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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo any TO is free to ban anything they want as long as it's consistent. Banning FW seems totally fine to me.

So it's ok to ban Tyranids as long as you're consistent and ban all Tyranid players?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo any TO is free to ban anything they want as long as it's consistent. Banning FW seems totally fine to me.

So it's ok to ban Tyranids as long as you're consistent and ban all Tyranid players?

A TO can ban anything he wants, obviously. But no one wants a ban on Tyranids, whereas quite a lot of people wants a ban on Forgeworld it seems. Probably because of Forgeworlds sad history of shoddy rulemaking.

Normally I would try to be understanding when it comes to this point but quite frankly I am sick of it.

I boils down to Stupidity, pure and simple pig headedness, FW is no worse rules wise that GW, and yet stupid people keep insisting it is, I call them stupid because no matter how many times you show them they are wrong and prove it, they continue to hold onto there misguided opinion, you can work with ignorance, but not stupidity.

Its exactly the same as banning all Space marines because Guilliman is OP.....

pismakron wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo any TO is free to ban anything they want as long as it's consistent. Banning FW seems totally fine to me.

So it's ok to ban Tyranids as long as you're consistent and ban all Tyranid players?

A TO can ban anything he wants, obviously. But no one wants a ban on Tyranids, whereas quite a lot of people wants a ban on Forgeworld it seems. Probably because of Forgeworlds sad history of shoddy rulemaking.

It's not just that, FW is models and rules that are non-standard. An expansion of the core codex releases and thus presents units and models that otherwise players might well not encounter in regular games at all clubs. Heck some groups might well not have any players with access or purchase of FW models.

People get really irate about this, but honestly if you dislike a tournament ruling then organise your own; many tournaments allow FW just as many also have house rules of their own.

 Formosa wrote:
FW is no worse rules wise that GW

Yes they are. Significantly so in my opinion. Regards

pismakron wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
FW is no worse rules wise that GW

Yes they are. Significantly so in my opinion. Regards

Eldar 7th

Tau 3rd. 7th

Chaos 3.5, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

Nids 3rd

Space marines 4th, Guilliman 8th

thats just off the top of my head, what we have from FW, a few UNITS here and there, not whole Codex's (unless you consider book 7 HH....), but rather than single line comments, explain why you think they are?

pismakron wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
FW is no worse rules wise that GW

Yes they are. Significantly so in my opinion. Regards

This is a point that has been argued far to many times on here. Countless examples have been given over and over about there being more units and rules that are considered "OP" or "Broken" from GW than FW, but people still try to argue it the other way around.

Yes, i, and most others will admit that because of the number of FW units out there for 40k, FW probably has a slightly higher % of potentially broken to no broken than GW, BUT, there are still more actual broken rules from GW by number.

The one thing GW has going for it though, is the fact that they have FAQd or Errata'd several of the issues that have exploded in terms of publicity, whereas, up until GW did the Guard FAQ, FW hadn't really kept up to date with it.

Currently, the only thing that is probably considered "broken" from FW is the Malefic Lord and MAYBE earthshaker batteries. I say maybe here because it's not so much the battery that is the problem, but more how they were being used.

Considering that the Malefic Lords are now getting nerfed to hell in Chapter Approved, the list is now extremely small of FW "broken" to GW "broken".

 Overread wrote:

pismakron wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo any TO is free to ban anything they want as long as it's consistent. Banning FW seems totally fine to me.

So it's ok to ban Tyranids as long as you're consistent and ban all Tyranid players?

A TO can ban anything he wants, obviously. But no one wants a ban on Tyranids, whereas quite a lot of people wants a ban on Forgeworld it seems. Probably because of Forgeworlds sad history of shoddy rulemaking.

It's not just that, FW is models and rules that are non-standard.

Says who?

