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.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Lately I have noticed both on Dakkadakka and at some Gaming stores that people seem to really have a strong distaste for Forge World stuff. Any idea where that might come from?

A big part is simple ignorance. For some reason many people think FW is all hideously broken "Pay to Win" stuff, when the vast majority is, if anything, the opposite, FW units have historically generally been notably inferior to most Codex equivalents. Their balance really isn't any worse than the Codex stuff, and most people, once challenged, have trouble coming up with something specific that is truly worse than something in a codex.

Others often think it automatically means trying to run a Reaver Titan in a 1500pt game. A lot of people also have gotten burned by people running stuff incorrectly with with incorrect rules, or flat out cheating (often with proxies) and that ruins their experience without checking into what really should have happened. Most of it is ignorance that they never take the time to rectify.

Some people see it as a "rich man's" thing, something beyond what they can ever get into and hate it because of that. That may have had a point a decade ago, but most FW books can be had at near (or under) Codex prices now, and many new GW plastic kits are coming out at, or very near, FW unit prices. For example, Dire Avengers and Tempestus Scions cost as much as Death Korps Grenadiers, and Ork Mek Gunz cost roughly as much as Thudd Guns with crew. Most GW character models now are almost identical in price to most FW character models.

Some of it is because people just don't want to add more stuff into the game, typically because they don't want a change in a metagame they are already comfortable with and don't want anything to upset that. At this point however, with multiple detachments, allies, formations, unbound, dataslates, sub-faction books, etc, it seems rather absurd to hate on FW specifically.

A big reason for stores to not like it is that they can't make money off of it so they just ban it.

Some people often also for some reason think Forgeworld is some 3rd party knock-off making what amount to "house rules", as opposed to a GW department making official products for use in normal play that either aren't profitable to do in plastic (Titans, Leman Russ variant hulls, differentiated IG regiments, ported over Epic models, etc) or just aren't appropriate for a normal Codex (Atlas support tanks, niche sub-factions, etc).

 Sigvatr wrote:
In the past, FW was most well-known for releasing overpowered units. Which wasn't true, actually, as most of their releases are underpowered, but some examples were ridiculously over the top (e.g. Thudd) and those stood out.

To be fair, the Thudd Gun was simply a re-release of a unit that existed in RT and 2nd edition, and nobody considered it "ridiculously over the top" when it was re-released in 4E through 5E until 6E changed the core artillery rules, and even then only really when the army was built heavily around spamming them and supporting them with allies and lots of HQ support, and nobody talks about it anymore in 7E.

Then GW does what is usually does, and comes out with an even better version in the codex, in the form of the Wyvern, that did largely the same thing but better and without the need for all those support units (reducing S from 5 to 4 but giving it inherent Twin Linked, Rerolling failed wounds, and Ignores Cover, along with mobility and no need to worry about Morale)

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm personal fine with 40k forgeworld, but I don't know whether I would play against 30k. I guess it depends on the comparative power level.

It's the point level that matters. The 30k lists scale weirdly next to normal 40k lists. A lot of 30k units for example only really shine at max unit strength of 10 or 20 marines with full kit and costing 300-400pts for example and really feel designed for 2500pt games, while 40k codex marine units usually come out at ~150-200pts and usually play 1500-2000pts.

 Antario wrote:
I don't really like FW as I feel everything about it is bothersome. Rules spread over multiple books which are not all up to date and buying the stuff is a hassle.

How is this different than codex books?

If GW won't sell it at their stores, won't let you ship it there, and you're officially not allowed to use it in store either. I'm not sure why I should be anymore accommodating...

GW stores don't sell it on the shelf because it's a specialist product. They also don't sell Sisters of Battle without special orders either but nobody seems to begrudge them for that reason. When Battle Bunkers were still a thing they certainly carried FW stuff.

If your GW store manager isn't allowing it, report them to their regional manager, they're basically just not wanting to advertise sales that don't apply to their metrics.

Hoenstly, GW didn't create FW and hire people to staff it just for players not to use the stuff....

 Antario wrote:


As for bothersome: the rulebooks aren't the most pleasant to navigate

That's mighty subjective. Many say the same of normal codex books.

nor is there a digital version by BL.

Since when did that become a requirement? How did people play this game before midway through 6E?

The basic game has already enough rules bloat with formations and supplements to add on a another range of books.

FW has been around much longer than most of that other stuff...

