something... and I trust them with balance about as much as I trust a wet fart in khakis.
Due to their own words, they want to
The Warhammer 40,000 Studio – those industrious people behind rulebooks, codexes and expansions like the Psychic Awakening books – are hard at work on a new series of tomes that will cover the range of Warhammer 40,000 miniatures Forge World produce. These books will include updated datasheets and army rules that give these glorious models abilities and benefits that are comparable to the rest of the forces in the game.
which can mean :
A: slightly points updated and soon to be legends.
I just question whether they understand their own game enough to make significant and worthwhile changes.
I mean, take something as simple as the Macharius. It has never been as powerful as just taking two Russes for the same points cost. Now you can get roughly 2.6 Russes (basic Russ) for the cost of a basic Macharius. And the advantage for paying nearly 3x the cost of a basic Russ is 2D6 shots rather than 1D6, so still a super swingy gun, and D6 damage rather than D3, so on average more, but still just as capable of causing 1 damage as it is 6. And it's a LOW slot.
This actually makes more sense than the others, and that's not me being a pessimist...
Disclaimer:
Spoiler:
I get quite a few interesting rumors fed to me from an unnamed source that's rather close to GW's people, not some insider in the board meetings or creative process, not some big decision-maker or super-important creative force... but rather one of the people who knows the people that are aware of some of the things happening but aren't supposed to tell anyone. And if you'd rather be skeptical, say I made it up (or that my pal made it up, or his pal made it up), by all means- I could hardly blame you, no reason for you to believe me. I can't even point to any kind of track record and say "lookie here, where I was right, see!" because I can't remember which things I've 'predicted' but it hasn't been many- I sometimes forget, or hear about things a couple of years before they happen and forget about them until it's announced officially, and I don't usually mention them because things often do change.
Supposedly, the rumors and whispers in dark corners is that Forge World is limiting their products considerably once Horus Heresy wraps up. Now, I've also heard that Horus Heresy isn't going to be entirely "finished and gone", there's a possibility that it 'restarts' again with a new rules update or something and some of the 'missing' models coming out the second time around- but as I was told, more stuff is going to GW proper, and Forge World will be more focused on specialist games and very specific items like titans, etc.
With that being said, I wouldn't be shocked at all if quite a lot of the Forge World exclusives get one last rushed 'review' before they steadily start making their way onto the Legends lists until a newer, shinier, retooled and overpriced GW version comes along.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I just question whether they understand their own game enough to make significant and worthwhile changes.
I mean, take something as simple as the Macharius. It has never been as powerful as just taking two Russes for the same points cost. Now you can get roughly 2.6 Russes (basic Russ) for the cost of a basic Macharius. And the advantage for paying nearly 3x the cost of a basic Russ is 2D6 shots rather than 1D6, so still a super swingy gun, and D6 damage rather than D3, so on average more, but still just as capable of causing 1 damage as it is 6. And it's a LOW slot.
Why would I ever bring one?
They have to address stuff like this.
Even funnier is the malcador. 2 leman russes price wise with the firepower of 1/2
This actually makes more sense than the others, and that's not me being a pessimist...
Disclaimer:
Spoiler:
I get quite a few interesting rumors fed to me from an unnamed source that's rather close to GW's people, not some insider in the board meetings or creative process, not some big decision-maker or super-important creative force... but rather one of the people who knows the people that are aware of some of the things happening but aren't supposed to tell anyone. And if you'd rather be skeptical, say I made it up (or that my pal made it up, or his pal made it up), by all means- I could hardly blame you, no reason for you to believe me. I can't even point to any kind of track record and say "lookie here, where I was right, see!" because I can't remember which things I've 'predicted' but it hasn't been many- I sometimes forget, or hear about things a couple of years before they happen and forget about them until it's announced officially, and I don't usually mention them because things often do change.
Supposedly, the rumors and whispers in dark corners is that Forge World is limiting their products considerably once Horus Heresy wraps up. Now, I've also heard that Horus Heresy isn't going to be entirely "finished and gone", there's a possibility that it 'restarts' again with a new rules update or something and some of the 'missing' models coming out the second time around- but as I was told, more stuff is going to GW proper, and Forge World will be more focused on specialist games and very specific items like titans, etc.
With that being said, I wouldn't be shocked at all if quite a lot of the Forge World exclusives get one last rushed 'review' before they steadily start making their way onto the Legends lists until a newer, shinier, retooled and overpriced GW version comes along.
you forgot to add , not in the spirit of the identity of the faction it replaces.
(R&H vs the new traitor guard f.e, nothing aginst traitor gurad but they were only a "fracture" of what R&H was.)
you forgot to add , not in the spirit of the identity of the faction it replaces.
(R&H vs the new traitor guard f.e, nothing aginst traitor gurad but they were only a "fracture" of what R&H was.)
Yeah, there's always that.
"Sorry we removed support for Tau and quit making them entirely, but the Kroot are still around in Kill-Team and this exlcusive Kroot Shaper model is standing on a drone! TAU ARE BACK!"
Sorry, but with GW's shoddy rules writing, they can barely balance what is in the main codexes by themselves, let alone adding all the FW units. Yes, they are cool, but there is always that one unit that slips through the cracks and outperforms anything in the codex to a ridiculous degree.
The Levi dread is the best example recently. Yeah, it's a good dread, but when coupled with the IH stats, it becomes insane. You can argue that it is an Iron Hands problem, but is it really? Would people really lose their crap if the same rules were applied to an 8 wound venerable Dreadnought from the codex? I doubt it. GW balance within the codex, they don't consider FW. Competitive events should take this into consideration and remove FW to prevent these crazy outliers. Iron Hands would still have been good, no question, but not having Levi Dreads to use the crazy strats or Chaplain Dreads, the lists would have been more manageable.
The issue is that they don't consider FW. It's not that the FW stuff needs to go away. It needs to be brought into the fold of the normal game and considered like everything else.
Matched play legal rules that Tournament/Event organisers can opt out of, if they want to. Literally the definition of Legends/FW.
Forgeworld is about as optional as blood angels are.
Sure.
Everything is optional in 40K. Forgeworld. Blood Angels. Missions. Points.
Not sure why that's news to anyone.
Plenty of events don't use Forgeworld. Perhaps some don't use Blood Angels. Others might throw the Legends stuff in still, as it's still fully matched-play legal after all. Go do what works for you.
Hell, even stuff like terrain, detachments, command points, stratagems, etc.. is all grouped under the optional!!! "advanced rules" section of 40k and explicitly not recommended for some gamers.
I trust that GW will consider a few factors. First, many FW models are not really intended for 40K Matched Play due to their sheer size etc. I doubt that anybody intended for Warhounds etc to be on a Matched Play table. Second, many of the smaller ones (Dreads) were designed for 30K, which is a different game. Third, some of the smaller ones are simply better than what is available in the mainstream Codexes/stores. Finally, I suspect that the lion share of "FW" models out there are not actually produced by FW. If they were ignorant of that before I think that is is impossible now.
I think they have three options:
COA 1 - State up front that FW models are "not intended for Matched Play." I would feel bad for some DKoK players, but that's about it.
COA 2 - Nerf the "smaller" FW models. The Dreadnought range in particular absolutely needs to reworked. Cast a few of them into Legends (Chaplain Dreads etc)
COA 3 (Variant of COA 2) - Have a main FW Index with "Not Intended for Matched Play" and bring some of the models over into the mainline GW line. Produce a plastic Leviathan with reworked rules. It becomes more accessible, they get a profit and future Codex writers ensure that they incorporate it and Deredos's etc into their design.
All of these have drawbacks, but the status quo is worse. The simplest is COA 1. Short term tears, to be sure, but good for the health of the game. I hope that they do COA 3.
This actually makes more sense than the others, and that's not me being a pessimist...
Disclaimer:
Spoiler:
I get quite a few interesting rumors fed to me from an unnamed source that's rather close to GW's people, not some insider in the board meetings or creative process, not some big decision-maker or super-important creative force... but rather one of the people who knows the people that are aware of some of the things happening but aren't supposed to tell anyone. And if you'd rather be skeptical, say I made it up (or that my pal made it up, or his pal made it up), by all means- I could hardly blame you, no reason for you to believe me. I can't even point to any kind of track record and say "lookie here, where I was right, see!" because I can't remember which things I've 'predicted' but it hasn't been many- I sometimes forget, or hear about things a couple of years before they happen and forget about them until it's announced officially, and I don't usually mention them because things often do change.
Supposedly, the rumors and whispers in dark corners is that Forge World is limiting their products considerably once Horus Heresy wraps up. Now, I've also heard that Horus Heresy isn't going to be entirely "finished and gone", there's a possibility that it 'restarts' again with a new rules update or something and some of the 'missing' models coming out the second time around- but as I was told, more stuff is going to GW proper, and Forge World will be more focused on specialist games and very specific items like titans, etc.
With that being said, I wouldn't be shocked at all if quite a lot of the Forge World exclusives get one last rushed 'review' before they steadily start making their way onto the Legends lists until a newer, shinier, retooled and overpriced GW version comes along.
GW have said almost exactly the opposite, that “everyone will be playing Heresy” rather than it dying.
Matched play legal rules that Tournament/Event organisers can opt out of, if they want to. Literally the definition of Legends/FW.
Forgeworld is about as optional as blood angels are.
Sure.
Everything is optional in 40K. Forgeworld. Blood Angels. Missions. Points.
Not sure why that's news to anyone.
Plenty of events don't use Forgeworld. Perhaps some don't use Blood Angels. Others might throw the Legends stuff in still, as it's still fully matched-play legal after all. Go do what works for you.
Hell, even stuff like terrain, detachments, command points, stratagems, etc.. is all grouped under the optional!!! "advanced rules" section of 40k and explicitly not recommended for some gamers.
Because you stated legends and forgeworld have the same validity which is wrong. GW themselves advise not allowing legends for tournaments, forgeworld is as valid as any currently supported core product.
Forgeworld products are not legends, and most tournaments allow them. FW is OP is an outdated mindset, it's not Forgeworlds problem anymore, look at the TF cannon FFS.
MiguelFelstone wrote: Forgeworld products are not legends, and most tournaments allow them. FW is OP is an outdated mindset, it's not Forgeworlds problem anymore, look at the TF cannon FFS.
You can't look at one regular unit as hypothesis as to why FW is OK, it's not. They are either underpointed or vastly overpointed, and often interact with Codex strategems etc with unintended consequences (see IH Leviathan as basically unkillable)
Sorry, but with GW's shoddy rules writing, they can barely balance what is in the main codexes by themselves, let alone adding all the FW units. Yes, they are cool, but there is always that one unit that slips through the cracks and outperforms anything in the codex to a ridiculous degree.
The Levi dread is the best example recently. Yeah, it's a good dread, but when coupled with the IH stats, it becomes insane. You can argue that it is an Iron Hands problem, but is it really? Would people really lose their crap if the same rules were applied to an 8 wound venerable Dreadnought from the codex? I doubt it. GW balance within the codex, they don't consider FW. Competitive events should take this into consideration and remove FW to prevent these crazy outliers. Iron Hands would still have been good, no question, but not having Levi Dreads to use the crazy strats or Chaplain Dreads, the lists would have been more manageable.
Iron Hands ARE the problem, seeing that not all the topping Iron Hands use the Levi. In fact, the ones with none or one vastly outnumber the ones using two or three so far. Also nobody cares about Ven Dreads because you can just do all that stuff to the Primaris Dread for example.
Because you stated legends and forgeworld have the same validity which is wrong. GW themselves advise not allowing legends for tournaments, forgeworld is as valid as any currently supported core product.
Both are fully legal for, quote "open, narrative and matched play games, with full points provided to help you balance your games".
Everything else is optional. GW doesn't recommend a lot of things for tournaments. They don't recommend chess clocks for example, but do recommend eternal war missions.
But nothing in the actual matched play rules forces TOs to use these rules. Nothing in the actual matched play rules prevents TOs from allowing these rules either.
MiguelFelstone wrote: Forgeworld products are not legends, and most tournaments allow them. FW is OP is an outdated mindset, it's not Forgeworlds problem anymore, look at the TF cannon FFS.
You can't look at one regular unit as hypothesis as to why FW is OK, it's not. They are either underpointed or vastly overpointed, and often interact with Codex strategems etc with unintended consequences (see IH Leviathan as basically unkillable)
You just used the Leviathan as an example, so i'll bite: What's the issue with this unit? Is it FW or GW? Would the Leviathan even be a factor without the GWSM codices? Here's a clue - IRON HANDS
The most powerful unit's in the game are GW, FW doesn't even break into the top 10, and the only reason any of them are in the top 20 is because of GW's rules, not FW.
TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
For most armies, Forgeworld adds a couple of redundant stuff that in most cases is just some GW model but +++ (Like leviathans, deredeos, etc...) . In the case of Krieg and others, they are a full FW army so they are needed.
And in the case of adeptus custodes , banning forgeworld is literally killing the faction. They can't work without Forgeworld, not on a power level but on a tactical level. They are an incomplete army.
Because you stated legends and forgeworld have the same validity which is wrong. GW themselves advise not allowing legends for tournaments, forgeworld is as valid as any currently supported core product.
Both are fully legal for, quote "open, narrative and matched play games, with full points provided to help you balance your games".
Everything else is optional. GW doesn't recommend a lot of things for tournaments. They don't recommend chess clocks for example, but do recommend eternal war missions.
But nothing in the actual matched play rules forces TOs to use these rules. Nothing in the actual matched play rules prevents TOs from allowing these rules either.
You are quite right that a TO can alter the rules for their tourney as can see fit. I was trying to highlight GW actively tell you not to expect legends in tournaments, to the point of advising against allowing them. It's the only subset of rules they do this with iirc.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
For most armies, Forgeworld adds a couple of redundant stuff that in most cases is just some GW model but +++ (Like leviathans, deredeos, etc...) . In the case of Krieg and others, they are a full FW army so they are needed.
And in the case of adeptus custodes , banning forgeworld is literally killing the faction. They can't work without Forgeworld, not on a power level but on a tactical level. They are an incomplete army.
Yet the leviathan proved to not be an issue in 8th until gw gaked the bed with ih.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
I honestly can't understand the FW hysteria, did you guys watch the LVO? Why aren't people advocating banning IH/RG, i think Siegler made it pretty clear FW isn't the problem.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
For most armies, Forgeworld adds a couple of redundant stuff that in most cases is just some GW model but +++ (Like leviathans, deredeos, etc...) . In the case of Krieg and others, they are a full FW army so they are needed.
And in the case of adeptus custodes , banning forgeworld is literally killing the faction. They can't work without Forgeworld, not on a power level but on a tactical level. They are an incomplete army.
Like the Hellforged Superheavies-just like regular tanks, only many times more expensive for minimal gain!
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
For most armies, Forgeworld adds a couple of redundant stuff that in most cases is just some GW model but +++ (Like leviathans, deredeos, etc...) . In the case of Krieg and others, they are a full FW army so they are needed.
And in the case of adeptus custodes , banning forgeworld is literally killing the faction. They can't work without Forgeworld, not on a power level but on a tactical level. They are an incomplete army.
Like the Hellforged Superheavies-just like regular tanks, only many times more expensive for minimal gain!
Considering hellforged can't even be repaired raw ...
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
For most armies, Forgeworld adds a couple of redundant stuff that in most cases is just some GW model but +++ (Like leviathans, deredeos, etc...) . In the case of Krieg and others, they are a full FW army so they are needed.
And in the case of adeptus custodes , banning forgeworld is literally killing the faction. They can't work without Forgeworld, not on a power level but on a tactical level. They are an incomplete army.
Basic Dreads not being good outside Ven Dread Gun Platforms is not the fault of FW producing interesting Dreads to use. I'd rather never use a Contemptor again than use the garbage one in the codex.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
I don't understand why anyone would want to ban FW.
I mean. I'm opposed to banning FW but you need to understand my context. Spain is nearly a full anti-FW country. Things are opening up in recent years, but all of this leviathan Iron Hand stuff is really butchering all the good will gained.
In my store for example, after asking for nearly a year, they allowed FW to be used. I was extasic to use my Achillus Dreadnought and my Saggitarum guard. Three tournaments after that, they banned FW again after 3-4 new space marine players came out of the wild (They never played or approached the store before) with their Leviathans dread and Firerraptors and Chaplain Dreadnoughts.
And I know FW has a TON of crappy stuff, and GW has a ton of OP stuff. But theres a very big stigma with FW and as much as on internet we insist it doesn't exist, it really does!
So I'm really hoping GW gives legitimacy to FW rules with those new indexes, improves balance, and puts to rest for one and for all this stupid debate.
I just want to use my Achillus Dreadnought, I literally started custodes as an army for that model.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
I don't understand why anyone would want to ban FW.
I mean. I'm opposed to banning FW but you need to understand my context. Spain is nearly a full anti-FW country. Things are opening up in recent years, but all of this leviathan Iron Hand stuff is really butchering all the good will gained.
In my store for example, after asking for nearly a year, they allowed FW to be used. I was extasic to use my Achillus Dreadnought and my Saggitarum guard. Three tournaments after that, they banned FW again after 3-4 new space marine players came out of the wild (They never played or approached the store before) with their Leviathans dread and Firerraptors and Chaplain Dreadnoughts.
And I know FW has a TON of crappy stuff, and GW has a ton of OP stuff. But theres a very big stigma with FW and as much as on internet we insist it doesn't exist, it really does!
So I'm really hoping GW gives legitimacy to FW rules with those new indexes, improves balance, and puts to rest for one and for all this stupid debate.
I just want to use my Achillus Dreadnought, I literally started custodes as an army for that model.
Yeah and then they just switch to Repulsors. Official GW though so it's okay! No problems here!
JohnnyHell wrote: GW have said almost exactly the opposite, that “everyone will be playing Heresy” rather than it dying.
Apparently you didn't read what I said: At no point did I say Horus Heresy was dying, I said nothing of the sort-. I said that my friend's words were that it was going to be rebooted and retooled, or something to that effect, and coming around for a second pass with more stuff. So... really, stop being reactionary. We get it, the game is super popular in your area, no one plays anything else, it's super booming, yada yada yada.
GW makes a lot of bold statements. Most people have enough sense to take these bold statements with a fistfull of salt and an amused chuckle, but GW says "We have plans for Horus Heresy" and people think this is some ironclad prophesy of Horus Heresy entering a new era of prosperity where all other GW games are cast aside and burned atop the corpses of 8th Edition players.
Unless they plan on selling everything for the Horus Heresy the same as they sell 40k or AoS- no, it won't happen. Horus Heresy's lack of popularity as a game across the US is entirely GW's fault, and they've had years to get "everyone" to start playing. Instead, they sat around with their thumbs up their asses until 8th edition rolled around and most players scoffed at the idea of "slightly better 7th edition". So, unless GW's plan for Horus Heresy is "more plastic, you can buy it in your FLGS"- don't expect that 30k 'community' to grow beyond three guys playing on an old door laid across the kitchen table.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
I honestly can't understand the FW hysteria, did you guys watch the LVO? Why aren't people advocating banning IH/RG, i think Siegler made it pretty clear FW isn't the problem.
how do you figure that? Did he take ven Dreads, or did he take a Levi and Chaplain dreads? Without the FW dreads, do you really think it's the same? GW can barely balance their codexes, adding FW units just increases the chances for ganky outliers. By all means have them in your home games, but competitive play should ban them alongside Legends, unless GW can balance units more effectively.
Also, as a RG player, I'd be fine with seeing centurions become "monsters" instead of Infantry (or whatever it takes to stop them infiltrating), and I attended LVO with zero Cents in my RG army.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
I honestly can't understand the FW hysteria, did you guys watch the LVO? Why aren't people advocating banning IH/RG, i think Siegler made it pretty clear FW isn't the problem.
how do you figure that? Did he take ven Dreads, or did he take a Levi and Chaplain dreads? Without the FW dreads, do you really think it's the same? GW can barely balance their codexes, adding FW units just increases the chances for ganky outliers. By all means have them in your home games, but competitive play should ban them alongside Legends, unless GW can balance units more effectively.
Also, as a RG player, I'd be fine with seeing centurions become "monsters" instead of Infantry (or whatever it takes to stop them infiltrating), and I attended LVO with zero Cents in my RG army.
If it wasn't a leviathan it would have been executioners. Or flyers. Or any of the myriad of units that become op when played with the broken ih supplement. It has nothing to do with fw. Nothing else is balanced when it's used in ih why is fw only a problem?
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
For most armies, Forgeworld adds a couple of redundant stuff that in most cases is just some GW model but +++ (Like leviathans, deredeos, etc...) . In the case of Krieg and others, they are a full FW army so they are needed.
And in the case of adeptus custodes , banning forgeworld is literally killing the faction. They can't work without Forgeworld, not on a power level but on a tactical level. They are an incomplete army.
Like the Hellforged Superheavies-just like regular tanks, only many times more expensive for minimal gain!
Considering hellforged can't even be repaired raw ...
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
I don't understand why anyone would want to ban FW.
I mean. I'm opposed to banning FW but you need to understand my context. Spain is nearly a full anti-FW country. Things are opening up in recent years, but all of this leviathan Iron Hand stuff is really butchering all the good will gained.
In my store for example, after asking for nearly a year, they allowed FW to be used. I was extasic to use my Achillus Dreadnought and my Saggitarum guard. Three tournaments after that, they banned FW again after 3-4 new space marine players came out of the wild (They never played or approached the store before) with their Leviathans dread and Firerraptors and Chaplain Dreadnoughts.
And I know FW has a TON of crappy stuff, and GW has a ton of OP stuff. But theres a very big stigma with FW and as much as on internet we insist it doesn't exist, it really does!
So I'm really hoping GW gives legitimacy to FW rules with those new indexes, improves balance, and puts to rest for one and for all this stupid debate.
I just want to use my Achillus Dreadnought, I literally started custodes as an army for that model.
So a few WAAC gakholes ruined a couple tournaments at your local flgs. So maybe instead of banning fw your flgs should have banned those WAAC gakholes.
And of course they were playing sm. Ever think that might be the problem and not fw?
And it's nice that you want to play your Achillus. I want to play my fellblade. A lot of people have fw units they want to play. So how do you defend banning our stuff but not your Custodes fw units?
Yes there's a stigma against fw. But it's stupid and unfounded. As most stigmas are.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
I honestly can't understand the FW hysteria, did you guys watch the LVO? Why aren't people advocating banning IH/RG, i think Siegler made it pretty clear FW isn't the problem.
how do you figure that? Did he take ven Dreads, or did he take a Levi and Chaplain dreads? Without the FW dreads, do you really think it's the same? GW can barely balance their codexes, adding FW units just increases the chances for ganky outliers. By all means have them in your home games, but competitive play should ban them alongside Legends, unless GW can balance units more effectively.
Also, as a RG player, I'd be fine with seeing centurions become "monsters" instead of Infantry (or whatever it takes to stop them infiltrating), and I attended LVO with zero Cents in my RG army.
You are missing my point completely.
It's not Forge Worlds problem that Games Workshop broke their units with X_LATEST_GW_RELEASE
It's not the Forge World units, it's the Games Workshop rules.
He brought Leviathan and Chaplain Dreadnoughts because GAMES WORKSHOP broke those Forge World units with their Iron Hands codex.
But TBHFW rules are in general pretty bad and broken. And I don't mean by being OP, or being OP in interaction with GW rules.
But how many pure FW units are that you find "balanced"? A couple were broken and nerfed into oblivion (Like malefic lords, the ultra-chicken, etc...) but most of then just suck ass.
Some of the best rules for FW units in the sense that they are usefull and mostly balanced are the FW Custodes units. And their rules were written by GW. So thats why I hope with this nex FW indexs by GW (Advertised as being written by GW) settle the debate about banning FW or non once and for all.
Galas wrote: But TBHFW rules are in general pretty bad and broken. And I don't mean by being OP, or being OP in interaction with GW rules.
But how many pure FW units are that you find "balanced"? A couple were broken and nerfed into oblivion (Like malefic lords, the ultra-chicken, etc...) but most of then just suck ass.
Some of the best rules for FW units in the sense that they are usefull and mostly balanced are the FW Custodes units. And their rules were written by GW. So thats why I hope with this nex FW indexs by GW (Advertised as being written by GW) settle the debate about banning FW or non once and for all.
WRONG:
The malefic lord has a present incarnation in the Am book, that is virtually the same but better unit for the old price, you don't even see that model, do you know why? because allies were a fething mess at the start of 8th. Fun fact the malefic lord costs nearly as much as the vastly superior Sorcerer of CSM / MoP which recently got a price drop.
Same with IH leviatahs, nobody used them competitively until gw decided, "He let's slap rules upon rules on top off stuff for reasons, and sell them seperately because we made a gakload of money with booksales !"
