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.

Vaktathi wrote:

I gain practically nothing from allowing you to use this book

So, spite pretty much?

There might be something here. Someone made a huge post on 40k general about Forgeworld which amounted to 'I can't afford the models, so I won't let you use them against me'.

Yeah, that went about as expected. I guess I'm just "too poor" to play your fething game, then.

Personally I think it's telling that the guys who push FW so hard are the ones who admittedly don't give a feth about fair play, and try to justify the horrible game balance because "That's capitalism for you, pay to win or play a different game!"

That's a tad hyperbolic.

No one is saying that, but saying the opposite (you can't use them either because I can't afford them) comes off as, well, a tantrum.

Yeah, they're expensive. That should never be an argument against allowing their use.

I mean, GW produce a Fantasy unit more expensive on a model by model basis than any unit Forgeworld have produced so far. But I don't see anyone refusing to allow Blood Knights in games.

As for terrible balance - entire armies with force weapons, blood talons, jaws of the world wolf, thunderhammer terminators... GW produce more broken stuff in each codex as FW has in its whole range.

Sidstyler wrote:Yeah, that went about as expected. I guess I'm just "too poor" to play your fething game, then.

Given that I bought my FW army on a college's students part time job budget, I find it a poor excuse. And if you're going to apply it to FW stuff, it applies equally to half the GW range, and if you're not excluding that stuff, then well, it's a hypocritical stance.

That said, this stuff all exists in the 40k universe, it has rules, it has a place on the table.

Personally I think it's telling that the guys who push FW so hard are the ones who admittedly don't give a feth about fair play, and try to justify the horrible game balance because "That's capitalism for you, pay to win or play a different game!"

Given that the vast majority of FW rules are far better balanced than the core studio's rules, I find that difficult to swallow, especially when you are making the very silly assertion that balance/competitiveness equates in any way with cost. Methinks you will find many models and kits both GW and FW do not conform to this at all.

When you have to resort to attacks like this and swearing, the rationality of the arguments is likely wearing thin.

Reecius wrote: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!

Well, I'm certainly not trying to beat you up in any way!

I think you guys are doing a great thing by reviewing the units out in the open and trying to shine a light on the ludicrous concept that these rules somehow 'break' the game.

I just think it is dangerous to imply that the 'stamp' in the newer books somehow sets some sort of different standard of 'officialness' then other IA books, when the books themselves don't support that assertion (and in fact clearly state the opposite).

The reason I say its dangerous is because its not just you guys. Several other people have picked up on this phantom difference and have started to act like IAA 2nd edition is somehow 'different' than previous IA books and that assertion will naturally freak people out who are against Imperial Armor and haven't actually read the book (to see that they do say that the rules are just as official as before).

So I definitely think you should keep reviewing IA units/books to dispel the myths based in ignorance in fear, I just really hope you cut out and reference in the reviews indicating that the new book is somehow more official than other IA books.


But the #1 thing that needs to be done is exactly what you are doing: Shine a light on the rules and prove that in actual games, the rules don't 'break' the game. IA rules continually suffer from a a kind of the 'new codex' syndrome, where people always think the new codex is the end of the world and totally broken, but once they actually play some games against it they realize how to beat or at least minimize the advantages of the new codex. But since so few people regularly play against IA rules, they have this perception like these units are stupidly broken just like a 'new codex', but the big difference being that they aren't forced to play against the rules so they never get over that false assumption and forever live in a state of fear against the bogey-man that doesn't really exist.


So kudos to you guys. Keep it up! And remember, the hot button issues are also the ones that will drive traffic to your site!

And "GW does it too!" is a rational argument?

I shouldn't have posted in this thread in the first place, but I might as well at least try to finish what I started.

Vaktathi wrote:First, this assumes that a ton of FW units become "Must have" and become instantly spammed by well off players, which isn't necessarily true.

Why not? That already happens in the game now as it is, have you ever seen anyone whine about "spam" armies that always look the same? You honestly don't see people looking for the best FW units and spamming them if they had the chance?

It would cause the same problems we have now. It might add a little to the game, but the majority of FW units kinda suck and you're not going to see this plethora of weird and crazy stuff hit the tables just because it's legal now, which is what some of you are assuming. You might see people experiment with things, like people do with units like mandrakes or ogryns now and then in regular 40k, but people who want to win games (the majority of people who play games, since no one ever really plays to lose) are going to use what's best. I don't see people spamming gak like the achiilles obviously, but I'd be surprised if it didn't happen with some of these units.