Internet shipping by FW is expensive and a hassle due to domestic courier/mail-service issues.

While true, why is this not an issue people bring up with stuff like Sisters of Battle or other online-only/specialist items?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yep. Charging for mandatory updates is just ridiculous.

Just like codex books do. It sucks, but it's consistent with GW's other sales models.

 Orock wrote:
People will argue to the death that not only is it legal to play forgeworld, but that you have to accept that. You don't. Just like if someone brings a transcendent ctan, you can say you don't want to play against it.

There are many problems with forgeworld.

Their rules are spread out, multiple copies of them exist, and if you don't know, someone can bring an earlier more advantageous set to the game, like the old contemptor rules. Yes the armies have rulebooks, but anyone who plays the actual game knows what basic army books are on what edition and how updated they are/what is next to be released.

I'd argue this really. People who frequent boards like this might know that. Such players are a minority. Most players don't necessarily know what armies were released when or what's next or what subfactions have books and whatnot. Yeah, FW stuff isn't quite as well known, but that's why if you're running FW stuff you're expected to bring your rules, and cheating with different/older rules isn't any different than cheating any other way.

Cheeze. Oh forgeworld makes balanced units you say, or even underpowered? Lets take a look across the boards and see how many of them are on there. Oh look, all of none. Forgeworld is statted and point priced to sell. If you want someone to pay 60,000 dollars for a luxury car, it damn well better be superior to the 20,000 dollar model next to it.

Most people looking for tactical advice on an internet message board like this are probably looking to build competitive lists, and thus will use the most competitive units, FW or no.

As much as forgefriends

Are we really coming up with derogatory names now?

like to defend it as being as balanced as the rest of the game, you will never, ever, ever, ever see thses units.

Says you. I run many routinely. I've been running a DKoK Assault Brigade army list almost exclusively for a while here, and, aside from a couple of the artillery units, I'd hardly consider most of the units, especially infantry units, in the list to be exactly a bargain.

Instead you will see superior land raider variants,

such as?

experimental rules riptides who were CLEARLY bait and switched to move plastic

that's 100% speculation on your part, and they always were clearly marked as Experimental and subject to change from day 1.

cheap options for armies who should not have them for balance reasons such as saber platforms.

Sabre platforms can't shoot at ground targets anymore except for snapshots, they're hardly the handy replacement they were for a grand total of 18 months after GW changed the Artillery unit type rules.

If someone just wanted death korps of kreig models because they look far superior to the other guard, more power to them. Stand in models like that for regular ones make the game more interesting. But people are straight faced lying to you if they tell you because GW decided to be lazy and just break what little of their game remained, that forgeworld units have no balance issues whatsoever.

Nobody said that all FW stuff is perfect, only that there's relatively few straight up broken things, and that, on the whole, it's hard to make the case that it's worse than codex books.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yep. Charging for mandatory updates is just ridiculous.

Just like codex books do. It sucks, but it's consistent with GW's other sales models.

Codices get FAQ updates to work with recently released editions. FW books do not. That's the problem. They used to get updated in 6th, but FW has been hit with the lazy bat.

While true, GW's 7E FAQ's are hardly worthy of the name, it's not like their updates have been exactly extensive or useful, and the core rulebook still doesn't have an FAQ. GW as a whole, not just FW, have been really bad with updates.

 Orock wrote:


Because there is already enough overpowered crap in the game, so why not trim it out

And who determines what is "overpowered crap"? There's a very small handful of FW units that can be considered anything like the powerful codex units, but there's lots of "good" stuff that isn't anything near OP but isn't bad either.

What exactly would you consider on the same level as the Wave Serpent, or 2++ rerollable shennanigans or the like?



And besides, all this stuff exists in the 40k universe, and not every FW unit is something they made up themselves out of nowhere by any means. Why shouldn't it all be portrayed?

especially since you cant buy it through your LFGS to support them. Its all good for people who play in their friends basements, but that 200 FW unit could be spent at the place where you play instead, giving them some profit, rather than nothing.

You can't buy Sisters of Battle off the shelf either, they have to special order them at a much lower profit margin (if any) and can't sell you a rulebook for them at all. Why would this line of thinking not apply to them as well?

What if you game at a club and not at a FLGS?

Also, on the tournament boards they agree for the most part, it simplifies the game and streamlines it, making pickup games and organizing tournaments that much easier.