Furher, the whole of 8th after the initial wave of frankly LACKLUSTER FW indexes due to GW again gakking the bed by not propperly communicating within the bloody company (FW isn't even a subsidiary, imagine that...) has been done by GW all aliong and i remember a time were the custodes FW stuff, was not looked kindly upon due to it beeing borderline op, it will change nothing regardless if GW writes it officially or not, on the perception Galas.
I think you missunderstand me. I have 0 problems with FW or FW rules. But their rules for 8th are just pretty bad. Many units are just non functional and others have desing philosophies that aren't of this edition (like weapons doing extra hits of X Strenght, when that has just dissapeared from 8th).
And about the custodes rules, the Grav Tank and the Telemon where too strong in the BETA rules and they where nerfed in the final rules in less than a couple of months (And many other rules that were too weak were buffed and changed, and things like making Custodian Guards with Pyryphite spears troops instead of elites, etc... all good changes) . I believe the rules for FW Custodes models are one of the best cases of GW actually using the beta-phase of rules for what it is done: Testing stuff and then changing what is needed.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
I honestly can't understand the FW hysteria, did you guys watch the LVO? Why aren't people advocating banning IH/RG, i think Siegler made it pretty clear FW isn't the problem.
how do you figure that? Did he take ven Dreads, or did he take a Levi and Chaplain dreads? Without the FW dreads, do you really think it's the same? GW can barely balance their codexes, adding FW units just increases the chances for ganky outliers. By all means have them in your home games, but competitive play should ban them alongside Legends, unless GW can balance units more effectively.
Also, as a RG player, I'd be fine with seeing centurions become "monsters" instead of Infantry (or whatever it takes to stop them infiltrating), and I attended LVO with zero Cents in my RG army.
You are missing my point completely.
It's not Forge Worlds problem that Games Workshop broke their units with X_LATEST_GW_RELEASE
It's not the Forge World units, it's the Games Workshop rules.
He brought Leviathan and Chaplain Dreadnoughts because GAMES WORKSHOP broke those Forge World units with their Iron Hands codex.
This is correct, but it still means FW is broken with GW rules, regardless of fault. It adds a crap ton of units to balance, in a system that already has so many units to begin with. I'm not saying it's a perfect scenario, but if GW don't care to balance FW models, they shouldn't be included in a tournament that features GW ruleset.
I understand all the crying from people about how much they paid for their FW models, but hey, local games are still a thing. I just don't think FW is balanced enough to be taken into a competitive environment and not expect poor outcomes.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
I honestly can't understand the FW hysteria, did you guys watch the LVO? Why aren't people advocating banning IH/RG, i think Siegler made it pretty clear FW isn't the problem.
how do you figure that? Did he take ven Dreads, or did he take a Levi and Chaplain dreads? Without the FW dreads, do you really think it's the same? GW can barely balance their codexes, adding FW units just increases the chances for ganky outliers. By all means have them in your home games, but competitive play should ban them alongside Legends, unless GW can balance units more effectively.
Also, as a RG player, I'd be fine with seeing centurions become "monsters" instead of Infantry (or whatever it takes to stop them infiltrating), and I attended LVO with zero Cents in my RG army.
You are missing my point completely.
It's not Forge Worlds problem that Games Workshop broke their units with X_LATEST_GW_RELEASE
It's not the Forge World units, it's the Games Workshop rules.
He brought Leviathan and Chaplain Dreadnoughts because GAMES WORKSHOP broke those Forge World units with their Iron Hands codex.
This is correct, but it still means FW is broken with GW rules, regardless of fault. It adds a crap ton of units to balance, in a system that already has so many units to begin with. I'm not saying it's a perfect scenario, but if GW don't care to balance FW models, they shouldn't be included in a tournament that features GW ruleset.
I understand all the crying from people about how much they paid for their FW models, but hey, local games are still a thing. I just don't think FW is balanced enough to be taken into a competitive environment and not expect poor outcomes.
This implies that the game is in an appreciably better state of balance without FW, which I don't think anyone can make a reasonable case for. If FW disappears tomorrow, does the metagame meaningfully change beyond filling those points with the next best equivalents? Not really. There's no FW unique singular capabilities or meta defining units. If you ban the FW dreads, do Iron Hands tumble from their top spot to be definitively dethrone by something radically different? Not really.
Galas wrote: TBH I would be okay with a ban for FW with the exception of custodes and other 100% forgeworld armies.
I honestly can't understand the FW hysteria, did you guys watch the LVO? Why aren't people advocating banning IH/RG, i think Siegler made it pretty clear FW isn't the problem.
how do you figure that? Did he take ven Dreads, or did he take a Levi and Chaplain dreads? Without the FW dreads, do you really think it's the same? GW can barely balance their codexes, adding FW units just increases the chances for ganky outliers. By all means have them in your home games, but competitive play should ban them alongside Legends, unless GW can balance units more effectively.
Also, as a RG player, I'd be fine with seeing centurions become "monsters" instead of Infantry (or whatever it takes to stop them infiltrating), and I attended LVO with zero Cents in my RG army.
You are missing my point completely.
It's not Forge Worlds problem that Games Workshop broke their units with X_LATEST_GW_RELEASE
It's not the Forge World units, it's the Games Workshop rules.
He brought Leviathan and Chaplain Dreadnoughts because GAMES WORKSHOP broke those Forge World units with their Iron Hands codex.
This is correct, but it still means FW is broken with GW rules, regardless of fault. It adds a crap ton of units to balance, in a system that already has so many units to begin with. I'm not saying it's a perfect scenario, but if GW don't care to balance FW models, they shouldn't be included in a tournament that features GW ruleset.
I understand all the crying from people about how much they paid for their FW models, but hey, local games are still a thing. I just don't think FW is balanced enough to be taken into a competitive environment and not expect poor outcomes.
"Fw is broken with gw rules ". So obviously the problem is the gw rules that make previously unbroken units broken (read: ih) and not the units in question. Take away fw and ih are still broken, albeit with different units that also previously were unbroken.
The problem isn't fw its ih. Banning fw won't fix the problem while penalizing many players who aren't using the broken rules.
Vaktathi wrote: This implies that the game is in an appreciably better state of balance without FW.
Asking to ban FW units because GW keeps everything up is like asking to amputate a limb rather than change your diet. There are armies that can't compete without FW, it's an integral part of the game.
GW is taking the right step bringing everything under one roof, but i have my doubts.
Vaktathi wrote: This implies that the game is in an appreciably better state of balance without FW.
Asking to ban FW units because GW keeps everything up is like asking to amputate a limb rather than change your diet. There are armies that can't compete without FW, it's an integral part of the game.
GW is taking the right step bringing everything under one roof, but i have my doubts.
This is all dependent upon GW addressing the rules. IH are no way near as broken if you remove the offending FW units. Yes, they are good, too good for sure, but the better list were choosing FW units to take it to next level.
You're asking GW to do a lot just balancing the rules they have now and reigning in marines, without throwing FW into the mix. For a tournament, there is no harm with removing FW at all. You at least gain a modicum of control over the sheer crazy combos that pop up.
Now if GW step up and do a stellar job with the new FW books, great, but if not, they should be looked at with the same eye as Legends. Can't believe that tournies are banning Legends while in the same breath, allowing FW? Sorry my Ravenwing Chaplain is such a threat to the meta.
And I completely disagree with FW being an integral part of the game....it's not, it's a side show bonus, nothing more.
bullyboy wrote: For a tournament, there is no harm with removing FW at all.
Maybe not for you personally, but as someone who fell in love with Custodies in 8th this would kill any chance of fielding a competitive force in an ITC. Our TROOPS are Forge World units.
Banning Forge World is not the solution, fixing the mess you created is (looking at you GW). No one was talking about banning Chaplain Dreadnoughts until GW flipped the table on the meta.
It seems to me that whenever there's a hyper points efficient unit 9 times out of 10 it's from FW. I guess GW want to shift some of that expensive resin, huh. FW units also contain some of the most sloppy rules writing I've ever seen that is, frankly, embarrassing.
I don't really see why there should be a separate FW rule book for units. They should be included in codexes for clarity and balance. Although, that said, they're not even consistent with this - my Warboss on Warbike is a codex entry despite existing only as a FW miniature, as are my Nobs on Bikes.
FW has always been the place to find janky rules in the hope of stumbling across some OP combo - I really hope GW kill this dead.
This is a cash grab more than anything. Imperial armouir books were ridiculously expensive. I'm sure they will do this again. I never understood it because the books were not made of resin!
I am one of the honest few. Lots of folk buy FW for the awesome models and the fluff. I bought my triple deredeo and a leviathan and now a contemptor to run with my Deathguard purely for the rules to give my force a strength bump. There are loads of people like me they just can't admit it.
Sorry, but with GW's shoddy rules writing, they can barely balance what is in the main codexes by themselves, let alone adding all the FW units. Yes, they are cool, but there is always that one unit that slips through the cracks and outperforms anything in the codex to a ridiculous degree.
The Levi dread is the best example recently. Yeah, it's a good dread, but when coupled with the IH stats, it becomes insane. You can argue that it is an Iron Hands problem, but is it really? Would people really lose their crap if the same rules were applied to an 8 wound venerable Dreadnought from the codex? I doubt it. GW balance within the codex, they don't consider FW. Competitive events should take this into consideration and remove FW to prevent these crazy outliers. Iron Hands would still have been good, no question, but not having Levi Dreads to use the crazy strats or Chaplain Dreads, the lists would have been more manageable.
FW should have been in the main codexes. I still don't see the value in separating them. Some armies are just super expensive to build like Tomb Blade spam is way more expensive than silver tide for example and Custodes are just going to be cheaper than most assuming they don't use FW.
Also, GW does not balance within the codex, they don't even try to pair the max flamer hits stratagem with the mortal wounds from flamers strat in a new supplement. There are no good excuses as to not include FW in their balance considerations, but when you tell people to just throw some models on the table and battle it out then you won't get any worthwhile info from playtesting. A scheme with all the units and delegation of testing roles for each new release could make 40k amazingly balanced in 34 months.
An Actual Englishman wrote: It seems to me that whenever there's a hyper points efficient unit 9 times out of 10 it's from FW. I guess GW want to shift some of that expensive resin, huh. FW units also contain some of the most sloppy rules writing I've ever seen that is, frankly, embarrassing.
I don't really see why there should be a separate FW rule book for units. They should be included in codexes for clarity and balance. Although, that said, they're not even consistent with this - my Warboss on Warbike is a codex entry despite existing only as a FW miniature, as are my Nobs on Bikes.
FW has always been the place to find janky rules in the hope of stumbling across some OP combo - I really hope GW kill this dead.
Lol, go get the statistics in this one, because your assumption is utter nonsense.
Obliterators, plasma termites,letters, Alpha legion, plagueburst crawler plaguebearers,etc are all from gw as are -4 to hit Lord discordants and other BS of that calibre. And that is just chaos.
Further the whole of 8th nobody cared about fw dreads , IH show up and Look what happened.
And looking at the IG models from FW... I don't see anything broken. I think (!) the Macharius Vulcan is nearly a competetive choice but for everything else there are GW units that do it better for cheaper. So a total FW ban because units in some armies interact funny with their rules would be quite unfair in my opinion
I don't care if they ban them or not, honestly. Lots of people have made lots of good arguments on both sides of the fence, and honestly, maybe pruning the catalog is a good idea at this point. There are a LOT of things to balance in this game, maybe having a few less would be good.
Don't get me wrong, I love using my deredeo and my leviathan dreadnoughts, but if I couldn't use them tomorrow in a tournament I wouldn't be heartbroken about it.
Also: I understand everyone here really hates GW, but I have to say, this is the first time I have seen where they are legitimately trying to balance their game for more than a VERY casual setting. I think it's worth mentioning that things will go wrong. Yes, IH is way too good, yes they missed the max hit and mortal wound combo of strats, but every game has missed interactions, it happens.
Not Online!!! wrote: Fun fact the malefic lord costs nearly as much as the vastly superior Sorcerer of CSM / MoP which recently got a price drop.
Huh? They're all 80 points currently.
Base yes but sorcerers and mop both pay for compulsory wargear which brings them to 88 points. Malefic lords do not.
Correction , malefic lords pay 0pts for "bare hands" , yes that is not a joke, yes they also have no armor sv.
what you thought there was a point in them beeing 80 pts?
Heck his possession rules only happen if he survives the possession...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seabass wrote: I don't care if they ban them or not, honestly. Lots of people have made lots of good arguments on both sides of the fence, and honestly, maybe pruning the catalog is a good idea at this point. There are a LOT of things to balance in this game, maybe having a few less would be good.