An expansion of the core codex releases

This right here is the problem. There's nothing in the GW ruleset that defines FW as some sort of optional expansion (the way it does with things like Planetstrike or Cities of Death), it's a convention that's been taken up with no actual rules support to stand on from GW. The 8E FW Index books certainly do not refer to themselves as expansions.

In fact, for some armies (Renegades and Heretics, Death Korps of Krieg, Elysians) FW books *are* their Codex.

FW is there to make stuff that's not profitable to make in plastic or that the main studio isn't interested in for one reason or another, not as some special super secret exclusive expansion club.

and thus presents units and models that otherwise players might well not encounter in regular games at all clubs. Heck some groups might well not have any players with access or purchase of FW models.

This question of access boggles my mind. The internet is a ubiquitous thing. People buy much of their stuff online (and half the playerbase pirates the rules for everything anyway...). Most people don't buy all their stuff at the FLGS for full retail value. Aside from not being in the brick and mortar, FW is just as available as anything else. There's almost 200 40k models/kits that are exclusive to GW's webstore, and nobody ever seems to apply this logic to ban that stuff as inaccessible...(like pretty much the entire Sisters of Battle army)

People get really irate about this, but honestly if you dislike a tournament ruling then organise your own;

Yes, because there's always a venue, time, and money available to do that simply to play with some plastic models that another event centered around playing with plastic models will not allow...

pismakron wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
FW is no worse rules wise that GW

Yes they are. Significantly so in my opinion. Regards

There doesn't seem to be any evidence to back up that assertion.

Despite FW being allowed pretty much without restriction in most major 6E and 7E events (and most by the end of 5E), there's certainly no evidence of FW being a particularly big rules issue in any of those editions, FW stuff was never necessary to compete, it never consistently dominated top tables, you'd see FW stuff splash a time or two and that's it. In 8E, aside from Malefic Lords, there's not much from FW that appears to be a particularly big balance issue of note that's making huge waves and those are already about to be hammered into oblivion.

 Overread wrote:

pismakron wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo any TO is free to ban anything they want as long as it's consistent. Banning FW seems totally fine to me.

So it's ok to ban Tyranids as long as you're consistent and ban all Tyranid players?

A TO can ban anything he wants, obviously. But no one wants a ban on Tyranids, whereas quite a lot of people wants a ban on Forgeworld it seems. Probably because of Forgeworlds sad history of shoddy rulemaking.

It's not just that, FW is models and rules that are non-standard. An expansion of the core codex releases and thus presents units and models that otherwise players might well not encounter in regular games at all clubs. Heck some groups might well not have any players with access or purchase of FW models.

People get really irate about this, but honestly if you dislike a tournament ruling then organise your own; many tournaments allow FW just as many also have house rules of their own.

The problem here though, is 95% (probably as much as 98%) of FW rules and models use standard GW rules and stats as a copy and paste across to different units. Only a small %age actually have rules that are drastically different to GW. Currently Guard and Tyranids could be argued to also be "non standard" now as well, due to their regimental/hive fleet bonuses are drastically different to those of the other armies - where generally the bonuses have been copies and pastes of other factions. Just because something is different, does not mean it is no longer "standard".

In terms of expansions, what about all the GW expansions throughout 7th, in terms of supplements? There were several codex priced books released with new rules, formations, bonuses etc that were different to those of the basic codex. Sure, they might all likely be found on the GW store shelf, but in some smaller stores that might not be the case - especially if it is a non GW store. So, in that sense, half the supplements in 7th should have been banned due to the possibility of people not knowing they exist. An example of this, is for a while I did not know about the Angels of Death supplement. My local GW store here is a load of so i don't use it. I only found out about it due to places like this and buying online very infrequently as i've been dipping in and out for a while before fully committing to coming back. I would have been well within my rights then, apparently, to refuse to play anyone using any book for rules that was not an original, basic, codex... But, that is dumb and would have only harmed me in learning more about the game and hobby. I would never have taken Raven Guard to Warhammer Fest if i hadn't found out about the supplement and learnt about it, and i only had that opportunity because i saw someone with it and talking about it.

