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.

Imperial Armor generally seems to be a higher level of writing, art, story pacing and in many cases balance. Why doesn't GW let the forgeworld writers take over codex and campaign book development?

Ok, for arguments sake, lets say I can wave my wand and make it so.

Now who is writing the forgeworld books? Its not like these things are made in the course of an hour of two.

If you make someone do 'X' they can no longer do 'Y', at least not at the same quality.

I understand it would slow the release schedule, though compared to 5th edition GW has ramped up releases to 11. Hand more work and putting out a higher quality product would do much to start the repair of GW to it's fan base. The starter boxes and rumors of cheap paint and assymble models latter this year show that they are starting to get it model wise, so lets take the next step and do the same for the books.

Forge World might actually do a better job now that they have more experience, but their stuff was always a premium on top of normal GW crap, so they probably get more leeway in their release schedules. I get the feeling that the primary reason codexes are lackluster is because they're pushed out the door too fast now.

Why not let Forge World write all the books? Forge World is not legal. So why have them right the books? And for anyone who says FW is legal, PROVE IT! With actual quotes from GW not FW saying it's so. I can make a book and say it's 40K legal.

Also I am kidding so nobody take me up on this.

Wait, wait, wait.

There are two different types of complaints about GW books: one is balance, the other ambiguity.

The FW and GW books both have some ambiguous text, but generally, they've all gotten a lot better.

The GW books certainly have balance issues. But... so do the Forge World books as they relate to 40k. Who really thinks Gargantuan Squiggoths and Harridans are correctly costed? By comparison, who doesn't think the Ta'unar is awesome for its points?

The only rules that are really awesomely balanced are the 30k ones. Where this is infinitely easier because everyone basically draws from the same pool of models and units.

30k has crap ballance too. Even for marines vs marines. Try play a fluffy night lord list vs a heavy cuveliene gunline.
I'd not like FW writing 40k rules as they'll push the game even further away from toy soldiers to big tanks and monsters. That's FW's thing.

I find Forgeworlds fluff isn't as great as the stuff in GW books. Just my opinion.

If you look at the most the actual army lists they write, it's not usually particularly heavy on big tanks and monsters in most cases. Yeah, they do *make* those things, but it's really core GW that's pushing them.

At this point, really, I'd prefer if someone else entirely did the rules however, maybe FFG? GW in general has been rather open about it not caring about the game itself, the rules are just marketing accessories for the models, they see it purely as an ancillary product. Get someone who cares more about the game in.

 Talys wrote:
The GW books certainly have balance issues. But... so do the Forge World books as they relate to 40k. Who really thinks Gargantuan Squiggoths and Harridans are correctly costed? By comparison, who doesn't think the Ta'unar is awesome for its points?

The only rules that are really awesomely balanced are the 30k ones. Where this is infinitely easier because everyone basically draws from the same pool of models and units.

30k has the same range of unit types as 40k, when you remember that the marine list is not the only army. And I think a lot of the problem with the unbalanced FW units, especially the Tau units, is how the codex broke their power level. If you make an expensive new battlesuit model you don't want the reaction to be "why would I ever take this instead of a Riptide", so it's tempting to push the power level even higher to make it seem appealing. And with the Ta'unar it's even worse because it's also competing against the D-spam Warhound (a "main GW" unit), so if it doesn't get Warhound-level rules nobody is ever going to buy it.

 Talys wrote:
Wait, wait, wait.
There are two different types of complaints about GW books: one is balance, the other ambiguity.

I'd add cost to this list.
FW books, whilst lovely, are expensive and would be yet one more barrier to entry for new players and people looking to start a new army or read up on other armies.

 Vaktathi wrote:
At this point, really, I'd prefer if someone else entirely did the rules however, maybe FFG? GW in general has been rather open about it not caring about the game itself, the rules are just marketing accessories for the models, they see it purely as an ancillary product. Get someone who cares more about the game in.

GW might say they're a model company and not a games company, but the volume of books, supplements and rules they pump out suggest otherwise. For example, Sanctus Reach: Hour of the Wolf is currently £30 on the GW website. In it are a few formations, but no new units. So there's a slight incentive for me to buy new models to complete a formation, but as I've already dropped £30, I'll probably make it work with whatever models I have.

If they were purely interested in selling models, the campaign rules and formations would be freely downloadable (or at least, a pretty cheap book) and would encourage me to spend my money on models.

On the GW website, using the 40k filters, there are 42 "Rules and Expansions" products and 169 "Codexes and Supplements". There's no way this is an 'ancillary product'.

Don't get sucked in by their propaganda - they're a games company!

And as someone else has said, if FW started writing these, the quality would drop due to volume/rate of release.

