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.

And its more broken then other flyers.... how?

See you keep just saying "well its broken" as if you saying it without any support whatsoever makes it true.

This just in: Simply saying something doesn't make it a fact.

yakface wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:I think we should give things some time to shake themselves out before assuming that it's all broken and we're all gonna die, so we may as well allow Forge World stuff anyway. I think 6th edition is a lot more balanced than most people give it credit for.

What you're saying is frankly ridiculous. What I mean by that is IMHO there was never any really good reason to deny FW from tournaments in the first place (not including Super-heavy, Gargantuan Creatures and old-school flyers, of course) , but the one argument that was thrown out there was that the codexes were all 'balanced' and that somehow by allowing Forgeworld into the mix all that balance would go out the window and pandemonium would ensue.

Lol, its nice to see some one contradicting himself, so we should include all FW stuff except what you dont like?. I think this has to be done either all or nothing, either FW is or everyone has its own opinion on what is not ok and everyone is just as wrong.

Phazael wrote:For the most part, yes. But the time consuming nature of the new wound allocation is pretty much undeniable, especially with the strong incentive to build units that abuse the system. That and the logistical issues with tracking all the random terrain and objective rolls are the biggest issues with the ruleset, as they pertain to tournaments. Balance changes all the time, but 1500 point games taking three hours because the dice rolls bog the game down in assault is an unsolvable problem.

If tournaments decide to adopt mysterious "stuff" (and I don't mind if they do), I'll do the same thing I did for 8e Fantasy - print up the various types on business card stock, and drop them on the terrain/objectives as they're revealed. Quick reference, easy to see, and not subject to being accidentally picked up (like dice).

There is no quick fix to allocation. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xxvaderxx wrote:

yakface wrote:What you're saying is frankly ridiculous. What I mean by that is IMHO there was never any really good reason to deny FW from tournaments in the first place (not including Super-heavy, Gargantuan Creatures and old-school flyers, of course) , but the one argument that was thrown out there was that the codexes were all 'balanced' and that somehow by allowing Forgeworld into the mix all that balance would go out the window and pandemonium would ensue.

Lol, its nice to see some one contradicting himself, so we should include all FW stuff except what you dont like?. I think this has to be done either all or nothing, either FW is or everyone has its own opinion on what is not ok and everyone is just as wrong.

Superheavies, Gargantuan creatures, and old-style FW Fliers all need non-core rules mechanics to support their use (structure points, etc). Everything FW makes that is stamped "40k approved" falls within the core ruleset. It's not an artificial distinction.

xxvaderxx wrote:Lol, its nice to see some one contradicting himself, so we should include all FW stuff except what you dont like?. I think this has to be done either all or nothing, either FW is or everyone has its own opinion on what is not ok and everyone is just as wrong.

Super heavies and Gargantuan are apoc only, so that much isn't contradictory.

The "old school flyers" limitation is somewhat (although being a unique category of unit not present in base 40k is at least an internally consistent argument). They worked out fine in the event I played in that allowed them.

edit: Ninja'd!

Janthkin wrote:

Phazael wrote:For the most part, yes. But the time consuming nature of the new wound allocation is pretty much undeniable, especially with the strong incentive to build units that abuse the system. That and the logistical issues with tracking all the random terrain and objective rolls are the biggest issues with the ruleset, as they pertain to tournaments. Balance changes all the time, but 1500 point games taking three hours because the dice rolls bog the game down in assault is an unsolvable problem.

If tournaments decide to adopt mysterious "stuff" (and I don't mind if they do), I'll do the same thing I did for 8e Fantasy - print up the various types on business card stock, and drop them on the terrain/objectives as they're revealed. Quick reference, easy to see, and not subject to being accidentally picked up (like dice).

There is no quick fix to allocation. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xxvaderxx wrote:

yakface wrote:What you're saying is frankly ridiculous. What I mean by that is IMHO there was never any really good reason to deny FW from tournaments in the first place (not including Super-heavy, Gargantuan Creatures and old-school flyers, of course) , but the one argument that was thrown out there was that the codexes were all 'balanced' and that somehow by allowing Forgeworld into the mix all that balance would go out the window and pandemonium would ensue.

