Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Reecius wrote:
@Whitedragon
Haha, I know it, brohym! I have an all Khorne FW army, too. and I am so juiced for the new rumors! I hope we get a Khorne army that isn't overpriced and underpowered.

So I got a chance to look at the actual book, and the Contemptor does look pretty tasty if not extremely expensive! However, what slot does it take up from the FoC? I must have glanced over that part. Also, it looks like dedicating things to Khorne gives them the rage rule. That's pretty crummy compared to the bonuses that Nurgle (-1 to damage chart), Slaanesh (I+1 and grenades) and Tzeentch (AP3 and re-roll ones) get.

So, if Khorne getting "rage" is a sign of the things to come, it looks like I can settle in to "Counts As" for my World Eaters for a long time.

Really looking forward to your reviews for Tyranids. I've hears Stone Crushers have a 2+ save and better regeneration, which might make them worth running as my melee fexes, and a Malanthrope brood has been on my wishlist for a while. But with the state of Tyranids right now, I've bee hesitant to pull the trigger on the books and models.

@Kepora
Yeah, I think if it had a las cannon for the same price, it would be a totally smart choice, as it is now, it is just a little weak, IMO. It costs what a Vendetta does, you know? Not even comparable. But then, a Vednetta is way under-priced.

@Whitedragon
Yeah, I agree. I hope that isn't the case, but the rumors i have been hearing don't indicate that. I hope they don't give us rage again, that was weak...unless they change the rules for rage and make it more fun.

@Loki
I really like the Nid units, personally. The Malanthrope especially looks like a good unit, to me.

Necrons added pg 1

Umm, the necron link is asking me for an admin login.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/01/04/imperial-armor-apocalypse-second-edition-necrons-review/

Enjoyed the review on the Tomb Stalker! I really like it's stats, and it ended up being the first forgeworld model I bought. The only thing I lament, is not being able to bring this in a normal game pick up game! I wish they had just added it to the dex's heavy support slot.

Thanks Mr. Burning.


Thanks for the great reviews Reecius.



Ordering a Tomb Stalker this weekend. Luckily the group i play with is happy to allow FW models in normal games (one fo them plays a "proper" Red Scorpions army with Apothacary sergeants and everything) so i should get some decent use out of it.

Reece,

I haven't finished reading all the reviews yet (just got through the IG section), but I really feel like you're mis-representing what is being said in Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2nd edition.

You ask: 'where is the Vulture?' and 'why would they leave it out?'

The answer is, of course that the Vulture is in Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2 (page 24 to be exact), a book which is still on sale.


The premise of your article seems to be that it is 'about time' that they finally made IA rules 'official' or something...which IAA 2nd edition does not do in any way shape or form...or rather it doesn't make those units any more or less 'official' than any other Imperial Armor book.

First off: The stamps. These are not 'official' stamps like those found in the units introduced in White Dwarf. Those stamps simply say 'official' on them, whereas these stamps just say 'Warhammer 40,000' on them. In essence, these stamps just make it easy to identify at a glance which units in the book are designed to be used in standard games of 40K as opposed to being 'apoc only'.

Previous IA books have simply just had text in their entry explaining how they could be taken in a 'standard' 40K army when it applied to a unit. So if a unit didn't have such instruction that was the indication that it was an 'apoc only' unit. Obviously this isn't the most clear way to present info, so they're now including the nifty stamps to delineate the two, but this is not some big 'change'.

Moreover, IAA 2nd edition says about using these units:

"As with all our models these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact that they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

This is exactly the same thing they've been putting in the IA books for years now, and that statement even acknowledges that 'all' their models are considered 'official' (but should be okayed by your opponent).


And actually even earlier on that same page it says:

"You'll get the best out of it when used in conjunction with Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2 (which, except for a handful of profile updated here, remains valid and up to date)."


As you can see, they expect you to use Imperial Armor Apoc 2 in conjunction with this new book (along with the rest of the IA series), which is why you don't see the 'Vulture' or dozens of other units in it, because they already have equally valid and 'official' rules published elsewhere.


So while I totally applaud your efforts to get the IA rules out there into the minds and hearts of tournament players (its what I want too), I think you do a disservice to represent that this new book indicates some sort of 'change' in how Imperial Armor is handled by GW. It is exactly the same as it has ever been. The only change is that they've made it more clear which units are apoc only and which are allowed in basic games of 40K via the 'stamps', but this info DOES exist in other IA books, just not as clearly.

yakface wrote:


So while I totally applaud your efforts to get the IA rules out there into the minds and hearts of tournament players (its what I want too), I think you do a disservice to represent that this new book indicates some sort of 'change' in how Imperial Armor is handled by GW. It is exactly the same as it has ever been. The only change is that they've made it more clear which units are apoc only and which are allowed in basic games of 40K via the 'stamps', but this info DOES exist in other IA books, just not as clearly.