Don't get me wrong, I love using my deredeo and my leviathan dreadnoughts, but if I couldn't use them tomorrow in a tournament I wouldn't be heartbroken about it.
Also: I understand everyone here really hates GW, but I have to say, this is the first time I have seen where they are legitimately trying to balance their game for more than a VERY casual setting. I think it's worth mentioning that things will go wrong. Yes, IH is way too good, yes they missed the max hit and mortal wound combo of strats, but every game has missed interactions, it happens.
(SO are RG and IF aswell.) no, GW has not ATTEMPTED even to do balance all over 8th, considering they literally ignored a 3rd of the bloody catalogue in pts balance in CA, which mind you , is nothing more than a paywalled balance patch...
Seabass wrote: I don't care if they ban them or not, honestly. Lots of people have made lots of good arguments on both sides of the fence, and honestly, maybe pruning the catalog is a good idea at this point. There are a LOT of things to balance in this game, maybe having a few less would be good.
Don't get me wrong, I love using my deredeo and my leviathan dreadnoughts, but if I couldn't use them tomorrow in a tournament I wouldn't be heartbroken about it.
Also: I understand everyone here really hates GW, but I have to say, this is the first time I have seen where they are legitimately trying to balance their game for more than a VERY casual setting. I think it's worth mentioning that things will go wrong. Yes, IH is way too good, yes they missed the max hit and mortal wound combo of strats, but every game has missed interactions, it happens.
Pah, the game isn't even balanced casually. For the effort you have to do to balance it yourself, why even bother with dice? Just make pewpew noises.
An Actual Englishman wrote: It seems to me that whenever there's a hyper points efficient unit 9 times out of 10 it's from FW. I guess GW want to shift some of that expensive resin, huh.
Hanlon's Razor.
What's far more likely is that GW's base rules create the issues that allow FW units to be unbalanced because GW tends to write their codices in a vacuum. I mean, do you really think anyone who wrote the Iron Hands book even considered what the rules would do with Leviathan Dreads?
I wish they removed FW, removed supplements, removed Vigilus, removed WD rules and removed PA. Lots of the rules themselves can stay with updated version for each factions codex but the rule bloat is just too insane. Put some of the FW units like those for custodes in a codex update and then put 90%+ of the others into Legends. It has nothing to do with actual power level.
If you were to actually buy the rules for a IF list with a FW unit, Vigilus detachment etc you would pay more for the rules alone than I paid for my whole Empire of Dust army for Kings of War. I paid like 180€ and I think all the rules for a IF only list is just above that and spread out in 6 books and quite a few online documents.
This is why I and a few other players I know have put 40k on the backburner since the rules for this game is chaos and almost impossible to keep up with. It will just be harder and harder for GW to "balance" all the rules and for us players to keep track of.
Klickor wrote: I wish they removed FW, removed supplements, removed Vigilus, removed WD rules and removed PA. Lots of the rules themselves can stay with updated version for each factions codex but the rule bloat is just too insane. Put some of the FW units like those for custodes in a codex update and then put 90%+ of the others into Legends. It has nothing to do with actual power level.
If you were to actually buy the rules for a IF list with a FW unit, Vigilus detachment etc you would pay more for the rules alone than I paid for my whole Empire of Dust army for Kings of War. I paid like 180€ and I think all the rules for a IF only list is just above that and spread out in 6 books and quite a few online documents.
This is why I and a few other players I know have put 40k on the backburner since the rules for this game is chaos and almost impossible to keep up with. It will just be harder and harder for GW to "balance" all the rules and for us players to keep track of.
All of those bar the codex are optional, simply don't buy them? but Any model that has a rule that you can purchase should keep some support imo, even if it involves rolling them into a new codex and out of FW.
bullyboy wrote: For a tournament, there is no harm with removing FW at all.
Maybe not for you personally, but as someone who fell in love with Custodies in 8th this would kill any chance of fielding a competitive force in an ITC. Our TROOPS are Forge World units.
Banning Forge World is not the solution, fixing the mess you created is (looking at you GW). No one was talking about banning Chaplain Dreadnoughts until GW flipped the table on the meta.
meh, as a Ravenwing player, I'm not moved. And I'm looking at the Custodes book right now which distinctly has Troops in it. I also saw many Eldar players doing well without Troops of any kind.
As for GW doing it right, good luck with that.
OK, I'll step back a little bit. It would be better for the game to temporary remove FW, and the Vigilus books until GW balanced them accordingly. heck, take out the marine expansions too for tournaments, that would go a long way to take care of that crap. You would then see a lot of marine soup though for sure.
bullyboy wrote: For a tournament, there is no harm with removing FW at all.
Maybe not for you personally, but as someone who fell in love with Custodies in 8th this would kill any chance of fielding a competitive force in an ITC. Our TROOPS are Forge World units.
Banning Forge World is not the solution, fixing the mess you created is (looking at you GW). No one was talking about banning Chaplain Dreadnoughts until GW flipped the table on the meta.
meh, as a Ravenwing player, I'm not moved. And I'm looking at the Custodes book right now which distinctly has Troops in it.
As for GW doing it right, good luck with that.
The Custoides codex has A troop choice, but it's not competitive, by comparison that would be like having only Scouts (and then only if Scouts sucked [they don't]).
The only way to play Custodies competitively is with FW models, and even then they are mid-tier at best /end
An Actual Englishman wrote: It seems to me that whenever there's a hyper points efficient unit 9 times out of 10 it's from FW.
Hrm, from my perspective, 8E's balance issues have certainly not been dominated by FW units.
Of the balance issues in 8E, FW related stuff has been largely what, Malefic Lords in the early index days, and a couple Dreads with FW post Iron Hands (and Iron Hands would still be broken without them)? Nothing on the level of say, the Castellan, or even the consternation that humble Guardsmen has garnered over the course of the edition. Certainly nothing FW related in 6E or 7E matched Heldrakes, Wraithlords, Deathstars, Scatterbikes, etc in the competitive metagame.
I guess GW want to shift some of that expensive resin, huh. FW units also contain some of the most sloppy rules writing I've ever seen that is, frankly, embarrassing.
I don't really see why there should be a separate FW rule book for units. They should be included in codexes for clarity and balance. Although, that said, they're not even consistent with this - my Warboss on Warbike is a codex entry despite existing only as a FW miniature, as are my Nobs on Bikes.
This largely comes down to the fact that GW wants codex books to just be core studio stuff that comes from the main product lines, and FW was doing stuff they couldn't do in plastic or didn't have the studio bandwidth for, and for some reason has no desire to change this.
Lol, go get the statistics in this one, because your assumption is utter nonsense.
Obliterators, plasma termites,letters, Alpha legion, plagueburst crawler plaguebearers,etc are all from gw as are -4 to hit Lord discordants and other BS of that calibre. And that is just chaos.
Further the whole of 8th nobody cared about fw dreads , IH show up and Look what happened.
People have been using FW dreads for some time. They are efficient without IH, just not broken.
I distinctly recall a number of broken FW stuff, and it always felt the most egregious.
E - I probably should've been clearer - I'm talking about since all editions of 40k, not just 8th.
a buddy of mine this weekend was talkgin abotu the FW balancing and the dreamed up scenario i hope goes as he put it
GW rules writing team inviting FW to discuss rules
GW employees "here take a seat, welcome, we can begin the slideshow"
gw employee "for the first slide we have the leviatan, what the actual gak were you thinking, now see slide 2, the warhound titan... in what world are these rules points and units even belonging on the same table?"
Lol, go get the statistics in this one, because your assumption is utter nonsense.
Obliterators, plasma termites,letters, Alpha legion, plagueburst crawler plaguebearers,etc are all from gw as are -4 to hit Lord discordants and other BS of that calibre. And that is just chaos.
Further the whole of 8th nobody cared about fw dreads , IH show up and Look what happened.
People have been using FW dreads for some time. They are efficient without IH, just not broken.
I distinctly recall a number of broken FW stuff, and it always felt the most egregious.
You sure?
Because let's see 7th, nope, FW wasn't even top cheddar, even the one aboslute genious purge formation applying to Vraks arty tyrant wasn't a top contender for the most broken stuff.
6th? Are you having a giggle mate?
5th (member GK)?
So then see 8th, ok we had Malefic spam, when there were A not many cheaper psykers and B allying was utterly stupid and C Ro3 not beeing a thing, you know what we also saw, flyrants alot of them. Then what was there, castellans, IG batteries, ynnari. Congrats, you have found 1 exemple of a FW unit beeing fethed due to GW having no clue about allies at the start of 8th which might aswell be renamed to be another edition completely at this point considering how many more rule interactions we have now.Superfriends also existed aswell. Oh the possesed bomb is now also a thing (cue GW and PA) i guess and well IH of all sorts, and marines of any flavour beyond some supplements that were more moderate comparatively..
An Actual Englishman wrote: It seems to me that whenever there's a hyper points efficient unit 9 times out of 10 it's from FW.
Hrm, from my perspective, 8E's balance issues have certainly not been dominated by FW units.
Of the balance issues in 8E, FW related stuff has been largely what, Malefic Lords in the early index days, and a couple Dreads with FW post Iron Hands (and Iron Hands would still be broken without them)? Nothing on the level of say, the Castellan, or even the consternation that humble Guardsmen has garnered over the course of the edition. Certainly nothing FW related in 6E or 7E matched Heldrakes, Wraithlords, Deathstars, Scatterbikes, etc in the competitive metagame.
Again. Not just talking about 8th ed.
There were a number of FW units key to certain 7E builds iirc.
Lol, go get the statistics in this one, because your assumption is utter nonsense.
Obliterators, plasma termites,letters, Alpha legion, plagueburst crawler plaguebearers,etc are all from gw as are -4 to hit Lord discordants and other BS of that calibre. And that is just chaos.
Further the whole of 8th nobody cared about fw dreads , IH show up and Look what happened.
People have been using FW dreads for some time. They are efficient without IH, just not broken.
I distinctly recall a number of broken FW stuff, and it always felt the most egregious.
You sure?
Because let's see 7th, nope, FW wasn't even top cheddar, even the one aboslute genious purge formation applying to Vraks arty tyrant wasn't a top contender for the most broken stuff.
6th? Are you having a giggle mate?
5th (member GK)?
So then see 8th, ok we had Malefic spam, when there were A not many cheaper psykers and B allying was utterly stupid and C Ro3 not beeing a thing, you know what we also saw, flyrants alot of them. Then what was there, castellans, IG batteries, ynnari. Congrats, you have found 1 exemple of a FW unit beeing fethed due to GW having no clue about allies at the start of 8th which might aswell be renamed to be another edition completely at this point considering how many more rule interactions we have now.Superfriends also existed aswell. Oh the possesed bomb is now also a thing (cue GW and PA) i guess and well IH of all sorts, and marines of any flavour beyond some supplements that were more moderate comparatively..
7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
bullyboy wrote: For a tournament, there is no harm with removing FW at all.
Maybe not for you personally, but as someone who fell in love with Custodies in 8th this would kill any chance of fielding a competitive force in an ITC. Our TROOPS are Forge World units.
Banning Forge World is not the solution, fixing the mess you created is (looking at you GW). No one was talking about banning Chaplain Dreadnoughts until GW flipped the table on the meta.
meh, as a Ravenwing player, I'm not moved. And I'm looking at the Custodes book right now which distinctly has Troops in it.
As for GW doing it right, good luck with that.
The Custoides codex has A troop choice, but it's not competitive, by comparison that would be like having only Scouts (and then only if Scouts sucked [they don't]).
The only way to play Custodies competitively is with FW models, and even then they are mid-tier at best /end
there are a lot of units in many books that suck, you were just being disingenuous that you needed FW to play. You don't.
besides, Custodes aren't even a fleshed out faction and should probably soup at this point until GW gets round to expanding them.
And to add on about the Dreads, yes, it's been like this for 8th. When asking for List advice for Deathwatch the response was always "take a Levi dread". Or for DA "Take Contemptor dreads". Never seen anyone advocate actual dreads within the codex before. Why is that?
Lol, go get the statistics in this one, because your assumption is utter nonsense.
Obliterators, plasma termites,letters, Alpha legion, plagueburst crawler plaguebearers,etc are all from gw as are -4 to hit Lord discordants and other BS of that calibre. And that is just chaos.
Further the whole of 8th nobody cared about fw dreads , IH show up and Look what happened.
People have been using FW dreads for some time. They are efficient without IH, just not broken.
I distinctly recall a number of broken FW stuff, and it always felt the most egregious.