Lol, its nice to see some one contradicting himself, so we should include all FW stuff except what you dont like?. I think this has to be done either all or nothing, either FW is or everyone has its own opinion on what is not ok and everyone is just as wrong.

Superheavies, Gargantuan creatures, and old-style FW Fliers all need non-core rules mechanics to support their use (structure points, etc). Everything FW makes that is stamped "40k approved" falls within the core ruleset. It's not an artificial distinction.

So the problem with models with rules created by FW is that they need rules created by FW unlike "the other" models created by FW which also use rules created FW but are ok?.

I'm not sure what part of "apoc only" you don't understand. The rules for the units themselves say you can't use them in 40k, only apoc.

xxvaderxx wrote:So the problem with models with rules created by FW is that they need rules created by FW unlike "the other" models created by FW which also use rules created FW but are ok?.

No, the problem is that one category of units works fine within the core ruleset (40k), and the other category needs a different core ruleset (Apocalypse).

If I put a Titan down in a 40k game, there are no rules in effect to interpret "structure points" or "destroyer weapon."

Fetterkey wrote:The whole "6e is uncompetitive" meme is a joke, man. Nobody knows whether 6e is competitive yet because we haven't had enough time to evaluate the situation and the interactions with different Codexes. Allowing FW stuff because "6e is unbalanced anyway" is just silly. Give us 6 months of tournament play under minimal restrictions, then we'll talk about whether 6e is unbalanced or not.

First off, the term 'competitive' is always improperly utilized in these kinds of arguments. All players have access to the same rules and models, so fundamentally it will always, always be 'competitive'. If the question is: are the armies competitive against each other (which is what I'm sure you're referring to)? There has always been imbalance and there will always be imbalance. Certainly the end of 5th had some codexes that were on the higher end of the spectrum and some that were on the lower end...which is pretty much the same as its ever been, just the particular codexes in favor gradually change over time.

But the point is, with 6th edition and allies, there is now more of an even playing field than ever before because players can pull whatever 'broken' units they want from each codex in order to counter whatever other 'broken' combo they see as being prevalent.

Also, you seem to not know the rules for Hydra Platforms. Hydra Platforms are cheaper than normal Hydras and have both Skyfire and Interceptor, so they are more effective at shooting all targets and can kill flyers before they can even attack.

Hydra Platforms are cheaper because they're AV11 immobile vehicles with only 2 hull points. If the Hydras are going first you know exactly where they'll be for the whole game and you can use that to your advantage to stay out of LOS until you hit them hard. If their opponent is going first then they'll get the first strike against the Hydras. So the only army as a whole that 9 Hydra platforms would hose would be the all flyer build. And exactly how is that more broken than the all flyer army is to other armies?

The reality is, a 9 Hydra Platform army is never, ever going to win a tournament because it has painted itself into a corner about what it is good or not good against. As soon as the army gets put on a table that has fairly restrictive LOS where the immobile nature of the platforms becomes a liability then it will get crushed...and at 450 points for 9 of them, that's a huge chunk of points.

Further, your point about ineffective units like Leman Russ Annihilators is a red herring. We all know that people in competitive play won't be fielding the bad or fluffy but inefficient units-- they'll be fielding Tetras, Hades Breaching Drills, Cæstus Assault Rams, and the like.

And this is different how from what people do with regular codexes? But more to the point: How are any of these things more broken than power units found in any number of any codexes? And on top of that more armies than ever have access to these exact same supposedly 'broken' units, so what is the problem?

Fetterkey wrote:The whole "6e is uncompetitive" meme is a joke, man. Nobody knows whether 6e is competitive yet because we haven't had enough time to evaluate the situation and the interactions with different Codexes.