If you ban anything GW related (and yes, FW is GW regardless of people claiming it as a "separate" company) then you only limit its exposure to the player base. If you do that, then you'll never be in a situation where you can gauge its affects on your local community. How do you know something is "out of reach" of a lot of people, if the people don't even know it exists or have had an opportunity to look at some of the models and books in person via someone bringing the stuff in to play?

They should just ban Tyranids from events, since, let's face it, the only ones who actually ever know what any Tyranid guns ever do are Tyranid players themselves.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo any TO is free to ban anything they want as long as it's consistent. Banning FW seems totally fine to me.

So it's ok to ban Tyranids as long as you're consistent and ban all Tyranid players?

Sure.

If they're going to put the time and effort into running a tournament, they're free to do what they want. You're free not to play it, too. Banning Tyranids would be much less understandable than banning FW though. But rules like "single codex, highlander, no LOW, no FW" that's all fair game. Each affects certain factions more than others, just like different missions or terrain can effect different factions. But it's all completely up to the TO, and if it hurts turnout, they have the responsibility of dealing with those consequences too.

I don't particularly have an issue with FW besides the obvious skew in faction emphasis.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo any TO is free to ban anything they want as long as it's consistent. Banning FW seems totally fine to me.

So it's ok to ban Tyranids as long as you're consistent and ban all Tyranid players?

Sure.

If they're going to put the time and effort into running a tournament, they're free to do what they want. You're free not to play it, too. Banning Tyranids would be much less understandable than banning FW though. But rules like "single codex, highlander, no LOW, no FW" that's all fair game. Each affects certain factions more than others, just like different missions or terrain can effect different factions. But it's all completely up to the TO, and if it hurts turnout, they have the responsibility of dealing with those consequences too.

I don't particularly have an issue with FW besides the obvious skew in faction emphasis.

Ah HA! THAT I can at least understand, FW makes a lot of Space Marine stuff, guard etc. but next to nothing for DE, hell, it wont take long for Primaris to have more than DE, which is a real shame, I would love to see some DE stuff from FW.

This bothers me almost as much as a no-LOW ban.

"These select few units are a problem! Let's ban the entire category!"

"But if conscripts are a problem, shouldn't you ban all Troops, by the same logic?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This bothers me almost as much as a no-LOW ban.

"These select few units are a problem! Let's ban the entire category!"

"But if conscripts are a problem, shouldn't you ban all Troops, by the same logic?"

Yep, its exactly the same logic, take it to its most absurd level and you ban an entire codex because commisars are OP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also still waiting for you to back up your statement Pismakron.

 Formosa wrote:

pismakron wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
FW is no worse rules wise that GW

Yes they are. Significantly so in my opinion. Regards

Eldar 7th

Tau 3rd. 7th

Chaos 3.5, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

Nids 3rd

Space marines 4th, Guilliman 8th

thats just off the top of my head, what we have from FW, a few UNITS here and there, not whole Codex's (unless you consider book 7 HH....), but rather than single line comments, explain why you think they are?

Yeah, read the Imperial Armor Index:Xenos. There is hardly a single unit entry without editing or typing errors in it. It reads like a youtube comment section. My only regret was that I was dumb enough to buy that rush-job abortion of a rulebook. I guess I'll never learn when it comes to ForgeWorld manure.

Anyone claiming that the rulemaking quality from ForgeWorld is not well below GW standards clearly needs a full frontal lobotomy. With a shotgun. But it is still very uplifting that GW has decided to include FW entries into Chapter Approved. Maybe GW should just discontinue their stillborn resin-casting daughter company and roll the ForgeWorld stuff into the proper codices, and sell the ForgeWorld models from the GW website under the GW brand. Then this eternal discussion can finally be put to rest.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This bothers me almost as much as a no-LOW ban.

"These select few units are a problem! Let's ban the entire category!"