Except most of them allow FW now...

Really if they had just stuck to making recasts and alternate models nobody would have anything to complain about.

They've been making they're own stuff or creating rules for units that didn't get main-line models (e.g. Hydra, Manticore from EPIC) since 2000 and 3rd edition, there isn't anything recent about them.

blaktoof wrote:
If you buy forge world for the models thats one thing, but requiring people to play you using forgeworld rules is something else.

most people can get the normal game rules/codex from their FLGS, they cannot with FW. It is much easier to ID which books are current for the normal games system, for FW it is not unless you are already familiar with it.

How's that different than a new codex, or a codex that simply isn't available in a store (e.g. Sisters of Battle?).

Yes there are some very few units in FW which are not good, but most of them are superior to what you can purchase from the normal codexes.

FW is not a distinct company, they're just a different sales channel (like Black Library). All their employees are GW employees at GW HQ, their books have big GW stamps on them with GW copyrights, etc.

GW didn't set this group up just for people not to buy and use the stuff...


Ultimately, if we're having to get into corporate structure to determine who's little plastic army men can be used, the argument has done too far.

 TheSilo wrote:


+1. When I ask for guidance on ways to use underpowered codex units, a good portion of the responses is always "check out the Forge World alternative."

- Riders of Krieg versus Rough Riders

Is that a case of FW being broken...or of normal RR's just being awful and FW just making them useable? (they're also only available for use within DKoK army lists, you can't just use them in a normal IG army as their own choice)

- Saber Platforms versus Heavy Weapons Squads

See above again. Normal heavy weapons squads are both absurdly easy to remove from the board and curiously overcosted, and most competitive IG armies don't bother with them in the first place. Keep in mind Sabres were originally AV10 "glance-it-once-it-dies", then GW changes to core artillery rules in 6E, and now in 7E they can only engage ground targets with snapshots.

- Talons versus Valkyries

Sky Talons? This thing? Really?

Forge World is like DLC in a multiplayer video game. A percentage of the hardcore gamers will buy it and wreck house. These models and sets are made to sell well above the base 40k prices, which are already high.

Have you seen modern GW prices? In many instances FW isn't at all any more expensive anymore. GW prices the Tempestus Scions at the same price as Death Korps Grenadiers, and many Characters are now practically identical in cost to FW characters. Those new plastic Ork Mek Guns? They're on par with DKoK Heavy Mortar and Thudd Guns units with crews.

It is an extra level of investment above and beyond the already high cost of entry and participation for this hobby. It is hard enough just keeping all of the core rules and codices straight, adding in the plethora of Forge World rules makes it impossible to keep up.

And how many people keep up with every codex, formation, dataslate, supplement, or WD release? Singling out FW here on its own feels rather disingenuous.

It's ok when people bring these things to casual games, annoying when they bring them to pick-up games, and I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.

Nothing about 40k, in any way, shape, or form, is intended, designed, or built around competitive gaming. GW has openly said as much. If you're trying to do competitive with 40k, you're hamfisting a paradigm onto a system that it was never intended for, and have to accept that. It's not like the basic codex books don't have their own share of vast internal and external balance issues.

 Antario wrote:

I can find anything I want to know about basic IG in the AM codex. A random FW IG vehicle might be found in a number of IA books or updates. Would it be so fricking hard for GW to put the rules for these units also in the normal codexes? Add in one or two pages with FW model range rules.

It'd be nice...but who knows why GW decides that the main codex books just can't reference FW for some reason aside from occasionally putting in an FW model in a picture.

Unlike FW I can order SoB models instore and have it sent to my local GW and without extra cost.

weird, my local GW (now that one exists) can order FW, not sure where the disconnect is. Mine might just wait until they have a big enough order to do free shipping or something, I dunno. I do know they don't count towards their sales metrics.

Unlike specialist games FW's IA and Apocalypse units are now an integral part of normal GW game formats, and these models now lack proper support.

Rules support for 40k in general is lacking. There is still no rulebook FAQ/Errata and the codex FAQ's are abysmal and short.

Store staff don't fully know the rules for these units nor can they look them up quickly or clarify them because they don't have a copy of the books.

Since when have store staff ever been considered a particularly knowledgable "rules" source? I mean, most actual GW stores are just one guy that usually turns over every year or two now and independent stores certainly aren't going to take up that role as 40k is just one of many products anyway.