You sure?
Because let's see 7th, nope, FW wasn't even top cheddar, even the one aboslute genious purge formation applying to Vraks arty tyrant wasn't a top contender for the most broken stuff.
6th? Are you having a giggle mate?
5th (member GK)?
So then see 8th, ok we had Malefic spam, when there were A not many cheaper psykers and B allying was utterly stupid and C Ro3 not beeing a thing, you know what we also saw, flyrants alot of them. Then what was there, castellans, IG batteries, ynnari. Congrats, you have found 1 exemple of a FW unit beeing fethed due to GW having no clue about allies at the start of 8th which might aswell be renamed to be another edition completely at this point considering how many more rule interactions we have now.Superfriends also existed aswell. Oh the possesed bomb is now also a thing (cue GW and PA) i guess and well IH of all sorts, and marines of any flavour beyond some supplements that were more moderate comparatively..
Why are you so defensive about FW?
TBH most FW units are utter turd, I'm not up to speed on orks but are any of their FW units OP in any capacity? The biggest offenders of the edition, so far, seem to be the castellan, shield captains on bikes, smash captains, IGCP farms, shining spears + dark reapers in old ynnari lists. None of those used FW units, only some of the marine lists recently.
bullyboy wrote: For a tournament, there is no harm with removing FW at all.
Maybe not for you personally, but as someone who fell in love with Custodies in 8th this would kill any chance of fielding a competitive force in an ITC. Our TROOPS are Forge World units.
Banning Forge World is not the solution, fixing the mess you created is (looking at you GW). No one was talking about banning Chaplain Dreadnoughts until GW flipped the table on the meta.
meh, as a Ravenwing player, I'm not moved. And I'm looking at the Custodes book right now which distinctly has Troops in it.
As for GW doing it right, good luck with that.
The Custoides codex has A troop choice, but it's not competitive, by comparison that would be like having only Scouts (and then only if Scouts sucked [they don't]).
The only way to play Custodies competitively is with FW models, and even then they are mid-tier at best /end
there are a lot of units in many books that suck, you were just being disingenuous that you needed FW to play. You don't.
besides, Custodes aren't even a fleshed out faction and should probably soup at this point until GW gets round to expanding them.
sisters of silence really should have been part of the book. they were introduced as talons of the empiror and should have stayed together to compliemnt eachother
While I agree that FW needs rebalancing, I still voted no because it's the entirety of 40K that needs a rebalancing. There are things in 40k that just does not make any sense in terms of balance : why is that some armies have 6 pages of stratagems while overs have just 3 or 4 ? Same for relics : why is it that some codex have 1 page of relics while others have4 pages or even more ?
Even in the same codex there are things that just does not make sense. For exemple the Kheres pattern assault cannon is a 22 pts 24 inch Heavy 6 s7 pa -1 d1 weapon and the twin ironhail autocannon is 20 pts 48 inch Heavy 6 S7 pa -1 d2 gun ??? How does that makes sense ?
So jus discussing FW is pointless in my opinion : it's the entirety of the 40K rukeset that needs a change.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
bullyboy wrote: For a tournament, there is no harm with removing FW at all.
Maybe not for you personally, but as someone who fell in love with Custodies in 8th this would kill any chance of fielding a competitive force in an ITC. Our TROOPS are Forge World units.
Banning Forge World is not the solution, fixing the mess you created is (looking at you GW). No one was talking about banning Chaplain Dreadnoughts until GW flipped the table on the meta.
meh, as a Ravenwing player, I'm not moved. And I'm looking at the Custodes book right now which distinctly has Troops in it.
As for GW doing it right, good luck with that.
The Custoides codex has A troop choice, but it's not competitive, by comparison that would be like having only Scouts (and then only if Scouts sucked [they don't]).
The only way to play Custodies competitively is with FW models, and even then they are mid-tier at best /end
Best custode list at LVO (the most competitive tournament period) was 5-1 (68th over all out of over 700 so top 10% army...) and was mostly that non-competitive troop choice.
Klickor wrote: I wish they removed FW, removed supplements, removed Vigilus, removed WD rules and removed PA. Lots of the rules themselves can stay with updated version for each factions codex but the rule bloat is just too insane. Put some of the FW units like those for custodes in a codex update and then put 90%+ of the others into Legends. It has nothing to do with actual power level.
If you were to actually buy the rules for a IF list with a FW unit, Vigilus detachment etc you would pay more for the rules alone than I paid for my whole Empire of Dust army for Kings of War. I paid like 180€ and I think all the rules for a IF only list is just above that and spread out in 6 books and quite a few online documents.
This is why I and a few other players I know have put 40k on the backburner since the rules for this game is chaos and almost impossible to keep up with. It will just be harder and harder for GW to "balance" all the rules and for us players to keep track of.
All of those bar the codex are optional, simply don't buy them? but Any model that has a rule that you can purchase should keep some support imo, even if it involves rolling them into a new codex and out of FW.
Its not as much as being forced to buy them but to illustrate how beginner unfriendly the game is right now. You cant really recommend a new person to buy the rules before they have an army anymore. Just a waste of money, sharing a download link and showing battlescribe is much much more helpful. I havent bought a single book so far in this edition since I jumped back in just a year ago and found out I needed a bunch of pdfs anyway and the space marine supplements and the following PA books are just making my blood boil due to how bad they are for the game. Not in the actual rules but how they make the game harder to learn, how much a cash grab they are and all the apparent lack of care GW showed when they wrote them. BoB is spitting the consumer in the face in how bad it is done.
You could probably build a legal battleforged list that needs 13 or more different rules sources besides FAQs and Erratas. How the hell am I supposed to know if my opponent is cheating or playing stuff wrongly or not if it would take me almost an hour to just go through all the rules he could use in a single game. I havent seen any one cheat so far in this edition but the amount of misunderstandings and misplays due to all the different rules sources and wordings are staggering. I can play most wargames 2-3 times and have my 4th or 5th game go smoother than my next 40k game when it comes to playing the rules right. And most other games have 3-10x the amount of core rules and it is still so much easier.
This game needs to prune extra rules and models AND then rebalance the game. GW cant do it with the huge amounts of models and rules they have know and rebalancing at this point is just pointless if it is GW that does it. Will just change what units are bad or broken as usual and not really fix anything.
bananathug wrote: Best custode list at LVO (the most competitive tournament period) was 5-1 (68th over all out of over 700 so top 10% army...) and was mostly that non-competitive troop choice.
I'll be honest, i gave up on them after the SM release.
This is an excellent point, i might have been a little overzealous in my defense of FW but my point still stands, you can't remove FW after ten years of being an integral part of both game systems.
bananathug wrote: Best custode list at LVO (the most competitive tournament period) was 5-1 (68th over all out of over 700 so top 10% army...) and was mostly that non-competitive troop choice.
I'll be honest, i gave up on them after the SM release.
This is an excellent point, i might have been a little overzealous in my defense of FW but my point still stands, you can't remove FW after ten years of being an integral part of both game systems.
Doesn't the placement and list of that player prove that FW is not integral to the game? It's just an add-on, ten times more so than any of the actual supplements at least. "So do you want free rules?" "Yes?" "Ok, here ya go!"
Yoyoyo wrote: Regardless of optional, it is inarguable that a ruleset dispersed amongst 5-6 sources is incredibly sloppy design.
isnt this how most RPG books are? sure they are cheaper but there are a lot of them for the same system.
In my experience with TTRPGs, there's a core set of rules, usually in one book, though D&D does three.
Then there's more sourcebooks that have options for you to use, but ideally, they're balanced against each other. You get more OPTIONS, but not more POWER.
So, if I wanted to play D&D 5E with EVERY SOURCEBOOK, I'm dropping $500+, probably (didn't actually google all the prices). But if I just want to play D&D 5E, I only need to drop a little under $120 on Amazon. Plus it comes with some dice! And that's the cost for books that the group only needs one of TOTAL, so you can split the cost among everyone playing.
Whereas the supplements for SM are literally extra power at no cost other than the money it takes to buy the book. That's NOT how it should be.
Yoyoyo wrote: Regardless of optional, it is inarguable that a ruleset dispersed amongst 5-6 sources is incredibly sloppy design.
isnt this how most RPG books are? sure they are cheaper but there are a lot of them for the same system.
No. The vast majority of RPGs can be played entirely with 1 book.
Every other book is optional. DnDs Dungeon Masters Guide isn't needed to play. It's just extremely useful. The monster Manual isn't needed to play (you could just make up monsters stat blocks) it's just extremely useful. Every other book adds options (but generally speaking not power creep) and offers fluff or prebuilt adventures that you don't need to play the game and are just more sources to make the DMs life easier. Optional quality of life improvements.
1 book and some paper and pencils is all you need to play a RPG.
Klickor wrote: I wish they removed FW, removed supplements, removed Vigilus, removed WD rules and removed PA. Lots of the rules themselves can stay with updated version for each factions codex but the rule bloat is just too insane. Put some of the FW units like those for custodes in a codex update and then put 90%+ of the others into Legends. It has nothing to do with actual power level.
If you were to actually buy the rules for a IF list with a FW unit, Vigilus detachment etc you would pay more for the rules alone than I paid for my whole Empire of Dust army for Kings of War. I paid like 180€ and I think all the rules for a IF only list is just above that and spread out in 6 books and quite a few online documents.
This is why I and a few other players I know have put 40k on the backburner since the rules for this game is chaos and almost impossible to keep up with. It will just be harder and harder for GW to "balance" all the rules and for us players to keep track of.
All of those bar the codex are optional, simply don't buy them? but Any model that has a rule that you can purchase should keep some support imo, even if it involves rolling them into a new codex and out of FW.
Psychic Awakening is not optional. It is required. They are full on codex updates.
Yoyoyo wrote: Regardless of optional, it is inarguable that a ruleset dispersed amongst 5-6 sources is incredibly sloppy design.
isnt this how most RPG books are? sure they are cheaper but there are a lot of them for the same system.
No. The vast majority of RPGs can be played entirely with 1 book.
Every other book is optional. DnDs Dungeon Masters Guide isn't needed to play. It's just extremely useful. The monster Manual isn't needed to play (you could just make up monsters stat blocks) it's just extremely useful. Every other book adds options (but generally speaking not power creep) and offers fluff or prebuilt adventures that you don't need to play the game and are just more sources to make the DMs life easier. Optional quality of life improvements.
1 book and some paper and pencils is all you need to play a RPG.
while true... i would say for a beginning DM would have the best experience with at least the monster manual, dungeon masters guide and players handbook. other books and addons being optional. pretty sure adventurer's leage advised gms to have all this as well.
on the 40k front though as the 40k core rules for 8th are literally on a free pamplet you could call that the "rules, get your army codex and ignore all the errata/ and changes and have a good game.
hell you could use the free/downloadable pamplet, an app like battlescribe, and still play a game.
The 'free pamphlet' or Battle Primer is incomplete. It has only the core rules and is really only usable for Open Play. The BRB is still required for all Narrative Play and Matched Play rules.
bananathug wrote: Best custode list at LVO (the most competitive tournament period) was 5-1 (68th over all out of over 700 so top 10% army...) and was mostly that non-competitive troop choice.
I'll be honest, i gave up on them after the SM release.
This is an excellent point, i might have been a little overzealous in my defense of FW but my point still stands, you can't remove FW after ten years of being an integral part of both game systems.
Doesn't the placement and list of that player prove that FW is not integral to the game? It's just an add-on, ten times more so than any of the actual supplements at least. "So do you want free rules?" "Yes?" "Ok, here ya go!"
I promise you he didn't run a 100% codex army. He either had allied detachments or FW models. You can't play Custodies competitively without them.
I mean, i guess he could have used a Warden bomb, but damn i haven't seen that in years.
Edit: HOLY , HA, damn i really didn't think it was a Warden bomb. I stand corrected.
Yoyoyo wrote: Regardless of optional, it is inarguable that a ruleset dispersed amongst 5-6 sources is incredibly sloppy design.
isnt this how most RPG books are? sure they are cheaper but there are a lot of them for the same system.
No. The vast majority of RPGs can be played entirely with 1 book.
Every other book is optional. DnDs Dungeon Masters Guide isn't needed to play. It's just extremely useful. The monster Manual isn't needed to play (you could just make up monsters stat blocks) it's just extremely useful. Every other book adds options (but generally speaking not power creep) and offers fluff or prebuilt adventures that you don't need to play the game and are just more sources to make the DMs life easier. Optional quality of life improvements.