The designers came right out and said they intentionally move away from designing 40k as a competitive ruleset.

http://natfka.blogspot.de/2012/07/faeit-212-exclusive-40k-design-studio.html

Also, you seem to not know the rules for Hydra Platforms. Hydra Platforms are cheaper than normal Hydras and have both Skyfire and Interceptor, so they are more effective at shooting all targets and can kill flyers before they can even attack.

I am aware of their rules, however they can't move, and are much easier to kill, and if your opponent didn't bring flyers then they've invested a whole lot of points in static, fragile AA emplacements.

Further, your point about ineffective units like Leman Russ Annihilators is a red herring. We all know that people in competitive play won't be fielding the bad or fluffy but inefficient units-- they'll be fielding Tetras, Hades Breaching Drills, Cæstus Assault Rams, and the like.

Sure they'll field those. They'll also field other stuff. I've got an LRA sitting there just itching to be used in a tournament. Tetras aren't all that bad, especially given how mediocre Tau as a whole are now and given that they're AV11 (10 or 11?) weeny vehicles. Breaching drills are a one-hit wonder unit that has a not-insignificant-chance to whiff entirely, and caestus rams are nearly 300pts and weren't intended as flyers in their original rules and so may get a change in the future, but for their cost certainly aren't much worse than Stormravens on a point for point level.

Are there a lot of FW units that are cool and fluffy? Yes. Are there a lot of FW units that are completely broken? Unfortunately also yes. I'm fine with the majority of Forge World pieces being allowed, but there are a few things that are just unreasonable and can't be allowed in a competitive environment.

And the mass of broken stuff that 99% of people instantly spot when a book comes out that the core studio releases is just fine? Really, nothing FW has is any more broken than what GW's core studio puts out. If you can deal with that stuff, you're fine. And even then, there's what, half a dozen units that people have a problem with? If that?

xxvaderxx wrote:

yakface wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:I think we should give things some time to shake themselves out before assuming that it's all broken and we're all gonna die, so we may as well allow Forge World stuff anyway. I think 6th edition is a lot more balanced than most people give it credit for.

What you're saying is frankly ridiculous. What I mean by that is IMHO there was never any really good reason to deny FW from tournaments in the first place (not including Super-heavy, Gargantuan Creatures and old-school flyers, of course) , but the one argument that was thrown out there was that the codexes were all 'balanced' and that somehow by allowing Forgeworld into the mix all that balance would go out the window and pandemonium would ensue.

Lol, its nice to see some one contradicting himself, so we should include all FW stuff except what you dont like?. I think this has to be done either all or nothing, either FW is or everyone has its own opinion on what is not ok and everyone is just as wrong.

To be fair, the Superheavy/Gargantuan creatures are very specifically designed for Apocalypse, they no longer have rules for being included in normal 40k games. It used to be a 2nd FoC was required, those rules no longer exist. As such, there simply is no way to take them in a normal game as they don't have an FoC slot to fill.

I think the main problem a lot of people have with Forgeworld is that they feel excluded from using it because it's so expensive. I know I definitely can't afford it, but I still think people should be able to use it. If I ever did come across the cash to get some, I'd love to have the chance to reliably deal with fliers while still playing ONLY my Eldar (not a fan of allies) in the form of Nightwings, Firestorms, and Phoenixes. Forgeworld helps fill the same kinds of gaps as allies.

xxvaderxx wrote:
So the problem with models with rules created by FW is that they need rules created by FW unlike "the other" models created by FW which also use rules created FW but are ok?.

As already pointed out, Imperial Armor makes a clear distinction between some units that are allowed in regular games of 40K and those that are allowed in apocalypse games.

If a tournament is running apocalypse games, then it can allow everything, but for most tournament running regular games of 40K, that automatically disallows the stuff marked only apoc games.

MandalorynOranj wrote:I think the main problem a lot of people have with Forgeworld is that they feel excluded from using it because it's so expensive. I know I definitely can't afford it, but I still think people should be able to use it. If I ever did come across the cash to get some, I'd love to have the chance to reliably deal with fliers while still playing ONLY my Eldar (not a fan of allies) in the form of Nightwings, Firestorms, and Phoenixes. Forgeworld helps fill the same kinds of gaps as allies.