GW should simply fold FW in to GW and treat their stuff like 40k website exclusives.

That'd be nice.

Seems like the retail side of the company treats it like some under the counter stuff they don't really want to be associated with...I can't get my head around the concept of a company where three departments (stores, webstore and FW) are competing and/or sabotaging each other for sales.

Who knows. It would be nice if they worked better together certainly.

Ever since formations and datasheets became an integral part of the game. In the past I had a small rulebook and all the soft cover codexes that easily fitted in a bag. It was quite convenient at the time. I wouldn't recommend carrying around all the hard copy rules now.

Not everything has an ebook however even in the main range. IIRC the Militarum Tempestus book has no ebook for example.

True, but FW was far less accepted before 6th. You certainly didn't have to consider any FW units while building lists for pick up games or events. There was time when even special characters were not considered part of the standard game.

What's amusing is that literally nothing about FW changed with 6th, people just finally decided that they'd stop fighting it largely.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Really my problem with FW is that it's so expensive for everything, like more than normal GW, and that's not even getting into the superheavies I mean things like if I wanted Death Guard torsos to make good Plague Marines, it'd be like $60 per unit (plus S&H) which is nonsense.

Look at normal GW prices and they're matching FW very quickly. As noted before, many units are now no different from FW equivalents in price. The new Tempestus Scions are the same cost as Death Korps Grenadiers and FW's Phoenix Lord is only like $1 more than GW Phoenix Lords.

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

O_o

No D weapon.

No ranged weapon capable of harming heavy armor or penetrating a 2+ armor save.

Ranged weapon is half the range of basic GW AP3 cannon knight.

In exchange it gets an enhanced run move and is a better horde-infantry mulcher in close combat.

At most you'll ever have 2 in a Knight list.

Why is this so hideously broken?

 Orock wrote:


check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now.

Except they can and do change things as time goes on even without the Experimental stamp...

And yes, not only is the ranged gun superior

Half the range and lower strength?

but the chance to move 30 inches turn one

If you have absolutely insane dice luck and don't want him to assault/shoot that turn.

along with the auto 4+ shield, and a wrecker of a d weapon in meelee, for 5 points?

Normal Knights get the 4+ invul too, and they get a D weapon, the Castigator does not have a D weapon.

At least if I charge a regular knight with a warboss and nobz, I strike at the same time, and have a good chance of trading. Here his weapon is I2, meaning he can literally cut down everyone in meelee before that. Anything that has a chance to hurt it that is.

Normal Knights are I4 aren't they?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
RE: FW's lack of FAQs. That's the same issue we have with the main studio who has FAR more employees available to update them. It's hardly a fair criticism of the much smaller FW department when the bigger one can't manage it.

Codex: Necrons has a FAQ for a few months now. Guess what Fall of Orpheus has? Nothing. A smaller team leads to slower updates. Refusing to update is shoddy work.

The core rulebook still doesn't have an FAQ, the current Tau book was released about the same time as the Fall of Orpheus book, about a month earlier actually, and its FAQ might as well not exist for what its 104 words is worth.

The Necron book has been out since 5E and they just copy/pasted a lot of previously done FAQ stuff.

It's fine to harangue FW for not doing updates, but lets not pretend they're functionally any worse than GW's main studio either.

blaktoof wrote:
Since the castigator is.so bad. No one will ever see one in play. Oh.wait, its not bad the FW apologists are just saying that then when it is.taken it will be taken because it is different which somehow doesn't mean better...

hooray for hyperbole!


Nobody said it was terribad, they said it wasn't broken. It serves a different role than other knights and has different abilities. It's neither spectacular nor craptacular. What it is is not broken (at least not anymoreso than any other Knights). If you've got something to add other than trying to reword other people's statements to fit your narrative, please do so.

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

It gets Shred and Rending, but loses a point of strength, 24" of range, ordnance special armor penetration, and only gets one shot instead of two. I'd say the Errant is still ahead on that score.

The secondary weapon is obviously better however

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

It gets Shred and Rending, but loses a point of strength, 24" of range, ordnance special armor penetration, and only gets one shot instead of two. I'd say the Errant is still ahead on that score.

The secondary weapon is obviously better however

It has a 12 inch better range and the same amount of shots just ap 3 instead of ap 1

Oh wait, is the Errant the melta one?

My mistake in that case.