Agree. I look forward to the majority of independent competative events to remain unchanged and for the FORGEWORLD metagame to remain a secondary options 'for fun' type of tourney and not the standard as this book has done zero to make them any more or less official than they already have been for a decade.

@Praxiss
Sorry about that, I was really tired when I put that up and accidentally put the wrong link up.

@Sasori
Yeah, it is a really cool unit, definitely worth investing in for games with an opponent that won't mind you using it, and hopefully in the (near) future, for tournament play.

@Yakface & nklesch
We approached this book as different because it is different in a lot of people's minds.

I understand fully the points you both make, but if we are going to make head-roads into the hearts and minds of tournament gamers, we need to start somewhere. The 40K approved stamp, as flimsy as it is, is a start and the point from which we are starting.

It is somewhat arbitrary, but it is a start.

Reecius wrote:
I understand fully the points you both make, but if we are going to make head-roads into the hearts and minds of tournament gamers, we need to start somewhere. The 40K approved stamp, as flimsy as it is, is a start and the point from which we are starting.

It is somewhat arbitrary, but it is a start.

Here is my issue:

Let's say this was an attempt to balance older non-competative codexes and fix the game... That means these unit choices basically become not only optional for use but practically mandatory for fair play to occur. Since that means that the codexes in question are unplayable in a competative environment without using these units (especially if others will be using them) then you have the issue of "Hey, I can't afford the appropriate forgeworld model! How fair is that???"

So you have two options:
1. Only allow those with official FW models and rulebooks to benefit from the new units and gain a boost while everyone else goes without. This flies in the face of competative gaming and basically allows people to 'cash buy an advantage' in-game. It then makes those with the most resin more competative when it comes to older codexes.

2. Allow everyone everywhere to use the units with or without rulebooks or models. While this would 'repair' the metagame and allow older codexes options to compete, it promotes copyright infringement and proxies and bad 'counts as' as people won't have the units, won't convert them (this stock plastic dred is every dred option in any rulebook as I need it) and will claim in the name of 'only the game matters' that they should be allowed to use proxies or stand-ins in official tourneys.

Both options ruin the game in my opinion. One because it unbalances the metagame and starves peopel from being able to compete without resin. The other because it introduces horrible proxies and unreasonable stand-ins to what is supposed to be 'quality' levels of play at these well-run tourneys.

Right now allowing FW to be a declared option in a type of tourney allows people who are looking for that to CHOOSE to attend, and since they CHOSE to attend, they must have purchased the rules and have the appropriate models to participate and it works because if you don't feel like you can compete or lack the models, you have the regular tourney to participate in. 40k and 40k+FWunits are very different games and people enjoy them differently and to see one of them eclipse the other would be a bad thing in my opinion, but that seems to be the agenda of some is to have only one valid competative standard and for it to include FW rules sets.

This is just another "My way is the right way of playing" debate trying to force only one way of existing at tourneys which I disagree with on its face and resist at every opportunity. I feel both FW allowed and FW not allowed are both important and the % of events will directly grow and shrink depending on what people want.

Kepora wrote:The Rape-eus Assault Ram is broken? Who woulda thunk it?!

I'm going to have to argue with you -bigtime- about the Achilles, though. A hard-to-break tank made almost invincible? It ignores Melta and Lance (the best ways short of railguns and D-strength weapons, and Railguns essentially lose their AP1 bonus when rolling to damage the Achilles), which cripples almost every non-marine army by making it nigh-inuvlnerable to long-range fire, and can kill things in not-marine armor easily (via the Thunderfire Cannon), and would give many marine armies a hell of a lot of trouble too.

And yeah, "play around it". Implying you can "play around" a pair of twin-linked multi-meltas and a Thunderfire cannon that are almost totally indestructible. Also, that "unimpressive" 1.4% extra survivability means a -lot- more when you understand the numbers better.

EDIT: Also, yeah, those first-turn assaulters you mentioned? They're not as hard to get rid of in combat as a dreadnought, and hit damn hard as it is. A bare-bones dread throwing down a multi-melta and then following with a S10 charge?

Buuut lets look at its weapon load outs.