To be fair, it's no longer that much more expensive, hell, in many cases FW isn't any more expensive than GW models, and in some cases it's cheaper (I got my FW chaos dreads for less than I would have payed for metal GW ones). GW's core prices are rapidly approaching FW prices, with the average price of GW product increasing at a rate triple that of inflation every year, while FW stays relatively close to inflation or even under it in some cases, despite its prices being high.

Hell, Whirlwinds are cheaper through FW than they are from GW. FW Leman Russ tanks are only 5 UKP more.

Vaktathi wrote:

MandalorynOranj wrote:I think the main problem a lot of people have with Forgeworld is that they feel excluded from using it because it's so expensive. I know I definitely can't afford it, but I still think people should be able to use it. If I ever did come across the cash to get some, I'd love to have the chance to reliably deal with fliers while still playing ONLY my Eldar (not a fan of allies) in the form of Nightwings, Firestorms, and Phoenixes. Forgeworld helps fill the same kinds of gaps as allies.

To be fair, it's no longer that much more expensive, hell, in many cases FW isn't any more expensive than GW models, and in some cases it's cheaper (I got my FW chaos dreads for less than I would have payed for metal GW ones). GW's core prices are rapidly approaching FW prices, with the average price of GW product increasing at a rate triple that of inflation every year, while FW stays relatively close to inflation or even under it in some cases, despite its prices being high.

Hell, Whirlwinds are cheaper through FW than they are from GW. FW Leman Russ tanks are only 5 UKP more.

True enough, I buy the majority of my stuff through discount sellers so I forget about that sometimes .

yakface wrote:

Further, your point about ineffective units like Leman Russ Annihilators is a red herring. We all know that people in competitive play won't be fielding the bad or fluffy but inefficient units-- they'll be fielding Tetras, Hades Breaching Drills, Cæstus Assault Rams, and the like.

And this is different how from what people do with regular codexes? But more to the point: How are any of these things more broken than power units found in any number of any codexes? And on top of that more armies than ever have access to these exact same supposedly 'broken' units, so what is the problem?

Long Fangs, a typical "power unit," are powerful in that they get missile launchers for slightly cheaper than other options in other books. "Psyfleman" Dreadnoughts are powerful in that they get +1 strength over other Rifleman Dreadnoughts for only 10 points.

The Cæstus Assault Ram is powerful in that it is the only AV13 flyer in the game, can ram while Zooming (...what?), has a twin-linked Large Blast 18" range melta and is an Assault Vehicle. It's basically the Land Raider from hell-- its AV13 and flyer status means that most anti-air weapons cannot shoot it down with anything close to reliability (on average you'll need to fire a quad-gun (assuming BS4) for 5 rounds of shooting before killing it). Unfortunately, you only have one turn to kill it before you get charged by the contents... which can be up to 10 Assault Terminators!

Not exactly something most armies (any armies?) are prepared to deal with.

That's just one example. The more overpowered Forge World units offer capabilities that frankly shouldn't be in the game, far out of line with anything provided by normal Codexes. And while it really is a case of "a few bad apples" (even Tetras, despite being extremely underpriced, are probably fine, since they fall under the "does a good thing cheaply" category instead of the "totally crazy" category), those few bad apples are completely ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed in serious games.

I do think, though, that connecting the "allow FW" to the "what to modify about 6e for tournies?" debate is a little premature. Talk about throwing in every possible variable...

If I think there's a chance for chaos, I don't add in another huge variable and say "Well, it was pretty chaotic, anyway." I try to manage the chaos as best I can.

Imo, these two discussion do not have to be, and really are not, completely linked. I get that 6e allowing allies makes allowing FW seem like a small jump in logic. But it IS a jump, however small, and now you have Allies AND FW. It's going to be messy.