1 book and some paper and pencils is all you need to play a RPG.
while true... i would say for a beginning DM would have the best experience with at least the monster manual, dungeon masters guide and players handbook. other books and addons being optional. pretty sure adventurer's leage advised gms to have all this as well.
on the 40k front though as the 40k core rules for 8th are literally on a free pamplet you could call that the "rules, get your army codex and ignore all the errata/ and changes and have a good game.
hell you could use the free/downloadable pamplet, an app like battlescribe, and still play a game.
Except not. Because while the codex provides the strategems specific to your army, the rules that govern their use and the 3 available to everyone are in the main rule book you have to pay for. The battle primer lets you "play" in the way that the DnD starter box has some pre generated characters. But its not the same as buying the Players Hand Book. To have JUST the PHB level of playability in 40k requires the 50.00 codex and the 70.00 BRB. Which again, doesn't actually get you the up to date rules. You then need Psychic awakening for your army because those are the latest rules and datasheets. And the FAQ Erratas.
Not only that, but the Starterbox for DnD has class options for leveling up, loot tables, and all the rules to run a game. The battle primer has nothing about terrain, nothing about battle forging armies or detachments, etc etc... The 50.00 starter box for DnD is a far more complete experience than the battle primer and codex is for the same price. While the PHB costs as much as the starter box and is again, the ENTIRE GAME for less than half the cost of the BRB and codex. We haven't even purchased a model yet btw.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
FW units should have a place in casual 40k and not be entirely rubbish. But with how the game stacks rules its always possible for a few units to jump over to competitive scene.
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Why?
Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative so from a financial point of view it also makes sense to make the OG units better and playable. Cue Chaplain dreads.
Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K. Personally I dont think so. But I love seeing them in "casual" 40k games because they are awesome models.
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Why?
Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
The price difference between FW stuff and main studio stuff is not what it once was, in fact for many models they're pretty much on par (particularly stuff like infantry characters) and a lot of stuff isn't too far off.
Pricing also shouldn't have anything to do with it, competitive 40k doesn't pay attention to that factor anywhere else (e.g. the expense of an Ork or Guard or Tyranid horde vs elite SM or Knight armies). Likewise, the internet is a thing and most people are buying their stuff online anyway, unless you're one of the tiny minority of people that can only purchase though a local store, it shouldn't make a difference. It's also not like the main studio line doesn't have its own "web exclusives" from time to time that can only be bought online.
Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K. Personally I dont think so.
How is that different than Knights and Baneblades?
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Why?
Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative so from a financial point of view it also makes sense to make the OG units better and playable. Cue Chaplain dreads.
Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K. Personally I dont think so. But I love seeing them in "casual" 40k games because they are awesome models.
There are plenty of comparative units from forgeworld that cost lest less money than codex units. They are working on moving out of print stuff to legends I bet once the new rules for forgeworld come out you will see a lot of oop stuff go to legends. So what if the units are that obscene from their codex then thats ok? Queue triple riptide since I don't think a Taunar list has won any major events.
Smirrors wrote: Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
All units should be competitive. And the type of people who play 40K competitively have not shown an inability to obtain FW units, so I would hardly call them "harder to access". And as for price? Oh please. There are things that FW sell that are cheaper than regular GW plastic releases. Maybe 10 years ago (or more) that was a relevant criticism.
Smirrors wrote: GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative...
So what? I don't see how that's relevant to allowing FW units or not.
Smirrors wrote: Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K.
Are they though? Besides, and as much as it sounds like I am splitting hairs here I will say it, there's no such thing as "competitive 40K". There are people who play 40K competitively, but there is no separate sub-set of 40K that is "competitive 40K".
Forge World units are hardly anything special, and the idea that they should be banned because some people don't have access to them is ludicrous. Doubly so when GW themselves are writing all their rules.
There are plenty of comparative units from forgeworld that cost lest less money than codex units. They are working on moving out of print stuff to legends I bet once the new rules for forgeworld come out you will see a lot of oop stuff go to legends. So what if the units are that obscene from their codex then thats ok? Queue triple riptide since I don't think a Taunar list has won any major events.
Can you provide samples? For Australians, everything forgeworld equivalent you can compare is 50% more or 100% the price. And fact is most "comparative" units dont exist nor do they even have comparative plastics. You can't get plastic Leviathans for example.
You think riptides are obscene...yeah ok you have no idea then.
Smirrors wrote: Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
All units should be competitive. And the type of people who play 40K competitively have not shown an inability to obtain FW units, so I would hardly call them "harder to access". And as for price? Oh please. There are things that FW sell that are cheaper than regular GW plastic releases. Maybe 10 years ago (or more) that was a relevant criticism.
Smirrors wrote: GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative...
So what? I don't see how that's relevant to allowing FW units or not.
Smirrors wrote: Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K.
Are they though? Besides, and as much as it sounds like I am splitting hairs here I will say it, there's no such thing as "competitive 40K". There are people who play 40K competitively, but there is no separate sub-set of 40K that is "competitive 40K".
Forge World units are hardly anything special, and the idea that they should be banned because some people don't have access to them is ludicrous. Doubly so when GW themselves are writing all their rules.
All units that are readily available as part of GW retail line should be competitive. Stuff that doesn't exist anymore or is made to order should be playable but not top of the pile.
Who said anything about banning FW. People who want to bring FW models should be doing so because they want to. But chasing the meta should not involve buying FW and buying models that are no longer available. It makes sense from a competitive standpoint and a business standpoint. People who are buying titans and fw flyers aren't doing so to chase the meta.
You missed the point. The Astraeus or Taunar should never be in the realms of top competitive choices is the point. As random gate keeper units sure. The chaplain dread should not be a top choice as it is now, but I also disagree with legending a completely cool model. Thats worse. Rebalance the points to make it inefficient or make it targetable by having more wounds.
A good example is the Porphyrion, it was nerfed to not be a competitive choice. But if a player loves the model enough they can definitely use it.
There are plenty of comparative units from forgeworld that cost lest less money than codex units. They are working on moving out of print stuff to legends I bet once the new rules for forgeworld come out you will see a lot of oop stuff go to legends. So what if the units are that obscene from their codex then thats ok? Queue triple riptide since I don't think a Taunar list has won any major events.
Can you provide samples? For Australians, everything forgeworld equivalent you can compare is 50% more or 100% the price. And fact is most "comparative" units dont exist nor do they even have comparative plastics. You can't get plastic Leviathans for example.
You think riptides are obscene...yeah ok you have no idea then.
Smirrors wrote: Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
All units should be competitive. And the type of people who play 40K competitively have not shown an inability to obtain FW units, so I would hardly call them "harder to access". And as for price? Oh please. There are things that FW sell that are cheaper than regular GW plastic releases. Maybe 10 years ago (or more) that was a relevant criticism.
Smirrors wrote: GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative...
So what? I don't see how that's relevant to allowing FW units or not.
Smirrors wrote: Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K.
Are they though? Besides, and as much as it sounds like I am splitting hairs here I will say it, there's no such thing as "competitive 40K". There are people who play 40K competitively, but there is no separate sub-set of 40K that is "competitive 40K".
Forge World units are hardly anything special, and the idea that they should be banned because some people don't have access to them is ludicrous. Doubly so when GW themselves are writing all their rules.
All units that are readily available as part of GW retail line should be competitive. Stuff that doesn't exist anymore or is made to order should be playable but not top of the pile.
Who said anything about banning FW. People who want to bring FW models should be doing so because they want to. But chasing the meta should not involve buying FW and buying models that are no longer available. It makes sense from a competitive standpoint and a business standpoint. People who are buying titans and fw flyers aren't doing so to chase the meta.
You missed the point. The Astraeus or Taunar should never be in the realms of top competitive choices is the point. As random gate keeper units sure. The chaplain dread should not be a top choice as it is now, but I also disagree with legending a completely cool model. Thats worse. Rebalance the points to make it inefficient or make it targetable by having more wounds.
A good example is the Porphyrion, it was nerfed to not be a competitive choice. But if a player loves the model enough they can definitely use it.
Sorry, but limiting the use of anything because of its Australian price is ridiculous. Australia is an extreme outlier when it comes to gw's prices.
And what you're not getting is that nerfing a model for competitive play also nerfs it for casual. We use the same codexes, brb, errata, and ca for both. Make a unit bad for competitive and you make it bad for casual games as well.
You think riptides are obscene...yeah ok you have no idea then.
I mean every competitive Tau list that I see that actually win events have riptides. I did a quick google search for Tau gt wins and all I saw was Riptides and drones. There was one list that had 8 piranhas which was neat still had a riptide though. I didn't see a Taunar lists win an event. Seen them definitely be gatekeeper lists for sure but never taking the top spots. Not to say that they can't I'm just not seeing the evidence to support your argument that the taunar is better than riptides.
I am one of the honest few. Lots of folk buy FW for the awesome models and the fluff. I bought my triple deredeo and a leviathan and now a contemptor to run with my Deathguard purely for the rules to give my force a strength bump. There are loads of people like me they just can't admit it.
Oh, I'll admit to buying & playing things for the power/rules (I don't really care about the fluff). But I have to ALSO like the model.
Because if I don't like model? Then it doesn't matter what it's rules advantages are, I won't buy it. (though I might use it if I can find an acceptable substitute or scratch build/convert my own)
Upon returning to 40k in late '18 & seeing the Deredeo? I asked one question: "Is that thing legal in a 40k army?" A: "Yes." Reply: "Add to cart."
If our Deredeos go to gak will you still field yours?
I will, how about you?
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Oh i miss meant what I was writing. You get the gist of it. Bring FW because you like them, not because you are chasing the meta.
No. Fw models should not be op. No unit should. But they should be just as competitive as any other unit. No one should be penalized for playing models they like. That goes against the entire point of the hobby.
Sorry, but limiting the use of anything because of its Australian price is ridiculous. Australia is an extreme outlier when it comes to gw's prices.
And what you're not getting is that nerfing a model for competitive play also nerfs it for casual. We use the same codexes, brb, errata, and ca for both. Make a unit bad for competitive and you make it bad for casual games as well.
Ok I assume your US so heres a somewhat random comparison of models that have a remotely close example:
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Oh i miss meant what I was writing. You get the gist of it. Bring FW because you like them, not because you are chasing the meta.
No. Fw models should not be op. No unit should. But they should be just as competitive as any other unit. No one should be penalized for playing models they like. That goes against the entire point of the hobby.
If a model is OP or super efficient, it should not be a FW model is what I am getting at. And I believe GW is on the same page with that. In some respects this will lead to units being put in Legends (which plenty people are calling for) which i disagree with.
For example the Deathguard player should not have to buy forgeworld models to make his army competitive.
The guys that won LVO and Cancon should not have a forgeworld Leviathan and Chaplain dreads form the crux of their lists.
Of the forgeworld models that made it into LVO and Cancon lists, how many of them were legit? I think fewer than 10% and that is being generous. GW knows this too.
Sorry, but limiting the use of anything because of its Australian price is ridiculous. Australia is an extreme outlier when it comes to gw's prices.
And what you're not getting is that nerfing a model for competitive play also nerfs it for casual. We use the same codexes, brb, errata, and ca for both. Make a unit bad for competitive and you make it bad for casual games as well.
Ok I assume your US so heres a somewhat random comparison of models that have a remotely close example:
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Oh i miss meant what I was writing. You get the gist of it. Bring FW because you like them, not because you are chasing the meta.
No. Fw models should not be op. No unit should. But they should be just as competitive as any other unit. No one should be penalized for playing models they like. That goes against the entire point of the hobby.
If a model is OP or super efficient, it should not be a FW model is what I am getting at. And I believe GW is on the same page with that. In some respects this will lead to units being put in Legends (which plenty people are calling for) which i disagree with.
For example the Deathguard player should not have to buy forgeworld models to make his army competitive.
The guys that won LVO and Cancon should not have a forgeworld Leviathan and Chaplain dreads form the crux of their lists.
Of the forgeworld models that made it into LVO and Cancon lists, how many of them were legit? I think fewer than 10% and that is being generous. GW knows this too.
So you're arguing that fw should be inferior due to price? By that logic shouldn't tac marines be superior to primaris? Shouldn't big models like knights be less efficient than infantry?
Sorry, but limiting the use of anything because of its Australian price is ridiculous. Australia is an extreme outlier when it comes to gw's prices.
And what you're not getting is that nerfing a model for competitive play also nerfs it for casual. We use the same codexes, brb, errata, and ca for both. Make a unit bad for competitive and you make it bad for casual games as well.