That said, S8 AP1 Melta vs S7 AP3 Shred/Rending are pretty different roles, and the S8 one won't be much worse than the S7 Shred at killling infantry but significantly better at engaging armor.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
Just curious, how many folks that are pro-forgeworld in this thread have imperial armies or only imperial armies?

I have Imperial armies. That said, I've also got a Tau army (originally built specifically to incorporate a FW model actually), an Eldar army, and tons of Chaos along with a Tyranid army.

Actually I think I also technically have an Ork army under my sink...

morgoth wrote:
Wanna play anything else than core 40K (BRB, codex, CAD(+allied x1)) ? just ask.

Find any place in the rulebook that defines any such thing as "core" 40k. You won't find it. What you're talking about is a player-created standard for some 3rd party tournament events, not anything defined by the rules in any way. Let's not forget most FW stuff is designed to work within the whole "single traditional FoC" paradigm in addition to the codex or in place of one.

morgoth wrote:

Apparently, lots of people agree on the same definition of "core 40K", even though they do not name it like that.

The bigger tournaments have been sticking to CAD+allied for a while now, I think it's fair to consider that "standard".

And you'll notice most also allow FW too (e.g. BAO)

morgoth wrote:

The only "standard" there is outside of what the BRB says is tournaments, and even that should be agreed on.

And there is no single worldwide tournament standard. What fly's at GW's Warhammer World tournament won't fly at the BAO which won't necessarily fly at the NOVA invitational.

It's not like IG tank armies of any stripe are exactly stellar in this edition anyway, they're certainly not getting anywhere near top tournament tables.

IG aren't the only army where this was possible, for years Eldar armies have often run what effectively are armored companies for maximum effectiveness, stuff like lots of wave serpents backed up by falcons/fire prisms/war walkers with some minimum sized Dire Avenger units to make the Serpents scoring, perhaps a unit if jetbikes or two for objective nabs.

morgoth wrote:

bs.

Hrm, not so much really.

Until 13 months ago, that was clearly impractical ( I did field it) because the Wave Serpent couldn't do any damage and the DA weren't any better.

It wasn't always impractical, I played such an Eldar army in 5th (where it worked for the first year or two fairly well). If you go back to 4th edition it was super practical, you saw it all the time because Skimmers were absurdly difficult to kill and had lots of firepower for the time. It was actually still pretty good even for the first year or so of 5E. It's been a pretty commonly capable army for several editions with a gap largely consisting of the second half of 5E only.

War Walkers don't compare to AV14, they go down to bolter fire.

In terms of raw durability against shooting attacks from the front/sides, sure. In terms of bringing huge amounts of firepower where it's needed, not necessarily. That said, holofield skimmers like Fire Prisms certainly do compare with AV14 tanks.

Either way, it's 100% practical now for Eldar to run an Armored Company style army within a traditional FoC with minimal infantry just as it is for IG.

morgoth wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Your turn.

In order to be considered a 40K player, you need to play 40K.
In order to play 40K, you need the BRB, and one Codex, and some miniatures.
Therefore, 100% of the 40K players know of the BRB and at least one Codex.

I can play a fully legal army without a codex using FW, as many FW books have completely self contained army lists, they just have a book title of "Imperial Armour" instead of "Codex".

 MWHistorian wrote:

 PunkNeverDie110 wrote:
Luckily my group of friends is laid back on this. As long as it's all fun and jokes, you could field a Titan and we wouldn't care. Hell, the CSM player of our group one day said "I want to play [Khorne Chaos Lord from Siege of Vraks which name I can't recall]" and we were like "sure, no problem mate, as long as it fits the points limit you can field whatever you want".
I personally can't field anything from FW since they haven't made a model for Bran Redmaw yet, but as soon as they make it I'll buy it.

If someone complains because you play something that's FW, and if said miniature isn't too gamebreaking, then they're not worth your time. This is still a game, where you should simply had fun. That's why I can't stand WAAC players.

This is what I've been saying. In a close group of like-minded people, 40k works great. A load of fun without much thinking.
It's the PU games that I rely on that make 40k unplayable for me.
Most FW isn't game breaking and adds a lot of variety and cool factor into the game.

This is very much my experience as well. 40k works very well for small and close knit playgroups that engage in lots of self direction/self selection. It's increasingly becoming a nightmare however for larger groups, local leagues, pickup games, and events.