Vaktathi wrote:
Second, this game already has a huge income gap. Imperial Guard, Ork and Sisters of Battle armies routinely cost twice or more what Space Marine armies cost for instance, hell even a half built out IG infantry platoon for one Troops FoC slot costs more than many SM lists and Sisters armies now cost as much or more than Krieg lists, should they be "optional" merely because they cost so much more? Are you going to refuse games against armies you can't afford to collect?

You're preaching to the choir, I'm a xenos player so I know full well the pain of trying to build a non-SM army. It's taken me over a year to collect my DE army, buying whatever I can one box at a time. This is also not an equal comparison because you're assuming that the huge expensive horde armies have a considerable advantage over smaller, elite armies, and they don't. It wouldn't be "paying to win" so much as "paying considerably more for an army that's about on par or slightly worse (in the case of Orks and Sisters) than the others". I'm not saying they should be more expensive, I've bitched just as hard as anyone about GW cutting down the number of models in a box and charging twice as much for them, so I sympathize with people who play larger armies like that.

But no, I wouldn't refuse games against them because I assume GW has attempted to balance them. Whether or not they've succeeded is always up for debate, but personally I think GW does a slightly better job than FW, and that a lot of the bitching and whining people do over GW rules is mostly because of the imbalance caused by having half the armies in the game at any one point being horribly out of date. It's only "broken" because the newer armies have newer ideas and army-wide rules in them that older books don't have yet. There's also the fact that GW rules aren't permission-based like FW rules are (and always have been), so it's not quite the same.

Vaktathi wrote:Third, depending on where you live, FW isn't much more expensive (if at all) compared with general GW kits, and if GW keeps their price increases over the last 5 years consistent into the next 5 years, it'll be irrelevant as plastic Cadians will cost as much or more than Elysians and Krieg guardsmen no matter where you live.

Well, it is here. A regular rhino from GW costs $33, a "deimos pattern" rhino (which from what I can tell is just a regular rhino designed to look like the old heresy-era one) costs about $50. Regular Tau crisis suits are $25, FW hazard suits are about $45. And GW doesn't put out a kit yet that can compare to the $160 DE tantalus, I guess maybe the plastic baneblade since I imagine it's similar in size, but even then there's still a $60 difference.

GW is expensive, and FW continues to hold its reputation for being even pricier. True, maybe in another five years they'll be about on par, but at that point I'll probably be forced to find a new hobby anyway.

Vaktathi wrote:
And how is ordering from FW any harder from ordering anything else online? You hop on a computer, you select what you want, you put in the card information, and that's it. You don't even have to drive anywhere, takes 3 minutes. Sounds a lot easier than driving for two hours round trip, and that's assuming they've got what you want on the shelf, and I hope you aren't playing Sisters of Battle because the store probably won't have it unless they special ordered them paying full MSRP themselves.

Fine, whatever. I'm getting tired of trying to argue about it, especially since everyone up and decided that prohibitive pricing wasn't a good enough excuse, even though it very much is so. I can barely justify buying the damn models at GW prices, so paying FW prices is not something I want to do. If it ever becomes something I have to do I won't be playing 40k anymore.

Sidstyler wrote:And "GW does it too!" is a rational argument?

...

Fine, whatever. I'm getting tired of trying to argue about it, especially since everyone up and decided that prohibitive pricing wasn't a good enough excuse, even though it very much is so. I can barely justify buying the damn models at GW prices, so paying FW prices is not something I want to do. If it ever becomes something I have to do I won't be playing 40k anymore.

For your first point: Yes, it is a rational argument because GW makes the fragging game.

For your second point: You're still trying to force your idea of "I can't afford it, therefore it shouldn't be legal". As has been said many times before (and far more eloquently), many of the IA units are decidedly not broken, and only add to the game-spicing it up, so to speak. A couple of them are rather spooky (Like the Caestus, Achilles, and Dread Drop Pods, which-like I said earlier-were made for an army(s) that already have everything and them some), but as stated further above on this page, it's one of those things where it looks scarier until you've actually played aganst it. I've squeezed in a couple of games where I crammed a couple of Hell Blades and a Nurgle Contemptor w/ Butcher Cannon, and I can say with all certainty that they're far from game-breaking, but instead add new fluff-supported options to an army that, otherwise, everyone knows all the tricks for.