The Doom of Mymeara 2nd Edition FW book is a nice read, but the rules portion is terrible. There are numerous areas where rules don't match up or don't make sense. For the price of the book, I'm finding the GW campaign books a better value. The Tau/Ravenguard campaign supplement was very well done and much less riddled with errors.

You could, but them noone would be able to buy them.

 Sarigar wrote:
The Doom of Mymeara 2nd Edition FW book is a nice read, but the rules portion is terrible. There are numerous areas where rules don't match up or don't make sense. For the price of the book, I'm finding the GW campaign books a better value. The Tau/Ravenguard campaign supplement was very well done and much less riddled with errors.

Not to mention they even make mistakes copy-pasting rules from the previous book.

most of the FW books have more interesting rules, but are actually written much more poorly than other GW publications.

 Sarigar wrote:
The Doom of Mymeara 2nd Edition FW book is a nice read, but the rules portion is terrible. There are numerous areas where rules don't match up or don't make sense. For the price of the book, I'm finding the GW campaign books a better value. The Tau/Ravenguard campaign supplement was very well done and much less riddled with errors.

I totally agree.

Sometimes, I wonder if people who think FW rules are the pinnacle of rules writing have ever read the FW rules

Don't get me wrong; I love the Imperial Armour books. They have so much cool detail about a ton of stuff. But... rock solid rules that are well-balanced? Not even close. They're more than twice the price of GW books when you factor in discount and shipping, and they weigh a ton and they're a very awkward size to carry around. I mean, could they have made them any heavier?

FW has two chief problems when it comes to their writing dept. The first is their design philosophy, and the second is their lack of internal balance.

FW's design philosophy involves making their fluff tangible with rules that add limitations to an army rather than options. Rather than offering internal balance that meets with the general standards of mainstream codexes, they give each army something slightly overpowered and unbalancing, then water it down with some sort of crippling weakness. Lost and the Damned have variable Leadership. Tyrants Legion can't fail morale checks and have mandatory unit purchases to field the army. Carcharodons cannot ally with non-imperial units and treat Imperial units as desperate Allies. Red Scorpions can't go to ground or buy camo cloaks. Dark Harvest only ally with other Necrons as AoC, and are desperate allies for only a few others. And Corsairs ally with themselves as AoC, allying better with other Eldar armies than themselves; have a smaller limited FoC; have a disastrously bad perils chart; have a weaker 2nd Ld score, keeping them from regrouping after running; lack a Decurion style formation (despite coming from a book with decurion choices) - and the decurion formations from the book are weaker than those in the standard Eldar Craftworld codex. Rules that tell you what you can't do rather than giving you special options of what you can are the hallmark of bad or weak game design. It's just not fun to be hamstrung for choosing an army rather than rewarded.

The second problem is one of internal balance, which is FAR weaker at FW than it is over tat mainstream GW. Take as a sterling example IA11 2nd ed. The Wasp was nerfed as it presented the problem of being significantly better than its codex equivalent. It lost its jump walker status and gained a 12" move that comes with a +4 Inv against shooting, but only allows them to snapshot. Not terrible for a 10 point difference. Trouble is, they cost exactly the same as a Hornet, which is faster, has better armor, better weapons selection and can snapshot when moving flatout. Given the choice, you would never take a unit of Wasps over a unit of Hornets - and they cost exactly the same. Later in the Corsair codex we find the Balestrike Band - HEAVY WEAPON CORSAIRS THAT CAN BUY JETPACKS!!! RELENTLESS HEAVY WEAPON HATE!!! Except that when kitted out with weapons and Jetpacks, this heavy slot choice costs roughly the same as a Clouddancer squad - jetbike riding, relentless heavy weapon squads that are faster, with a better save, higher toughness, and come with ObSec and almost the exact same weapon selection. But don't worry - the Balestrikes can buy a missile launcher...for 10 points more than every other EML in any codex, but lacking the starshot missiles that come stock on almost everyone elses.

As weird as it may seem, and as much as it pains me to say it, mainstream GW are far more reliable and stable of rules writers than FW.

blaktoof wrote:
most of the FW books have more interesting rules, but are actually written much more poorly than other GW publications.

This is very true. The syntax and grammar of the fluff is shockingly bad in places, and reads like an unedited first draft. It's especially prone to very long, unpunctuated sentences.

That said, I'm a big fan of the content of their fluff. It's just classier. Reading a recent description in the Wulfen book of a Helfrost pistol "mummifying" and "entombing forever" a target in ice just made me sad.

 Gamgee wrote:
I find Forgeworlds fluff isn't as great as the stuff in GW books. Just my opinion.

Murderfang
Blood Angels/Necrons bro fist

Compare those to the opening trilogy of the Horus Heresy series and then tell me how awesome GW fluff is compared to FW.

To me both are about equally bad, but in different areas. At the same time both have improved quite a bit.