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.

I was at DexCon 17 in Morristown NJ this weekend and there were some pretty cool Apocalypse games being run. I'm a Tyranid player and I already own a Harridan but I took a look through the book to see the stats on the TYRANID HIEROPHANT BIO-TITAN from Forge World. Its listed as having Scything Talons, which would mean that the Hierophant strikes at a strength of 10, and not D like the Stompa and Lord of Skulls. Someone mentioned to me that he thought the Gargantuan creatures struck at a D, but I gave the apocalypse book back before reading any further. I know that in Escalation there is no mention of Harridan striking in melee at strength D (which means it gets eaten alive in melee by a 370 point Knight with its D melee weapon and Initiative 4).

Do the Tyranid Gargantuan creatures strike melee blows at strength D?

No, he hits at S10, with an extra attack plus a boost to his initiative.

Man that sucks. Even in Apocalypse Tyanids take it butt.

Supposedly IA4 is being re-released soon.... the curent crop are pretty low on the power curve.

But unless its changed in the Apocalypse book I don't think that really helps me. :(

Well it does: If IA4 is re-released as IA4.2 and has rules for the Hierophant, they trump and "replace" the rules in the Apocalypse book (As it is now older)

they dont trump apocalypse rules unless your oppontent agrees to their use fw versions are opponents permission unless its house ruled otherwise

wargamer1985 wrote:
they dont trump apocalypse rules unless your oppontent agrees to their use fw versions are opponents permission unless its house ruled otherwise

Page 116, stating valid rules are found in GW publications, states otherwise

FW IS GW.

Page 116 in what?

The rule book, oddly enough

"The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates."

That does *not* say that all rules found in any and every GW publication are rules applicable to standard 40K. It does not say that any and every company owned by GW is authorized to write rules for standard 40K.


"NFL football players can be found in wide range of sports stadiums"

That does not mean that every person in a sports stadium is a football player. It does not mean that every football player in a sports stadium is an NFL player.

1) FW is not a company owned by GW. It IS GW.

2) it tells you rules can be found in GW publications, and those publications tell you they are suitable for 40k, so they can be used

Your analogy is incomplete

Also, as I keep pointing out:
It states Dataslates/Datasheets on the list of approved sources, even in the Rule being quoted here!

It also goes on to clarify that " Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry," showing that Army List Entry's published in alternative Game Workshop sources is exactly what they are approving above. This concept is further cemented within the 7th Edition Codex we have seen to date, which has a section titled Datasheets stating that Ork Units within said Codex will have Datasheets, either detailing a Formation or an Army List Entry itself. Even Codex's are nothing more then a collection of Dataslates/Sheets, highlighting just how important that idea has become in 7th as the system gets more modular.

As Forgeworld is a publishing branch of Game Workshop, and their books are filled with Army List Entries / Datasheets, it is very hard to accept that they are somehow outside of the sentence giving us approval to use alternative Game Workshop publications.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) FW is not a company owned by GW. It IS GW.

I believe it is a wholly owned subsidiary and a separate company. But it doesn't really matter, even if it is a different division, it still isn't the division responsible for writing the 40K rules.

2) it tells you rules can be found in GW publications,

Yes, they can be; still does not say that all rules found in any and every publication are valid rules for standard 40K. Still does not say that rules written by another company/division are valid for standard 40K

"it tells you fish can be found in the ocean" Doesn't mean everything in the ocean is a fish.

and those publications tell you they are suitable for 40k,

And here is the crux of your argument, and where we disagree. Yes *those publications* say they are suitable... but those publications were not written by the people responsible for writing the rules.

so they can be used

Assuming you believe that FW is authorized to write rules for standard 40K, then you will be okay with "those publications" saying that they are okay.


I follow only what I see actually written in the BRB, I am not willing to follow what FW says until the 40K design team (not the FW team) says that is actually part of the game.


And again, what people continually skip over.... Why is it, if they really intend for FW to be part of standard 40K, that this has *never* *NEVER* been mentioned in any BRB, or any codex, or any supplement, or any FAQ?

Lets face it, there are 2 LoW in codices, there are about 15 in Escalation, and about 1.5 gagillion in FW books. Yet when the BRB talks about LoW, they *only* mention the codexes and Escalation. The do *not* mention IA books, they do *not* mention FW.... in fact, their list isn't even open ended. They give what is apparently a complete list of 2 places to look.