I could totally see tournies early next year, or maybe even late this year, doing so... but to do so right at the gun could cause more harm than good, I think.

Fetterkey wrote:
Long Fangs, a typical "power unit," are powerful in that they get missile launchers for slightly cheaper than other options in other books. "Psyfleman" Dreadnoughts are powerful in that they get +1 strength over other Rifleman Dreadnoughts for only 10 points.

The Cæstus Assault Ram is powerful in that it is the only AV13 flyer in the game, can ram while Zooming (...what?), has a twin-linked Large Blast 18" range melta and is an Assault Vehicle. It's basically the Land Raider from hell-- its AV13 and flyer status means that most anti-air weapons cannot shoot it down with anything close to reliability (on average you'll need to fire a quad-gun (assuming BS4) for 5 rounds of shooting before killing it). Unfortunately, you only have one turn to kill it before you get charged by the contents... which can be up to 10 Assault Terminators!

Not exactly something most armies (any armies?) are prepared to deal with.

That's just one example. The more overpowered Forge World units offer capabilities that frankly shouldn't be in the game, far out of line with anything provided by normal Codexes. And while it really is a case of "a few bad apples" (even Tetras, despite being extremely underpriced, are probably fine, since they fall under the "does a good thing cheaply" category instead of the "totally crazy" category), those few bad apples are completely ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed in serious games.

And yet, the Icarus Lascannon can take it out in one shot, and all those Hydra platforms or Necron flyers can glance it to death without too much trouble. So at 275 points and only 3 Hull Points the Caestus is again not something that is going to win any tournaments.

But this isn't the point...we can sit and argue any unit to death but the fact remains that Games Workshop (which Forgeworld is a part of) has published these rules for use in their games, and the argument that allowing these units into the game imbalances things no longer holds water because most everyone can have access to most of these units or units that can counter those units.

So at this point the only reason left to deny their use is really left down to an irrational fear, because the reality is that there are already plenty of 'broken' (if you see it that way) combos in the game with allies, so the inclusion of Forgeworld units further flattens the playing field because it does offer counters to some of the craziness in the base codexes as well as offering counters to IA units as well.

Yakface needs a like button for his posts.

Yakface +1.

Fetterkey wrote:

Long Fangs, a typical "power unit," are powerful in that they get missile launchers for slightly cheaper than other options in other books.

They get an additional heavy weapon and can engage twice as many targets for significantly fewer points.

"Psyfleman" Dreadnoughts are powerful in that they get +1 strength over other Rifleman Dreadnoughts for only 10 points.

And come with very powerful inbuilt psychic support. The upgrade cost is a whole 5pts.

The Cæstus Assault Ram is powerful in that it is the only AV13 flyer in the game, can ram while Zooming (...what?), has a twin-linked Large Blast 18" range melta and is an Assault Vehicle. It's basically the Land Raider from hell-- its AV13 and flyer status means that most anti-air weapons cannot shoot it down with anything close to reliability (on average you'll need to fire a quad-gun (assuming BS4) for 5 rounds of shooting before killing it). Unfortunately, you only have one turn to kill it before you get charged by the contents... which can be up to 10 Assault Terminators!

Yes, as a flyer, it has issues, it wasn't intended to use flyer rules when designed, but if they zoom nothing can disembark. It's also a giant target that everything in the opposing army is going to be concentrating on to bring it down. If facing 9 Hydra platforms it'll die even if jinking from glances and take its cargo with it. There's plenty of ways to deal with it. Overpowered and needing a review? Yeah. So are dozens of other units. Emperor help that Caestus if it's facing Vendettas.

Not exactly something most armies (any armies?) are prepared to deal with.

Nor are most prepared to deal with an IG army that fields 350 guardsmen or 9 slightly less scary flyers or 17 independent AV12 tanks.