It is armed with a thunderfire cannon. A long range weapon.
Its other weapons for anti tank are short ranged. So you have conflicting weapons on the tank. If you want to destroy tanks, then you have to mov ein, potentially bringing you closer to grenades which can ruin your day or other weapons.
I saw nothing in its rules on ignoring plus one for ap1 weapons, wheres that? So railguns can still damage it.

The achilles Ill admit has high defense, but at its pointcost and meager shootback, its tough but impractical.

It shoots 4 small blasts you say? Big whoop. A lot of things can shoot better cheaper.

@nklesch
Your fundamental premise is flawed, IMO.

You don't NEED FW units to compete.

They compliment the game, they don't fundamentally alter it. Again, I have played in quite a few tournaments that allow FW, and it is well and truly not that big of a deal.

Secondly, this isn't a "play our way or don't play at all" argument in the slightest. We like using them as we feel it opens the game up, as an expansion to a video game does.

As for the money argument, again, this is fundamentally flawed. A Mech IG list costs more than a FW Space Marine list with 3 Achilles. That argument just doesn't hold water for me. These units aren't auto-win units and they aren't required and they don't cause an army to become significantly more expensive (for the units people get upset about) than normal "good" armies.

If you disagree, that is totally fine, but I really feel that this line of argument is flawed.

I'll say the Ork ones go a long way toward putting things in the book that it was lacking as a late 4th/early 5th book. Especially the Warkoptaz, Grot Mini-Tanks, and Grot Super Tanks

Especially the Warkoptaz

Reecius wrote:@nklesch
Your fundamental premise is flawed, IMO.

You don't NEED FW units to compete.

They compliment the game, they don't fundamentally alter it. Again, I have played in quite a few tournaments that allow FW, and it is well and truly not that big of a deal.

I disagree. They do fundamentally alter the metagame. Many of the FW units are overpowered and spamming them in a competative fashion pushes the envelope even further. It gives the top tier codexes even more of an edge and leaves the bottom tier codexes even farther in the dust.

One of the supposed justifications I have seen around is it 'balances' the game better which is why it should be allowed. I disagree it balances the game better, but if it 'did' it then means those who don;t have access are playing a less-balanced codex and are at a disadvantage without them.

Can't have it both ways... either it upgrades and balances meaning those without are in a worse spot or it does nothing, which I don't agree with as there are enough underpointed overpowered units worth spamming in triplicate in competative lists to make a difference (along with the natural advantage of surprise and unfamiliarity which is gained by using such a unit)

Secondly, this isn't a "play our way or don't play at all" argument in the slightest. We like using them as we feel it opens the game up, as an expansion to a video game does.

Not everyone agrees with you. Many want this to be GW law to force everyone to fully 100% accept their FW units in any and all situations. It doesn't open the game up, it changes the game. Which is fine, but not for everybody and not all the time. 'opening the game up' also closes other aspects down because it changes it.

As for the money argument, again, this is fundamentally flawed. A Mech IG list costs more than a FW Space Marine list with 3 Achilles. That argument just doesn't hold water for me. These units aren't auto-win units and they aren't required and they don't cause an army to become significantly more expensive (for the units people get upset about) than normal "good" armies.

Some people simply have zero access to Forgeworld models. Not everyone has the ability to purchase internationally and people are sometimes limited by what is actually available for retail in their country or region. It still becomes an issue of the HAVES vs the HAVE NOTS.

If you disagree, that is totally fine, but I really feel that this line of argument is flawed.

GW has not made FW official like people have suggested, that line of argument is flawed.

These rules do not balance the current metagame, they do not have a zero impact on the metagame, Those arguments are flawed as these units do impact and some are overpowered and can be spammed competitively for real advantage.

They are not available to everyone and being unavailable in both product and rules makes playing against them in a competative environment a disadvantage for many... which means people should be able to choose to OPT IN to such an environment.

The current Metagame should exist side by side a FW influenced Metagame, not be replaced by it as many are advocating in the dozens of FW threads on Dakka. The idea that FW should be (or already is by the decree of GW) core game legal and must be accepted everywhere, especially competative events is a lie propagated by people with an agenda and should be resisted at every opportunity.

I guess since I'm the only Ork player calling for our unit reviews I'll do it in true Ork fasion (louder). "EH YOU GITS WAAAAAAAGH, GET TO DA GREEN SKIN BITS OR I START KRUMPIN 'EADS"!!!!

Grimgob wrote:I guess since I'm the only Ork player calling for our unit reviews I'll do it in true Ork fasion (louder). "EH YOU GITS WAAAAAAAGH, GET TO DA GREEN SKIN BITS OR I START KRUMPIN 'EADS"!!!!