P.S.: I'm a Xenos player, too, and I need to nitpick and say that comparing XV8s and XV9s is most -definitely- an apples-to-oranges situation.

Kepora wrote:For your second point: You're still trying to force your idea of "I can't afford it, therefore it shouldn't be legal".

I'd like to point out that this isn't specifically my idea, FW themselves have always said that their models aren't "official" and that you should ask for permission before using them. If anyone is forcing anyone to do anything here, it's you guys forcing me to accept FW when even FW themselves say it's not something I should be forced to accept in the first place. They aren't legal or there wouldn't be a need to for them put the disclaimer on it.

Which everyone keeps ignoring because "40k STAMP MEANS OFFICIAL!"

Kepora wrote:many of the IA units are decidedly not broken

Who made that decision? And what gives them the authority? Nothing against Reecius or anyone else, but none of us are really game designers last I checked, so it's really just one random gamer's opinion versus another. And we've all seen how wildly different those opinions can be, so I'd argue that nothing can be "decidedly" anything when talking about 40k.

Kepora wrote:I've squeezed in a couple of games where I crammed a couple of Hell Blades and a Nurgle Contemptor w/ Butcher Cannon, and I can say with all certainty that they're far from game-breaking, but instead add new fluff-supported options to an army that, otherwise, everyone knows all the tricks for.

Because you're not using the broken crap, that's why it doesn't seem game-breaking. You're using hell blades and a contemptor, both overpriced models for what they do. You're doing what everyone does, "I played with the sub-par stuff, so that means all of it is good!", you're holding up the gak as an example of all FW rules and trying to pretend that there aren't any broken units when there clearly are.

Kepora wrote:and I need to nitpick and say that comparing XV8s and XV9s is most -definitely- an apples-to-oranges situation.

Why? They're both battlesuits and similarly-sized. The hazards might look a little better, but not $45 each better.

Sidstyler wrote:Because you're not using the broken crap

I've used "broken FW crap" in several tourneys and lots of friendly games, and I can testify to the Hades drill and AC chimeras being very nice and competitive choices, but they are hardly broken. There have been no real complaints from any of my opponents about it and no bitching on forums afterwards. Chimera-spam and SW razorspam have instigated much more internet drama in my community. For me, it has been a cool, fluffy and competitive list choice as I have a mining-world regiment.

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

In about a year, the tourney scene in Norway has gone from NO FW EVAR!!!! to FW units being allowed in all of the largest tourneys. There are still restrictions (which I personally believe makes it more enjoyable - spam is always boring), but they seem to get lighter and lighter. The first tourney was pretty strict with FW, but it allowed an armoured company list, and I got to play with a hades (barely). Several units (such as the dreadpod) were outright banned, all FW were 0-1 choices (except for FW lists), and you need permission to use them.

Now, about a year after the first "FW allowed" tourney, another tourney, which has traditionally been afraid of "powergaming" has allowed FW, with the only stated restriction being that you need to notify the TO's about what FW units you want to use and get permission. The original FW-allowing tourney has now dropped restrictions to 0-1 choice and no FW special characters (both limits removed if you play a FW list)

I think it is wise to ease FW into the tourney scene by starting with some restrictions, and then, as the FW-syndrome starts to lessen, loosen up on those restrictions. If some of the most popular US tourneys started allowing it (f.ex: Nova), it will spread. More players will buy those FW units they've always wanted, and they will want to use them in other tourneys too - putting pressure on their local TO's etc. As you say - do it one step at the time.

Or we can just hope that GW writes that FW is allowed in the 6th ed rules

@Illumini
I hope that is the case in the USA. Like I have said many times, and you have experienced, I have played with these units, not just talked about them. Like you have seen, they really aren't that big of a deal.

@Yakface
I understand what you are saying, and perhaps we were using the stamp as a shield, too much.

We already decided to move into the Apoc 2 book units after this as they are awesome, too.

We'll open this door, slowly but surely. I honestly just want to use more, and cooler toys in my games! Haha, that is my sole motivation for it.

@Thread
Orks added!

I think it is wise to ease FW into the tourney scene by starting with some restrictions, and then, as the FW-syndrome starts to lessen, loosen up on those restrictions. If some of the most popular US tourneys started allowing it (f.ex: Nova), it will spread.