"But if conscripts are a problem, shouldn't you ban all Troops, by the same logic?"

It's not necessarily about attempting to ban OP units. It's just a different framework to operate in.

pismakron wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

pismakron wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
FW is no worse rules wise that GW

Yes they are. Significantly so in my opinion. Regards

Eldar 7th

Tau 3rd. 7th

Chaos 3.5, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

Nids 3rd

Space marines 4th, Guilliman 8th

thats just off the top of my head, what we have from FW, a few UNITS here and there, not whole Codex's (unless you consider book 7 HH....), but rather than single line comments, explain why you think they are?

Yeah, read the Imperial Armor Index:Xenos. There is hardly a single unit entry without editing or typing errors in it. It reads like a youtube comment section. My only regret was that I was dumb enough to buy that rush-job abortion of a rulebook. I guess I'll never learn when it comes to ForgeWorld manure.

Anyone claiming that the rulemaking quality from ForgeWorld is not well below GW standards clearly needs a full frontal lobotomy. With a shotgun. But it is still very uplifting that GW has decided to include FW entries into Chapter Approved. Maybe GW should just discontinue their stillborn resin-casting daughter company and roll the ForgeWorld stuff into the proper codices, and sell the ForgeWorld models from the GW website under the GW brand. Then this eternal discussion can finally be put to rest.

Meanwhile, you have GW carrying over typos from index to codex.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This bothers me almost as much as a no-LOW ban.

"These select few units are a problem! Let's ban the entire category!"

"But if conscripts are a problem, shouldn't you ban all Troops, by the same logic?"

It's not necessarily about attempting to ban OP units. It's just a different framework to operate in.

Yes, but why? I mean, it being a "different framework" doesn't make it automatically good. Playing a game of 40k where all troops are banned is also a "different framework".

Just because it's different, doesn't make it good. In fact in this case it makes it far far worse.

TO can do whatever he wants. Don't like the rules - don't play in the tournament. All it does is change the competitive parameters. I would actually love if more tournments did this because despite what the forge world defenders say - the biggest culprits of imbalance are almost always forge world.

 Xenomancers wrote:
TO can do whatever he wants. Don't like the rules - don't play in the tournament. All it does is change the competitive parameters. I would actually love if more tournments did this because despite what the forge world defenders say - the biggest culprits of imbalance are almost always forge world.

since...when? They certainly weren't in previous editions. FW didn't dominate or lead the meta in any previous edition. In 8th, aside from Malefic Lords, they don't seem to be either...

 Blackie wrote:


If you're willing to buy 200 guardsmen you're a WAAC player, not an average one. An average player will buy the miniatures he/she prefers in order to collect an army that can work in games (maybe, sometimes they don't even care) but it's also good looking. Tournaments players are far from being the average ones, they're actually a minority.

FW hate also comes because not everyone likes the concept of centerpiece models, I can't stand them for example. I consider land raiders but also rhinos and dreads big models. Unfortunately even GW new releases are following this path, to provide huge vehicles/monters/superheroes to everyone, but this is a trend that was inherited by FW. Hence the FW hate.

FW prices are very very high for a standard player/collector. And we can have a 30% price cut on the GW catalogue here, while we can't have it on FW stuff.

To ban FW is wrong IMHO, but don't say that FW stuff is accessible to anyone, moneywise speaking, just because some WAAC player has collected an army with 200+ guardsmen.

So I take it my 300 guardsmen collection that I've been building since 5th edition where infantry armies have sucked for a good 4 years makes me a WAAC player then? Good to know I was psychic and predicted the meta shift 4 years ago so I could crush all the casuals.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This bothers me almost as much as a no-LOW ban.

"These select few units are a problem! Let's ban the entire category!"

"But if conscripts are a problem, shouldn't you ban all Troops, by the same logic?"

It's not necessarily about attempting to ban OP units. It's just a different framework to operate in.