You are taking a couple of generic sentences in a boxout in one place, and hanging a whole lot on it. While in dozens of places where they could have mentioned FW, where it would have made a *lot of sense* to mention forge world..... nothing... not a single thing.

"40K approved" came out during 5th edition. Nothing about it in the 6E BRB, nothing in the 7th BRB.... not a thing....

Why is that...??

FW is a GW DBA.
Same company.

Coredump - then you believe wrong, and have been corrected on this a number of times.

Again. Open up any IA. Note the copyright on it. Notice it states GAMES WORKSHOP.

It is a games workshop publication, that states it has rules for 40k within it. It is very much like DIgital editrions who are also a department within GW who also write rules for 40k, yet you dont seem to have the same issue with that.

The crux of the matter of it is this: GW have written a rule stating that ANY GW publication that has 40k rules in it is...wait for it...a source of 40k rules

You cannot, as in it is impossible for you to dissent on this, claim that IA is not a GW publication. It is absolute, 100% impossible to do so. This publication states it has rules for 40k, and as per the rules in the BRB is therefore a valid source for rules.

Your opinion is noted, however as of 7th edition it is factgually incorrect, and you should review your own bias on this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


The crux of the matter of it is this: GW have written a rule stating that ANY GW publication that has 40k rules in it is...wait for it...a source of 40k rules

That is *NOT* what it says.... you are adding words and changing the meaning.

If the next sentence said "Forge world rules are not allowed in standard 40K" there would be no contradiction with the *actual* rule in the BRB. It would contradict with the 'rule' you just made up.

Again, just because valid rules are found in GW publications does *NOT* indicate that all GW publications contain valid rules.

You cannot, as in it is impossible for you to dissent on this, claim that IA is not a GW publication.

I have never, ever, made that claim. I have in fact, stated the opposite even in this thread. You have now moved on from creating rules, to arguing against things I have never said.


Lets try another tack....

You seem to claim that the BRB statement proves that FW books are okay. Well, A proves B *only* if B is true when A is true *and* A is false when B is false.

A square is a rectangle. If the item is a square, it is also a rectangle. If the item is a non-rectangle, then it must be a non-square. SO it does prove it.

A rectangle is a square. You can have a rectangle that is a square. But a non-square can still be a rectangle. So it does *not* prove it.



What you are claiming:
All rules listed as "40K approved" in any and all GW publications are valid for standard games of 40K
FW books and rules are valid for 40K.

And you are correct, the first does prove the second. If the second if false, the first *must* be false.

But... what the rules really say:
"The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates."
FW books and rules are valid for 40K

While those *could* be true.... if we make the second false, the first statement is *still true*
"The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates."
FW books and rules are not valid for 40K"

As you can see, the first statement is *still true*. You can still find rules in a wide range of GW publications.... Because that statement does *NOT SAY* that any/every/all publications have valid rules... that is the part of the rule you keep adding to get the result you want.

This is the point where I quote you: "... you should review your own bias on this"

_____________________

Two areas that have been mentioned *many* times, and you ignore them Every. Single. TIme. Presumably because they don't fit your desired outcome.

The single sentence you can find... specifically discusses rules for *Citadel models*.... how many Citadel models does GW sell?

How is it that the dozens of publications put out by the people responsible for the rules *NEVER* mention forge world? Not even in the LoW section....??

I assume you will keep bypassing these... but I will keep asking them.

By bypassing read "irrelevant"

They purposefully keep FW and GW separate in terms of publicity, for reasons tht have no bearing on the discussion here. It matters not one jot.

I know what the rules say, i know what GW say - not FW, as the copyright is GW- and that is that IA rules are valid. Ignore it if you like, argue and rail against it all you like, but you rp opinion is, frankly, unimportant

"found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications"

Is quite easy to understand:

Who is the publisher of the Book?
If the answer is "Games Workshop" then it's a valid book.

As Nos said:
"Open up any IA. Note the copyright on it. Notice it states GAMES WORKSHOP."

For my purposes the IA book might not be much help. The game organizer at DexCon was pretty serious about just using the rules in the Apocalypse book. But, if the IA rules are better I might try twisting arms next year.