AdeptiCon has allowed Forgeworld models in the majority of our events for the better part of 8 years. So welcome to the party. : ) I’ve heard all the arguments for and against Forgeworld unit inclusion. It has been hotly debated at the AdeptiCon staff level at multiple times, across multiple editions of 40K and now WFB, and scads of event formats. We have generally felt that the positives of allowing Forgeworld models outweigh the negatives associated. As Yakface can attest there is a good amount of time and resources devoted to support Forgeworld model inclusion so for us it is not a simple matter to allow or disallow Forgeworld. Each IA book brings about items that need to be addressed, and with each release you run the risk of a rule, a misprint or editing mistake getting thrown in that messes up the works. But we also run that risk with standard releases.

Frankly, the cost of the hobby is the cost of the hobby. I’ve seen people dump thousands of dollars in 1k of standard codex marines and I have seen people build on the cheap, 2k armies that included Forgeworld models and expensive kits sourced from ebay and other sources. GW prices and Forgeworld prices are in many cases comparable these days. Regardless, the real cost of this hobby for a lot of us is actually time not dollars. So why I understand people are in different financial circumstances, we are also under different time and real life obligations. All of which have an effect on how we all enjoy this hobby.

Adepticon allows FW in the team tournament, which for some reason is taken less seriously than the singles event. I have made the pilgrimage to Adepticon several times and I agree, FW units are fun to include.

I agree with your points, and think Adepticon is a great example for the nay Sayers to look at and see that FW units alreayd integrate well into tournaments. The Adepticon TT is the biggest tournament in the USA, and now the World, I believe (since the UKGT is defunct).

For 2012: Forgeworld is allowed in the 40K Team Tourney, the 40K Friendly, 40K Gladiator and we allow FW Chaos Dwarves, etc .. on the WFB side.

We allowed Forgeworld in the Championship through 2009 but in 2010 with the end of the GT Tourney circuit we combined the short lived Invitational format and Championship format and decided to keep the Invitational Forgeworld restriction.

Back on topic ... IA11 continues the identification standards implemented and brings some other interesting topics to this discussion. So hopefully, you plan to continue your reviews : ) ... great stuff

Thanks Reece! I've seen alot of those units and it nice to hear what they do. They all seam kind of OK except the grot tanks/mega tank (meka dread would be cool in a dread mob fluff wise and Liftadroppa in a SAG way). Speaking from the fluff perspective I love me some grots and hope someday you could build an entire army from them. Competitively I would loose a deff kopter for the Mega tank easy and would also swap a 5 man loota unit for the grot tanks shooting. both seam like a fun alternative. Still don't know if I'd like to see them in tournys though.

Allowing the FW army lists in the team event would be a decent way to pry open the door. That's meant to be the "for fun" event, right? I would love to paint up some Eldar corsairs and beat up a Dkok team! It would be like a whole new game!

I'd run a squadron of Warkoptaz (2), a unit of Grot Baby Tanks, and 2 Grot Megatanks if I could. I think they're amazing units! The rest didn't appeal to me much but I'm obsessed with how cool those 3 units are. Granted if FW models were required I'd be out since I'd want the models to fit my Ork theme which is entirely looted imperial

I like the squiggoth. One of those rare cases where FW makes a unit that isn't horribly bad or way too good. I don't know why you're talking about grots though, seems like an obvious place to put your lootas (unless you fill up on grot tanks! lol).

The warkopta looks cool, but:

Reecius wrote:It doesn’t say what FOC slot it takes up

... I thought you guys said FW did it better than GW? lol

And from what I've heard this isn't the only unit in IAA 2 that doesn't fit in the FOC, either. Sloppy...how much does this book cost again? $40? :I

The dread and liftawagon aren't really worth mentioning, the grot tanks though...I'm kind of on the fence about. I want to say they sound a little too good, but at the same time Orks could kinda use the boost, so...I dunno. It makes me uneasy, I guess, I don't like the idea of facing a wall of grot tanks, lol.

Reecius wrote:Adepticon allows FW in the team tournament, which for some reason is taken less seriously than the singles event.

People really shouldn't take team games that seriously, in my opinion. 40k was made more for two players, and even then it's not perfectly balanced, so there's a lot of potential for broken army combinations that GW either wouldn't have anticipated, or just weren't too worried about since the game is meant to be 1vs1 anyway. So I'm not too opposed to FW showing up in a team game since if I'm playing a team game I'm already accepting the fact that this is going to be "just for fun".

muwhe wrote:GW prices and Forgeworld prices are in many cases comparable these days.