Thats because you forgot that orks are a terrible codex

@Grimgob and Azgrim

Orks next! And yea, Orks are such a bad codex, hahaha, the internet makes me laugh sometimes. Tell that to the top 10 at BAO, 3 of which were Orks! Orks are great....and the FW units aren't nearly as scary as people think they are.

nkelsch wrote:The idea that FW should be (or already is by the decree of GW) core game legal and must be accepted everywhere, especially competative events is a lie propagated by people with an agenda and should be resisted at every opportunity.

What? Are you really proposing that there is a conspiracy by those of us that like FW units and would like to see them more widely used? You can't be serious.



Here's your tin foil hat!

I'm just teasing of course.

It honestly isn't like that. It isn't an us vs. you thing either, unless you choose to make it that way. I have no problem playing either way, and our team doesn't either. We asked the community if they wanted IA units, and they were pretty much split on it, but like you, a lot of the nos were viscerally against it, while a lot of the yays were pretty much indifferent.

We said, OK, let's not do it. Seriously, no agenda here.

As for people not being able to get FW rules or models. Come on. Anyone with an internet connection can get the rules, the books are sold on the GW website, stores and FLGS' can carry them. We sell them at our store.

We like playing with lots of different toys, and are confident enough in our skill as players to not think any one model will beat us and our whole army. Not everyone thinks that way. And that wasn't a backhanded insult either, that was my honest assessment of this situation.

But, it sounds like your mind is made up. So we can agree to disagree on this one.

nkelsch wrote:Some people simply have zero access to Forgeworld models. Not everyone has the ability to purchase internationally and people are sometimes limited by what is actually available for retail in their country or region. It still becomes an issue of the HAVES vs the HAVE NOTS.

OCCUPY FORGEWORLD!!!

Reecius wrote:
@Yakface & nklesch
We approached this book as different because it is different in a lot of people's minds.

I understand fully the points you both make, but if we are going to make head-roads into the hearts and minds of tournament gamers, we need to start somewhere. The 40K approved stamp, as flimsy as it is, is a start and the point from which we are starting.

It is somewhat arbitrary, but it is a start.

But Reece, its more than somewhat arbitrary, its totally and completely arbitrary.

Again, the stamps don't say '40K approved', they just say 'Warhammer 40,000'. Those stamps in no way make those rules any more 'approved' or 'official' than any of the other Imperial Armor rules. Again, that is even backed up by the rest of the Introduction of IAA 2nd edition which says that these rules are as official as any other Forgeworld rules and tells you to go use Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2 (and the rest of the IA books) to find more model rules.

So the real big problem with assuming that the 'stamp' equals some sort of 'new' status is that Forgeworld and GW don't see it that way. As far as they're concerned, the rules in Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2 are equally as valid as those in Imperial Armor Apoc 2nd edition and that means it could easily be another 5 or even 10 years before they bother to redo any of those model rules again with the 'stamp' on it.

Do you see the issue with assigning a different level of 'officialness' to the books that use a stamp when GW and Forgeworld don't see any difference in 'officialness' between a FW book with or without stamps?

To give a you an example of how crazy this attitude is, it would be like a year ago if you all of a sudden decided that the Codexes that use the 'newer' 5th edition style (with the unit rules split off from the army list in the back of the book) where clearly what was 'official', while those codexes that still had the old 3rd/4th edition style were now 'unofficial' and therefore shouldn't be included in a tournament for that reason. So all of a sudden (back then) Necron, Templars, Witch Hunters, etc, would all be deemed 'unofficial' simply because of the formatting of their book.

Obviously the analogy is different because we're talking about whole armies as opposed to IA expansion books, but my point is this: You're taking a bit of formatting in the newer books (i.e. using stamps to clarify which units are apoc and which units are regular 40K) and assigning some measure of 'officialness' to those stamps, when the authors clearly say in the book that the rules presented are just as official as any other IA book.

If the stamp said 'official' or something on it (like the ones in White Dwarf do) you might have a valid leg to stand on (ignoring of course what the intro in the book says), but it doesn't. All the stamps show is what units are for Apoc and what units are for 40K...they don't mean anything for what is 'official' and what isn't 'official'.

Ya'll are gonna make me back up yak by quoting the damn book again, aren't you?

The stamps do not make anything more or less official. They just make it easier for you to pick out things that can potentially be used in 40k and things that are clearly designed for Apocalypse. Some of these are quite obvious, but sometimes you need to point out the obvious.

But the introduction in the book pretty much says what everything else says. In summary 'Yes, in a sense they are official. But ask for your opponents' permission first as they may not be familiar with the rules.'