Yes, but why? I mean, it being a "different framework" doesn't make it automatically good. Playing a game of 40k where all troops are banned is also a "different framework".

Just because it's different, doesn't make it good. In fact in this case it makes it far far worse.

Superheavies or FW? Either way 'better' or 'worse' is pretty subjective in this case. IE, just because it's different doesn't automatically make it worse either.

I understand you normally do a three superheavy army. I don't personally have a problem with that, but you gotta admit it forces a particular type of game.

Admittedly, 200 conscripts probably forces another type of game. But then 'highlander' would effect that, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


If you're willing to buy 200 guardsmen you're a WAAC player, not an average one. An average player will buy the miniatures he/she prefers in order to collect an army that can work in games (maybe, sometimes they don't even care) but it's also good looking. Tournaments players are far from being the average ones, they're actually a minority.

FW hate also comes because not everyone likes the concept of centerpiece models, I can't stand them for example. I consider land raiders but also rhinos and dreads big models. Unfortunately even GW new releases are following this path, to provide huge vehicles/monters/superheroes to everyone, but this is a trend that was inherited by FW. Hence the FW hate.

FW prices are very very high for a standard player/collector. And we can have a 30% price cut on the GW catalogue here, while we can't have it on FW stuff.

To ban FW is wrong IMHO, but don't say that FW stuff is accessible to anyone, moneywise speaking, just because some WAAC player has collected an army with 200+ guardsmen.

So I take it my 300 guardsmen collection that I've been building since 5th edition where infantry armies have sucked for a good 4 years makes me a WAAC player then? Good to know I was psychic and predicted the meta shift 4 years ago so I could crush all the casuals.

To be fair, I think his intended meaning was "if you're the type of player to buy 200 guardsmen once conscripts are deemed OP". Same type that suddenly bought 30 Eldar Scatbikes in 7th for "fluffy reasons".

Those players exist. If you're not one of those I think you are exempt from his statement.

pismakron wrote:
Anyone claiming that the rulemaking quality from ForgeWorld is not well below GW standards clearly needs a full frontal lobotomy. With a shotgun.

Wow.

M.

 Overread wrote:
It's not just that, FW is models and rules that are non-standard.

But they aren't, according to GW. This "standard game" is something that is entirely an invention of certain players, it has nothing to do with the rules that GW publishes. FW rules are just as much a part of "standard" 40k as a codex tactical squad.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This bothers me almost as much as a no-LOW ban.

"These select few units are a problem! Let's ban the entire category!"

"But if conscripts are a problem, shouldn't you ban all Troops, by the same logic?"

It's not necessarily about attempting to ban OP units. It's just a different framework to operate in.

Yes, but why? I mean, it being a "different framework" doesn't make it automatically good. Playing a game of 40k where all troops are banned is also a "different framework".

Just because it's different, doesn't make it good. In fact in this case it makes it far far worse.

Superheavies or FW? Either way 'better' or 'worse' is pretty subjective in this case. IE, just because it's different doesn't automatically make it worse either.

I understand you normally do a three superheavy army. I don't personally have a problem with that, but you gotta admit it forces a particular type of game.

Admittedly, 200 conscripts probably forces another type of game. But then 'highlander' would effect that, too.

Both.

If you ban FW or superheavies, you're forcing a "competition" that doesn't include crucial components of the game, like playing baseball without a shortstop or football without an offensive line. Sure, you could do it, but what's the point? All it does is harm people that want to have fun within the rules published by the publisher.

As for forcing a certain type of game: Yes, yes it does. That's rather the point. It's a skew list, much like 200 conscripts is a skew list or all-reserve drop pod marines was a skew list in 5th.

Skew is fine, and imo makes competition even more challenging and fun.

pismakron wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

pismakron wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
FW is no worse rules wise that GW

Yes they are. Significantly so in my opinion. Regards

Eldar 7th

Tau 3rd. 7th

Chaos 3.5, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th

Nids 3rd

Space marines 4th, Guilliman 8th

thats just off the top of my head, what we have from FW, a few UNITS here and there, not whole Codex's (unless you consider book 7 HH....), but rather than single line comments, explain why you think they are?