There are only a couple of cases where the FW options aren't much more expensive than GW's, like Tau broadsides which have always been about equal to the cost of the ugly GW ones, or the new DE reaper which is only $10 more than a ravager (but is complete and utter garbage and you should really just use a ravager). But the majority of FW models still come with a premium (at least in the US anyway, can't speak for anyone else), like the achilles land raider which is only about $20 shy of being twice the price of a regular one (like it should be, bs tank is bs).

I don't mind FW being there for people who have the money for it, I'm just afraid of the game turning into "whoever has more money for FW wins". Which I admit is a long way off, since FW units suck more often than not, but it's always those one or two stupid models that put me off it. And people can say "Oh it won't be like that.", but I know there are people out there who will take full advantage of FW's bad rules writing, and honestly it's hard enough as it is to put up with GW's bad rules writing (even though I personally think those cases are fewer than other people believe...seriously, pyrovores "broken"?).

Still wouldn't mind having a tantalus one day, even if all it did was sit on a shelf and look pretty.

In any case I think I overreacted a tad the other night. Still not entirely sure why, guess I was just in a sour mood and I took a couple posts the wrong way, lol.

@Muhwe
Ah yes, I forgot about the Gladiator, although that one was pretty obvious! Hah.

I actually didn't know the Championships had allowed FW units, that is news to me. Thanks for pointing that out.

@Hulk
I agree, there are quite a few options open there that I like!

@Sid
When did we say they did anything better?

Besides making better models, FW lags behind on the rules side often, although they are getting better, much better. No need for facepalms and such considering you tend to hyperbole already.

I never said that, and I agree that it is sloppy and doesn't help their case when they forget things like that in the book.

@Sid

It is certainly fair criticism of some Forgeworld materials that they have suffered from some editing mistakes . See IA11, for some prime examples. The rule work Forgeworld does is highly dependent on the authors. Much like the how "good" a codex is .. seems highly dependant on the GW author.

However, they do a number of things that I wish GW Design Studio would do -

1. They post pdf experimental rules of models prior to the release of the book, and as evident by some changes made to the final printed rules take feedback from customers on the rules. This is a proactive approach in many cases that fixes model rule issues prior to them making print.

2. They are also very responsible to post FAQ updates for books and models. This not only includes updates for FW publications but also model rule updates when a new GW codex comes out to bring the model rules in line with the current releases. How responsive? When the Space Marine codex was updated, they spent the time to update via pdf all the entries from IA2. Or that a number of GK and INQ material is available for download when the Grey Knight codex was released. Heck there is already an FAQ to clean up some of the IA11 editing mistakes.

So why we all wish editing mistakes would not happen, and no one likes to spend 40+ dollars on a book that has typos. Forgeworld is pretty on the spot to correct them and provide after the purchase support for materials and models. Good things in my mind but I'm a resin addict.

Mortis contemptor you are my sunshine my only sunshine when you don't mown down orks my skies are grey

I really like that mega tank i would max out on them since it only 450ish points for 15 rokkitz or 15 grotzookaz adding in a few Battlewagons full of boyz and you have a half decent army

wrong thread...

Reecius wrote:I never said that, and I agree that it is sloppy and doesn't help their case when they forget things like that in the book.

I was more talking to the thread at that point and not specifically you, since a couple people did imply FW was "better".

Reecius - any new additions?

Still waiting on the Tyranid stuff.

I'm a little afraid of bringing this up again, but can we all agree that the Land Raider Achilles is completely broken under the rumored 6th edition rules?

Hull Breach makes it pretty reasonable still.

@Sid

No worries, and I didn't mean to call you out or anything, just making a counter point.

@Thread

With all the the 6th ed news and Vamps, we fell behind on this, I will get the new review out this week.

Sorry for the wait, guys.

Eldar added pg.1

Dok wrote:Hull Breach makes it pretty reasonable still.

I'm behind on my 6th ed rumors, what effect would it have on the Achilles (and what is "hull breach")?

RiTides wrote:

Dok wrote:Hull Breach makes it pretty reasonable still.

I'm behind on my 6th ed rumors, what effect would it have on the Achilles (and what is "hull breach")?

According to the maybe-6th-ed-PDF that leaked, "hull breach" would upgrade everything above and including "stunned" one step on the damage table if you've already suffered that result once that round. For example, stunning a vehicle that was already stunned would cause a weapon damaged, getting immobilized on a vehicle that is already immobilized would count as wrecked and so on. The exception is weapon damaged, which requires you to have no weapons left to fire to be upgraded to immobilized.