Ok I assume your US so heres a somewhat random comparison of models that have a remotely close example:
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Oh i miss meant what I was writing. You get the gist of it. Bring FW because you like them, not because you are chasing the meta.
No. Fw models should not be op. No unit should. But they should be just as competitive as any other unit. No one should be penalized for playing models they like. That goes against the entire point of the hobby.
If a model is OP or super efficient, it should not be a FW model is what I am getting at. And I believe GW is on the same page with that. In some respects this will lead to units being put in Legends (which plenty people are calling for) which i disagree with.
For example the Deathguard player should not have to buy forgeworld models to make his army competitive.
The guys that won LVO and Cancon should not have a forgeworld Leviathan and Chaplain dreads form the crux of their lists.
Of the forgeworld models that made it into LVO and Cancon lists, how many of them were legit? I think fewer than 10% and that is being generous. GW knows this too.
So you're arguing that fw should be inferior due to price? By that logic shouldn't tac marines be superior to primaris? Shouldn't big models like knights be less efficient than infantry?
If this was the case Blood Knights wouldn't still be a thing.FW and GW shouldn't be more or less powerful than each other, and that's why they are bringing the rules all under one house now.
Sorry, but limiting the use of anything because of its Australian price is ridiculous. Australia is an extreme outlier when it comes to gw's prices.
And what you're not getting is that nerfing a model for competitive play also nerfs it for casual. We use the same codexes, brb, errata, and ca for both. Make a unit bad for competitive and you make it bad for casual games as well.
Ok I assume your US so heres a somewhat random comparison of models that have a remotely close example:
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Oh i miss meant what I was writing. You get the gist of it. Bring FW because you like them, not because you are chasing the meta.
No. Fw models should not be op. No unit should. But they should be just as competitive as any other unit. No one should be penalized for playing models they like. That goes against the entire point of the hobby.
If a model is OP or super efficient, it should not be a FW model is what I am getting at. And I believe GW is on the same page with that. In some respects this will lead to units being put in Legends (which plenty people are calling for) which i disagree with.
For example the Deathguard player should not have to buy forgeworld models to make his army competitive.
The guys that won LVO and Cancon should not have a forgeworld Leviathan and Chaplain dreads form the crux of their lists.
Of the forgeworld models that made it into LVO and Cancon lists, how many of them were legit? I think fewer than 10% and that is being generous. GW knows this too.
So you're arguing that fw should be inferior due to price? By that logic shouldn't tac marines be superior to primaris? Shouldn't big models like knights be less efficient than infantry?
No I am arguing that FW should be on par or inferior due to availability and price. FW was always a side project, never the main course.
Interestingly you just ignored the price discrepancy. Still waiting for Salty to say that FW is cheaper than GW
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
Is it me or can your entire response to pretty much any criticism of FW units be summed up as 'no, you're wrong and I'm right'?
There are tons of examples of janky FW units. Not necessarily OP, just odd. Often using mechanics no other unit in the game uses or having really outdated datasheets that make them work differently to other, very similar units.
It is this jankiness that causes the OP interactions to occur, quite often.
The Levi Dread is absolutely OP, it is too points efficient. IH simply magnify that twofold and nullify any potential weaknesses.
Finally - this isn't 'outrage'. I'm not sure what led you to believe such. It just looks really poor on GW to have these weird, separate units that act differently to their plastic counterparts in a very unintuitive way.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
Is it me or can your entire response to pretty much any criticism of FW units be summed up as 'no, you're wrong and I'm right'?
There are tons of examples of janky FW units. Not necessarily OP, just odd. Often using mechanics no other unit in the game uses or having really outdated datasheets that make them work differently to other, very similar units.
It is this jankiness that causes the OP interactions to occur, quite often.
The Levi Dread is absolutely OP, it is too points efficient. IH simply magnify that twofold and nullify any potential weaknesses.
Finally - this isn't 'outrage'. I'm not sure what led you to believe such. It just looks really poor on GW to have these weird, separate units that act differently to their plastic counterparts in a very unintuitive way.
Complaining about rules jankyness from an ork, a codex more often then not was sumarisable with the word itself ruleswise is an issue to you?
Irony thine name is AAE.
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Why?
Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative so from a financial point of view it also makes sense to make the OG units better and playable. Cue Chaplain dreads.
Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K. Personally I dont think so. But I love seeing them in "casual" 40k games because they are awesome models.
What a ridiculous statement to make.
Chapter supplements, Psychic Awakening, etc are not part of a core codex. Should they be banned too?
Should models like Castellans and Baneblades really be seen in competitive 40k? Your entire viewpoint is complete rubbish, as I've just illustrated, and I suspect your budgetary limitations and jealousy might be the reason for it.
Forgeworld is an OFFICIALGW product, and one that is most commonly purchased by the most dedicated hobbyists, collectors and players.
Orodhen wrote: So the Leviathan being OP in one edge case is reason enough to nerf (or ban) the entire datasheet? Sounds legit... /s
It's under-costed to start with, but blatantly overpowered in an edge case, so yes.
Another silly idea. The model is not too cheap at all, but it is certainty too good with specific chapter and stratagem combinations.
It needs a keyword change, and nothing more.
The sheer amount of ignorance in this topic is staggering. Most FW units require a substantial cost reduction in combination with rule improvements. Some are too good. That's the same issue as the rest of the GW plastic range.
H.B.M.C. wrote:So fix the issues. Don't just ban it. That's absurd.
Sorry, I was unclear. I think it deserves a mild points increase and re-work of its keywords to mitigate the IH ridiculousness. Nothing should ever be banned.
I get that by the standards of competitive gameplay it doesn't overperform compared to the other underpriced units available to each faction, but in the context of the game as a whole it is pretty nasty- I wish my Guard could pay 300ish points for around 17 S7, AP-2, D2 hits per turn protected by a 2+/4++. It blows both the Stormlord and Macharius Vulcan out of the water, being cheaper, harder to kill, more mobile, and averaging more hits at a higher S.
H.B.M.C. wrote:So fix the issues. Don't just ban it. That's absurd.
Sorry, I was unclear. I think it deserves a mild points increase and re-work of its keywords to mitigate the IH ridiculousness. Nothing should ever be banned.
I get that by the standards of competitive gameplay it doesn't overperform compared to the other underpriced units available to each faction, but in the context of the game as a whole it is pretty nasty- I wish my Guard could pay 300ish points for around 17 S7, AP-2, D2 hits per turn protected by a 2+/4++. It blows both the Stormlord and Macharius Vulcan out of the water, being cheaper, harder to kill, more mobile, and averaging more hits at a higher S.
Then just up the cost of the Storm cannon array? I do agree that the IH interactions need some serious limiting (maybe it only works on non-Relic units?).
At 300 points, a snippy claw/melta lance Levi isn't game-breaking. Especially since it almost costs as much as a Knight, and has almost half the wounds.
Where was all this talk about leviathans being op last year before space marines came out? I mean chaos have better leviathans than loyalists base without buffs but I have not seen any competative chaos lists winning evens with them. Its not the leviathan. They are strong yes oplol hardly. Its the stupid gak space marines can do with their dreds now that make them broken.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
Is it me or can your entire response to pretty much any criticism of FW units be summed up as 'no, you're wrong and I'm right'?
There are tons of examples of janky FW units. Not necessarily OP, just odd. Often using mechanics no other unit in the game uses or having really outdated datasheets that make them work differently to other, very similar units.
It is this jankiness that causes the OP interactions to occur, quite often.
The Levi Dread is absolutely OP, it is too points efficient. IH simply magnify that twofold and nullify any potential weaknesses.
Finally - this isn't 'outrage'. I'm not sure what led you to believe such. It just looks really poor on GW to have these weird, separate units that act differently to their plastic counterparts in a very unintuitive way.
Complaining about rules jankyness from an ork, a codex more often then not was sumarisable with the word itself ruleswise is an issue to you?
Irony thine name is AAE.
What? Can you elaborate because I genuinely think you misunderstand what "janky" means. There are examples within the Ork range - all our bikers got "Speed Freeks" keyword while the FW bikers did not, for a very, very long time. All our units got "Dakka, Dakka, Dakka" except (you guessed it!) FW units for a very, very long time. It's the inconsistencies that are irritating and they exist throughout FW for all factions.
But please - do tell me, with examples, of all those janky rules Orks have enjoyed in this edition and others. Real interested to hear about that.
Karol wrote: That would be really stupid, everyone who bought them would lose money, because they would no longer be able to use them.
People bought 1-2 of them and they cost almost 50$ each.
I mean, gak happens. if you buy into a strong model like this, you could expect some pts change down the line.
And levi's are closer to 120$ with arms (on forgeworld's website)
People buy them cheaper from local and russian sellers. Plus if someone paid 120$ for it, it only means it is worse.
the idea that people should live in fear of having good rules seems stupid to me.
Karol wrote: People buy them cheaper from local and russian sellers. Plus if someone paid 120$ for it, it only means it is worse.
the idea that people should live in fear of having good rules seems stupid to me.
Correction - people buy fakes/copies of a Forge World sculpt from your local or Russian sellers.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
Is it me or can your entire response to pretty much any criticism of FW units be summed up as 'no, you're wrong and I'm right'?
There are tons of examples of janky FW units. Not necessarily OP, just odd. Often using mechanics no other unit in the game uses or having really outdated datasheets that make them work differently to other, very similar units.
It is this jankiness that causes the OP interactions to occur, quite often.
The Levi Dread is absolutely OP, it is too points efficient. IH simply magnify that twofold and nullify any potential weaknesses.
Finally - this isn't 'outrage'. I'm not sure what led you to believe such. It just looks really poor on GW to have these weird, separate units that act differently to their plastic counterparts in a very unintuitive way.
Probably because you ARE wrong. If the Leviathan were OP in any fashion outside Iron Hands, we'd have all sorts of Space Marine lists with them topping. However we do not. We also have most of the Iron Hands lists making headway without them as well. Also you're going to need to define what you consider janky, because you're just throwing terms around doesn't help your case.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
Is it me or can your entire response to pretty much any criticism of FW units be summed up as 'no, you're wrong and I'm right'?
There are tons of examples of janky FW units. Not necessarily OP, just odd. Often using mechanics no other unit in the game uses or having really outdated datasheets that make them work differently to other, very similar units.
It is this jankiness that causes the OP interactions to occur, quite often.
The Levi Dread is absolutely OP, it is too points efficient. IH simply magnify that twofold and nullify any potential weaknesses.
Finally - this isn't 'outrage'. I'm not sure what led you to believe such. It just looks really poor on GW to have these weird, separate units that act differently to their plastic counterparts in a very unintuitive way.
Complaining about rules jankyness from an ork, a codex more often then not was sumarisable with the word itself ruleswise is an issue to you?
Irony thine name is AAE.
What? Can you elaborate because I genuinely think you misunderstand what "janky" means. There are examples within the Ork range - all our bikers got "Speed Freeks" keyword while the FW bikers did not, for a very, very long time. All our units got "Dakka, Dakka, Dakka" except (you guessed it!) FW units for a very, very long time. It's the inconsistencies that are irritating and they exist throughout FW for all factions.
But please - do tell me, with examples, of all those janky rules Orks have enjoyed in this edition and others. Real interested to hear about that.
Was i talking about this edition?
No? Good did you get that, but a little reminder, Biker nobs? Shokk attackgun table? Etc. Were all aswell "janky" in the past.
But go ahead, let"s ban " janky " rulesets because feth empathy or common sense.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
Is it me or can your entire response to pretty much any criticism of FW units be summed up as 'no, you're wrong and I'm right'?
There are tons of examples of janky FW units. Not necessarily OP, just odd. Often using mechanics no other unit in the game uses or having really outdated datasheets that make them work differently to other, very similar units.
It is this jankiness that causes the OP interactions to occur, quite often.
The Levi Dread is absolutely OP, it is too points efficient. IH simply magnify that twofold and nullify any potential weaknesses.
Finally - this isn't 'outrage'. I'm not sure what led you to believe such. It just looks really poor on GW to have these weird, separate units that act differently to their plastic counterparts in a very unintuitive way.
Complaining about rules jankyness from an ork, a codex more often then not was sumarisable with the word itself ruleswise is an issue to you?
Irony thine name is AAE.
What? Can you elaborate because I genuinely think you misunderstand what "janky" means. There are examples within the Ork range - all our bikers got "Speed Freeks" keyword while the FW bikers did not, for a very, very long time. All our units got "Dakka, Dakka, Dakka" except (you guessed it!) FW units for a very, very long time. It's the inconsistencies that are irritating and they exist throughout FW for all factions.