Yeah, read the Imperial Armor Index:Xenos. There is hardly a single unit entry without editing or typing errors in it. It reads like a youtube comment section. My only regret was that I was dumb enough to buy that rush-job abortion of a rulebook. I guess I'll never learn when it comes to ForgeWorld manure.

Anyone claiming that the rulemaking quality from ForgeWorld is not well below GW standards clearly needs a full frontal lobotomy. With a shotgun. But it is still very uplifting that GW has decided to include FW entries into Chapter Approved. Maybe GW should just discontinue their stillborn resin-casting daughter company and roll the ForgeWorld stuff into the proper codices, and sell the ForgeWorld models from the GW website under the GW brand. Then this eternal discussion can finally be put to rest.

That's an impressive amount of colorful language for plastic toy soldiers, I'm left wondering what sort of rustling was involved with those jimmies.

Lets take it from the top.

Yes, FW's editing is bad. So is GW's, routinely. FW's can arguably be worse, and that's fair to knock them on, but lets not make it out like it's a horrific crime against mankind either. Looking at tournament results, there's also zero evidence from any of the past three editions or the current one that they've been a major, consistent balance offender, particularly for anything more than a couple of months at a time (such as with Malefic Lords that usually gets nipped fairly quickly by FW, far faster than mainline GW has done in the past. FW was also the only ones to do public playtesting of new units in 5E and 6E until GW corporate stopped that and pulled all social media down for a while).

FW is not a "stillborn resin-casting daughter company", they're not even a separate company. Forgeworld is the part of Games Workshop that does stuff that isn't profitable to do in plastic, or that doesn't fit into the primary marketing plan, or that the main studio just can't find the time for. All the FW people work at the same place as everyone else at GW. It's just a different brand, all part of the same company.

GW has decided they don't want to incorporate FW stuff into their primary supply chain and distribution network. That's up to GW corporate to change if they so choose. It was GW corporate that pulled FW order availability from GW stores and battle bunkers (when they still existed), not FW.

I have it on good information (friend of a friend, so perhaps not so good) that the Forge World team were given hardly any time at all to write their 8th Edition rules and they were not playtested by Games Workshop at all before release.

With that in mind, I'm impressed they're as good as they are. Truly, there are some units (especially compared with the Index lists) that are downright balanced - e.g. Macharius tanks, Malcadors, Stormhammers, Thunderbolts, Marauder planes - just a few examples from the Imperial Armour I am most familiar with.

Now that the codex has arrived, the problem isn't even that the units in question are too good - essentially, the entirety of Codex: IG has been buffed so much that the FW stuff is far far less good.

And of course implicit in this talk of moving FW units/models into the codices and GW retail stores is a concession that it's about nitpicking irrelevant details instead of any substantial balance or quality of play issues. If simply changing what name is on the cover of the book would satisfy you then you don't have a valid point.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have it on good information (friend of a friend, so perhaps not so good) that the Forge World team were given hardly any time at all to write their 8th Edition rules and they were not playtested by Games Workshop at all before release.

With that in mind, I'm impressed they're as good as they are. Truly, there are some units (especially compared with the Index lists) that are downright balanced - e.g. Macharius tanks, Malcadors, Stormhammers, Thunderbolts, Marauder planes - just a few examples from the Imperial Armour I am most familiar with.

Now that the codex has arrived, the problem isn't even that the units in question are too good - essentially, the entirety of Codex: IG has been buffed so much that the FW stuff is far far less good.

Half of those aren't even good, the basic Macharius sports identical firepower to an LRBT (two shot battlecannon woooo), it's just twice as much with ten extra HP and no ability to receive orders and harder to benefit from Doctrines

This thread take me back. Same people arguing the same thing it seems like for over 5 years.