Hahahaha, holy crap, guys!

We're getting beat up by the people who don't want FW units to go mainstream AND by the guys who do want FW units to go mainstream!

And you wonder why no one wants to champion this cause?

Look, we're FULLY aware of the lack of authority that little stamp has (and sorry, I misspoke when I said it was 40K approved, not just 40K, that was an error) but you have to start somewhere, right? Better to dip your toe into the water than jump right in to the deep end with a touchy subject.

Yes, this is an arbitrary starting point. We know. We have nearly all the books. This just seemed like as good of a starting point as any with all the attention the book was getting.

That's all.

For crying out loud, hahaha, if you want to see these units become more accepted, let's do it one step at a time!

@nklesch
See, our big conspiracy is pretty crappy when we fight with each other over the stupid subject! hahaha

Reecius wrote:Hahahaha,

Look, we're FULLY aware of the lack of authority that little stamp has (and sorry, I misspoke when I said it was 40K approved, not just 40K, that was an error) but you have to start somewhere, right?

Strictly speaking, no you don't.

Edit: Wait, why am I baiting Reece, I like Reece. I just don't like the IA book because it mucks around with the vehicle damage chart which is already plenty shaky in 5th edition.

theironjef wrote:

Strictly speaking, no you don't.

Edit: Wait, why am I baiting Reece, I like Reece. I just don't like the IA book because it mucks around with the vehicle damage chart which is already plenty shaky in 5th edition.

Fair enough. I suppose I WANT to start somewhere, certainly don't have to.

And no offense taken, I have very thick skin. I understand that some people really don't like FW, and that is their right. I don't take any counter arguments personally, at all.

Yeah, and ultimately I get where you're headed. Personally I love some of the cool designs in the IA2 book (the Tantalus is gorgeous and Contemptor dreads are certainly cool to look at), but I think it falls short as a rulebook because it by and large just copies units out of the regular codices, adds unwarranted buffs and occasionally cost increases, and calls it a day. Trygon? You'd look great in the necron codex for no good reason, especially if we threw some random buffs at you and added 5 points to your cost! Eldar vehicles? Retire! There's a new thing called a Caestus, and it's you but better! There's a lot of codex swapping but not a whole lot of originality in there.

And again, I don't think the vehicle damage chart is in a good place for units to be getting bonuses on it. That die roll is already the reason that 5th edition is going to be remembered as the story of the metal boxes, and adding even more resilience to it seems poorly thought out to me.

Naturally these are just my own opinions on the subject, and they aren't necessarily the right ones. Lucky for me the book isn't real official or 100% official or GW-stamp-approved-notarized official so I can just pick and choose my tournaments.

The vehicle damage chart really isn't the issue.

Nobody complains about gun-tanks. Gun tanks are very easy to neutralize. You don't see people having issues with predators, hellhounds, leman russ tanks, vindicators, hammerheads, fire prisms, doomsday arks, annihialtion barges, etc.

It's transports that people complain about.

The problem with the achilles is that it's both a gun tank and a transport that's even tougher and has a bypass mechanism to avoid what shuts down most gun tanks

That said, it costs nearly as much as 10 rhinos.

Ultimately things being expensive isn't an excuse to justify bad game design.

Reecius wrote:We're getting beat up by the people who don't want FW units to go mainstream AND by the guys who do want FW units to go mainstream!

Could mean you're doing something right, too- i.e., you're getting everyone's attention. In something like this, everyone is going to weigh in on where they want the line to be, especially if you say or imply where you want it to be in the articles. But I'd view this as a good thing, as you're shifting the conversation... or at least, getting it out there in the conversation.

Still not sure where I stand on the whole thing yet, but I think it's cool to be talking about it.

nkelsch wrote: lots of stuff

My respone to your point #1

1) What about places where FW is the cheaper option then standard GW pricing? I would NEVER buy another GW army, but honestly I love those HH-era marks of SM PA..... I can buy a Forgeworld SM army exclusively from FW. I can get rhino's, preds, Land Raiders, Dreads, Sorce out some old RT-era grav vehicles and that could be a blast doing. The ability to use different rule sets can make for some interesting games. I do not play in tournies personally but if I wanted to I could almost any rule set for it. I can add almost any units to it. It would be a great modeling army, a great painting lession for myself (what works and what doesn't) and I am shure most people would rather play againsted that army then "Grey deth legion SM army (ie unpainted SM army #425654 that is probley bound for E-Bay soon).


Tl;dr -- You don't play 40k the same way as I do so you are doing it wrong.... Stop doing it wrong!!!