That's just one example. The more overpowered Forge World units offer capabilities that frankly shouldn't be in the game, far out of line with anything provided by normal Codexes. And while it really is a case of "a few bad apples" (even Tetras, despite being extremely underpriced, are probably fine, since they fall under the "does a good thing cheaply" category instead of the "totally crazy" category), those few bad apples are completely ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed in serious games.

And neither should Imhotek, who simply by his inclusion (doesn't even have be on the board or alive) can wreak havoc on enemy armies (especially large unit count armies) and force game-changing LoS conditions to last much longer than ever intended in the core rules for a pittance over a roughly equivalently equipped lord, and he's bonkers hard to kill. But he's allright apparently.


Disallowing *all* Forgeworld over 1 or 2 units, is ridiculous.

yakface wrote:So at 275 points and only 3 Hull Points the Caestus is again not something that is going to win any tournaments.

Suffice it to say that I disagree.

yakface wrote:But this isn't the point...we can sit and argue any unit to death but the fact remains that Games Workshop (which Forgeworld is a part of) has published these rules for use in their games, and the argument that allowing these units into the game imbalances things no longer holds water because most everyone can have access to most of these units or units that can counter those units.

You're being willfully ignorant. An unbalanced unit is unbalanced regardless of who has access to it, because it damages internal as well as external balance. Nobody will run Pathfinders if they can run Tetras. Nobody will run Land Raiders to transport their Assault Terminators if they can run Cæstus Rams. That's bad for the game.

yakface wrote:So at this point the only reason left to deny their use is really left down to an irrational fear, because the reality is that there are already plenty of 'broken' (if you see it that way) combos in the game with allies, so the inclusion of Forgeworld units further flattens the playing field because it does offer counters to some of the craziness in the base codexes as well as offering counters to IA units as well.

The only people being irrational are the ones insisting that they already know what 6th edition is going to be like. Nobody knows what it's going to be like, though some of us have educated guesses. All these purportedly "broken" combos have yet to be proven in competition. I believe that a balanced list can generally prevail over them and that we'll see that become obvious over the course of competitive 6e play. If not, maybe there will be a reason for these changes-- but we have to at least wait and see beforehand! Declaring "the sky has fallen, the game's already broken, we might as well add more crazy stuff" before we've had any actual competitions is crazy.

If you play with the mighty Caestus assault ram full of terminators, you are starting with 700 points off the table. You have a good chance to get it on turn two, but if you don't? And even then you have to wait until turn three to disembark and assault. You get to fire twice with it and then you no longer have the protection of being a flyer and are in their lines and potentially in the range of meltaguns.

It's really not that big of a deal. It's a better land raider. Land raiders currently aren't that good, so a better one is just better.

DutchSage wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:I can take everything (allies, fortifications, mysterious terrain and objectives, even random warlord traits) bar 2d6 charge. It's the spit in the face of tactical gameplay, imo.

I am quite of the opposite opinion on 2D6 charges. To me it finally makes a clear distinction between assault troops and troops that can assault. Suddenly those assault troops fleet/jump/etc will make the difference as they are VERY reliable to use as a charge.

Ok, why not 8" and 4" respectively? Or 6+d3 vs 4+d3 if the tension and drama is so much a must for them? 2 to 12 is wild, even with rerolls imo.

Vaktathi wrote:The designers came right out and said they intentionally move away from designing 40k as a competitive ruleset.

http://natfka.blogspot.de/2012/07/faeit-212-exclusive-40k-design-studio.html

Ouch

Jervis about 2d6 charge in the interview above wrote:I acknowledge that some gamers don’t like having control removed, but a swirling battle full of death, destruction and explosions isn’t really an environment where controlled and predictable actions are likely! It adds ‘tension and drama’ to the game.

Yes! More tension and drama!

I propose randomised table with /meteor shower/ flood/ unit vaporised/ chaos god appears/ emperor dies/ matt ward/ options rolled each turn.

Why a rulebook btw if controlled and predictable actions are unlikely.

Interview wrote:Q7. How difficult was it to add flyer rules into the game?
Matt Ward picked this one up.

Ouch