But please - do tell me, with examples, of all those janky rules Orks have enjoyed in this edition and others. Real interested to hear about that.
Was i talking about this edition?
No? Good did you get that, but a little reminder, Biker nobs? Shokk attackgun table? Etc. Were all aswell "janky" in the past.
But go ahead, let"s ban " janky " rulesets because feth empathy or common sense.
There was nothing janky about Nob Bikers or the SAG table lol? Care to explain exactly what you mean?
I have said nothing about banning anything. Stop projecting your weird issues with someone else onto me.
My suggestion would be to fix the offending units by bringing their rules in line with other, similar units and pointing them appropriately, if you're asking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Probably because you ARE wrong. If the Leviathan were OP in any fashion outside Iron Hands, we'd have all sorts of Space Marine lists with them topping. However we do not. We also have most of the Iron Hands lists making headway without them as well. Also you're going to need to define what you consider janky, because you're just throwing terms around doesn't help your case.
Rubbish. IH simply provide the most effective way to play the Levi Dread so (surprise surprise) they're most often taken as IH in competitive lists. Remove IH and they don't suddenly become awful. They've always been a very, very points efficient unit. The success of IH without Levi Dreads does not in any way disprove that Levi Dreads are OP.
Janky generally means "unintuitive" but feel free not to comment if you don't understand the wording.
An Actual Englishman wrote: It seems to me that whenever there's a hyper points efficient unit 9 times out of 10 it's from FW. I guess GW want to shift some of that expensive resin, huh. FW units also contain some of the most sloppy rules writing I've ever seen that is, frankly, embarrassing.
I don't really see why there should be a separate FW rule book for units. They should be included in codexes for clarity and balance. Although, that said, they're not even consistent with this - my Warboss on Warbike is a codex entry despite existing only as a FW miniature, as are my Nobs on Bikes.
FW has always been the place to find janky rules in the hope of stumbling across some OP combo - I really hope GW kill this dead.
An Actual Englishman wrote: It seems to me that whenever there's a hyper points efficient unit 9 times out of 10 it's from FW. I guess GW want to shift some of that expensive resin, huh. FW units also contain some of the most sloppy rules writing I've ever seen that is, frankly, embarrassing.
I don't really see why there should be a separate FW rule book for units. They should be included in codexes for clarity and balance. Although, that said, they're not even consistent with this - my Warboss on Warbike is a codex entry despite existing only as a FW miniature, as are my Nobs on Bikes.
FW has always been the place to find janky rules in the hope of stumbling across some OP combo - I really hope GW kill this dead.
Rest my case.
You might want to pick that case up again there bud, because nowhere in that quotation underlined or otherwise do I see anything about banning units?
For the second time - stop projecting your weird issues onto me.
Ishagu wrote: The Leviathan is not overpowered or under-costed by datasheet alone.
If it lost the Dreadnought keyword all issues are fixed. Simple replace it with "Heavy Dreadnought"
Now it can't halve it's wounds, be made into a character, etc
Umm that is exactly what I am suggesting. If you remove said keyword, you wont see it in competitive. Problem solved.
People who enjoy the model will continue to be able to use it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: I can't wait for FW units to get rules improvements. Too many have languished behind.
I think you are dreaming if you think GW will make FW rules improve in general. They wont be doing the same play testing as they do with the GW line of models. I would be happy to be proven wrong though.
Forgeworld is an OFFICIAL GW product, and one that is most commonly purchased by the most dedicated hobbyists, collectors and players.
And from their range majority of it is being purchased by people who as you say dedicated hobbyists. Most don't even care for the rules at the competitive level. I have an Imperial Navy Thunderbolt fighter that has never seen tabletop play. Did i buy it for its awesome rules? Nope. I am still ogling a Marauder Destroyer but have no plans to buy build and paint it for a competitive game.
Competitive players just pick edge cases and most daresay are not even purchasing said FW models. They are converting GW plastics (a good thing) or buying recasts.
Your entire viewpoint is complete rubbish, as I've just illustrated, and I suspect your budgetary limitations and jealousy might be the reason for it.
You haven't illustrated anything.
Your suspicions are blatantly wrong.
I have 8000pts of guard with a few sprinklings of genuine FW products (Thunderbolt/Vulture/Armageddon Basilisks/FW Hydras). I also have 3 baneblades which I would prefer to be competitive but are sadly not.
I also have a Deredeo Dreadnought which I bought for competitive purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: That would be really stupid, everyone who bought them would lose money, because they would no longer be able to use them.
People bought 1-2 of them and they cost almost 50$ each.
Of course you can use them, they are just not going to be overpowered.
People buying models to chase competitive meta should know this already.
Look at the Castellan as an example. So many showing up in 2018/early 2019. Virtually none now. Its still an awesome model and can win you games but is not a competitive choice.
The Salt Mine wrote: Where was all this talk about leviathans being op last year before space marines came out? I mean chaos have better leviathans than loyalists base without buffs but I have not seen any competative chaos lists winning evens with them. Its not the leviathan. They are strong yes oplol hardly. Its the stupid gak space marines can do with their dreds now that make them broken.
The chaos leviathan has an inferior invul, cannot regain lost wounds except through the machine malifica rule, and operates under a far inferior codex. How exactly is it better?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: The Leviathan is not overpowered or under-costed by datasheet alone.
If it lost the Dreadnought keyword all issues are fixed. Simple replace it with "Heavy Dreadnought"
Now it can't halve it's wounds, be made into a character, etc
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
Is it me or can your entire response to pretty much any criticism of FW units be summed up as 'no, you're wrong and I'm right'?
There are tons of examples of janky FW units. Not necessarily OP, just odd. Often using mechanics no other unit in the game uses or having really outdated datasheets that make them work differently to other, very similar units.
It is this jankiness that causes the OP interactions to occur, quite often.
The Levi Dread is absolutely OP, it is too points efficient. IH simply magnify that twofold and nullify any potential weaknesses.
Finally - this isn't 'outrage'. I'm not sure what led you to believe such. It just looks really poor on GW to have these weird, separate units that act differently to their plastic counterparts in a very unintuitive way.
Complaining about rules jankyness from an ork, a codex more often then not was sumarisable with the word itself ruleswise is an issue to you?
Irony thine name is AAE.
What? Can you elaborate because I genuinely think you misunderstand what "janky" means. There are examples within the Ork range - all our bikers got "Speed Freeks" keyword while the FW bikers did not, for a very, very long time. All our units got "Dakka, Dakka, Dakka" except (you guessed it!) FW units for a very, very long time. It's the inconsistencies that are irritating and they exist throughout FW for all factions.
But please - do tell me, with examples, of all those janky rules Orks have enjoyed in this edition and others. Real interested to hear about that.
Was i talking about this edition?
No? Good did you get that, but a little reminder, Biker nobs? Shokk attackgun table? Etc. Were all aswell "janky" in the past.
But go ahead, let"s ban " janky " rulesets because feth empathy or common sense.
There was nothing janky about Nob Bikers or the SAG table lol? Care to explain exactly what you mean?
I have said nothing about banning anything. Stop projecting your weird issues with someone else onto me.
My suggestion would be to fix the offending units by bringing their rules in line with other, similar units and pointing them appropriately, if you're asking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Probably because you ARE wrong. If the Leviathan were OP in any fashion outside Iron Hands, we'd have all sorts of Space Marine lists with them topping. However we do not. We also have most of the Iron Hands lists making headway without them as well. Also you're going to need to define what you consider janky, because you're just throwing terms around doesn't help your case.
Rubbish. IH simply provide the most effective way to play the Levi Dread so (surprise surprise) they're most often taken as IH in competitive lists. Remove IH and they don't suddenly become awful. They've always been a very, very points efficient unit. The success of IH without Levi Dreads does not in any way disprove that Levi Dreads are OP.
Janky generally means "unintuitive" but feel free not to comment if you don't understand the wording.
Except they aren't often taken in favor of things like Repulsors, which means Iron Hands did the deed. What's your point? They're clearly not taken in other Chapters after all. MAYBE it's because they aren't OP, and Iron Hands make all units too good basically. Shocker I know.
The Salt Mine wrote: Where was all this talk about leviathans being op last year before space marines came out? I mean chaos have better leviathans than loyalists base without buffs but I have not seen any competative chaos lists winning evens with them. Its not the leviathan. They are strong yes oplol hardly. Its the stupid gak space marines can do with their dreds now that make them broken.
The chaos leviathan has an inferior invul, cannot regain lost wounds except through the machine malifica rule, and operates under a far inferior codex. How exactly is it better?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: The Leviathan is not overpowered or under-costed by datasheet alone.
If it lost the Dreadnought keyword all issues are fixed. Simple replace it with "Heavy Dreadnought"
Now it can't halve it's wounds, be made into a character, etc
Dear god I actually agree with you.
Did you read what I said? I said without buffs IE not psych powers, stratagems, or outside model help. Data sheet to data sheet comparison with stormcannon array vs butcher cannon array since those are the most common variances. Loyalist has a 4++ invuln. Chaos has the ability to regain wounds, the butcher cannon is better at 36in range and being strength 8 but -1 ap and 2 less shots, the flamers are damage 2 instead of damage 1. So if the chaos version has all these things that are better than the loyalist version on the datasheet but the loyalist version is op why? Because its not the fething dreadnaught that is op its the fething buffs that space marines can give it and anyone with half a brain cell can see that.
The Salt Mine wrote: Where was all this talk about leviathans being op last year before space marines came out? I mean chaos have better leviathans than loyalists base without buffs but I have not seen any competative chaos lists winning evens with them. Its not the leviathan. They are strong yes oplol hardly. Its the stupid gak space marines can do with their dreds now that make them broken.
The chaos leviathan has an inferior invul, cannot regain lost wounds except through the machine malifica rule, and operates under a far inferior codex. How exactly is it better?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: The Leviathan is not overpowered or under-costed by datasheet alone.
If it lost the Dreadnought keyword all issues are fixed. Simple replace it with "Heavy Dreadnought"
Now it can't halve it's wounds, be made into a character, etc
Dear god I actually agree with you.
Did you read what I said? I said without buffs IE not psych powers, stratagems, or outside model help. Data sheet to data sheet comparison with stormcannon array vs butcher cannon array since those are the most common variances. Loyalist has a 4++ invuln. Chaos has the ability to regain wounds, the butcher cannon is better at 36in range and being strength 8 but -1 ap and 2 less shots, the flamers are damage 2 instead of damage 1. So if the chaos version has all these things that are better than the loyalist version on the datasheet but the loyalist version is op why? Because its not the fething dreadnaught that is op its the fething buffs that space marines can give it and anyone with half a brain cell can see that.
Whoa easy there Trigger! I agree it's the buffs provided by ih that's the problem. My question was why you thought the hellforged version was superior. The butcher cannon has superior range and strength but less ap and shots so I'd call that a wash. The loyalist version's superior invul is a big issue because high durability is one of the leviathan's biggest selling points. And since you're comparing the double butcher/storm cannon varieties then the loyalist's ability to sit back and be repaired by a tech marine is far superior than the hellforged version's ability to heal via combat. What are you doing getting your leviathan in combat if one of the advantages you point out is it's superior range?
The hellforged version is inferior and therefore should be cheaper than the loyalist version.
Sorry the last part wasn't directed at you just the multitude of people complaining about a model that has existed all of 8th edition and was never even remotely close to an issue. However now since suppliments have come out this model is now broken and needs to be nerfed instead of the new rules making it broken. Also the tech marine repair is again an ouside model helping. I am compairing plain datasheet to datasheet. Also disagree that the weapon comparison is s wash. +1str is a huge upgrade and a breakpoint for wounding. That alone makes the butcher cannons better the extra range is just gravy
The Salt Mine wrote: Sorry the last part wasn't directed at you just the multitude of people complaining about a model that has existed all of 8th edition and was never even remotely close to an issue. However now since suppliments have come out this model is now broken and needs to be nerfed instead of the new rules making it broken. Also the tech marine repair is again an ouside model helping. I am compairing plain datasheet to datasheet. Also disagree that the weapon comparison is s wash. +1str is a huge upgrade and a breakpoint for wounding. That alone makes the butcher cannons better the extra range is just gravy
Ok we're cool. Though we'll just have to agree to disagree on the weapons. It's definitely ih that's making leviathans a problem. Sentencing fw to legends status just because a broken chapter supplement makes a single model broken when used with it is ridiculous.
Hopefully gw's plans for "rebalancing " fw means fixing the points and weird rules for many of the units and armies.
, but it'll probably be some of the Knights and the Space Marine 