IA 4 2nd ed is out shortly, see today's bulletin.

Just wait for IA 4 2.0 man. It IS A PRODUCT OF GW so it will trump the old apoc rules whether your opponent agrees or not. It is a copy right of Games Workshop (found in the first page) therefore a valid use in any games setting where Apoc or Lords of War can be taken.


Have fun man and cross your fingers that our MC's get more survivable against Str D weapons or get ready to pretty much utilize your Gargants as Lords of War where they greatly improve in survivability.

Hey, at least you're not a daemon lord - most of them are NOT strength 10, so they need to smash to be able to hurt a superheavy. Zarakynel needs 6's to glance a knight!

Superheavy walkers are not, by default, Strength D in close combat either. The knight and the Stompa sacrifice a shooting arm (technically) to get it because they're designed to be in close combat. The warhound and reaver technically aren't (though the reaver can take a titan ccw, it's kind of foolish to do so).

 Spellbound wrote:
Superheavy walkers are not, by default, Strength D in close combat either. The knight and the Stompa sacrifice a shooting arm (technically) to get it because they're designed to be in close combat. The warhound and reaver technically aren't (though the reaver can take a titan ccw, it's kind of foolish to do so).

That's true. But both the TYRANID HIEROPHANT BIO-TITAN and the Harridan have close combat weapons. I'm pretty sure that makes them the only super heavies equipped with close combat weapons that aren't Strength D.

The C'tan also attacks at S9.
But he has a crapload of attacks, just like the Bio-Titan.

I don't think one should compare them by just looking at the strength of their melee attack.
I'd rather have a C'tan in my army than a Stompa, even if he only has S9 vs Destroyer-attacks.

The Bio Titans attacks aren't particularly impressive either frankly. 12 shots at BS3 Str 10 with a 48" range. Compare that to any number of Lords of Wars with shooting D attacks, let alone other Titans, and its shooting is pretty weak. But, if its hand to hand attacks were D I think that would make the unit worth taking. As it is for 1000 points for the Bio Titan or 735 points for the Harridan you're not getting much for the points. You'd almost be better off just buying carnifexes with crusher claws. At least their attacks have a better chance of penning an AV 14.

At 735 points, the Harridan is a GFMC meaning it's hard to hit (avoiding all those pesky D blasts) and has a crapton of S10 shooting... In addition to the whole Gargoyle carrying thing.

"Not getting much for the points" would apply to the Heirodules but not the Heirophant or Harridan. Not everything is about how much firepower it has.

No, it's about what something can achieve on the battlefield.

Yeah, the Harridan dodges D blast templates, but with a toughness 8 and a 3+ save its still quite vulnerable (although the 7th edition grounding check change has made it significantly tougher). But it still dishes out far too little for its points. 12 shots as BS 3 means 6 hits. 6 hits against AV 14 means 2 pens. Maybe one of them gets bonus damage.

But the Bio Titan? It'll go down to D weapons like that's its job. And it doesn't have much to fire back with. Three Bio Titans is about the same points as two Reavers. If you start them 10-20' apart (as is the case in the scenarios I'm gearing up for) the Bio Titans have zero chance of coming out on top. Hell, 10 bio Titans against 2 Reavers probably have odds that are 2-1 against or worse.

The Tyranid Lords of War are OK, but not really worth it, against non Lords of War. But against other Race's Lords of War they're basically useless. Which is why I'm hoping IA4 2nd edition does something to make them worth the investment (in points and money). And just making them cheaper in points wont help much because they're still $400 a model, and I'm not buying $2k worth of Bio Titans to fight a single Reaver or Revenant.

I would also add that the strength of the Harridan, as Rigeld pointed out, comes from it being a GFMC.

Hard to hit and Vector Strike being 2 very useful aspects. They do not have much to face a Reaver, but then again, what does?

 Albinonewt wrote:
Three Bio Titans is about the same points as two Reavers. If you start them 10-20' apart (as is the case in the scenarios I'm gearing up for) the Bio Titans have zero chance of coming out on top. Hell, 10 bio Titans against 2 Reavers probably have odds that are 2-1 against or worse.

Oh, so not talking 40k then. Gotcha.