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.

 Crimson wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Their's no point in banning fw because fw isn't any more unbalanced than codex options. Are some fw units good? Yes but you pay for them in higher points just like the stronger codex units. The same team writes the rules for both. The problem is the codex rules that the units are interacting with. And I'd at least like to play a game against ih before screaming that they can't be beat.

It comes from years of older editions where FW would make 30 units but have 1 super strong OP AF unit that everyone wanted to play with ignoring the fact that most FW units are not very good.

But certainly this specific ban is the right approach then? Instead of blanket banning FW or even Leviathans they're just banning this one specific combination.

Aye but it is a slippery slope imo.

But i am also of the opinion that Gw cranked back up the power-creep levels to 11.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Their's no point in banning fw because fw isn't any more unbalanced than codex options. Are some fw units good? Yes but you pay for them in higher points just like the stronger codex units. The same team writes the rules for both. The problem is the codex rules that the units are interacting with. And I'd at least like to play a game against ih before screaming that they can't be beat.

It comes from years of older editions where FW would make 30 units but have 1 super strong OP AF unit that everyone wanted to play with ignoring the fact that most FW units are not very good.

But certainly this specific ban is the right approach then? Instead of blanket banning FW or even Leviathans they're just banning this one specific combination.

Aye but it is a slippery slope imo.

But i am also of the opinion that Gw cranked back up the power-creep levels to 11.

I dont agree with the ban personally, just what i see. and i think 8th already went up to an 11 a long time ago, i hardly even play it anymore compare to aos/warcry/apoc when a Space marine isnt even a threat thats a bad thing (PS i dont even play marines), sure IH mega vehicles are scary but Marines on the field are not.

If something is way out there in balance I’m okay with a local tourney making a ban if that’s what their players want, but this seems counter productive. Why push IH players to the even stronger repulsor spam build?

bort wrote:
If something is way out there in balance I’m okay with a local tourney making a ban if that’s what their players want, but this seems counter productive. Why push IH players to the even stronger repulsor spam build?

Because the repulsor suffers no Stigma
And gw can do no wrong.
It's only the evil fw that is allways wrong.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Their's no point in banning fw because fw isn't any more unbalanced than codex options. Are some fw units good? Yes but you pay for them in higher points just like the stronger codex units. The same team writes the rules for both. The problem is the codex rules that the units are interacting with. And I'd at least like to play a game against ih before screaming that they can't be beat.

It comes from years of older editions where FW would make 30 units but have 1 super strong OP AF unit that everyone wanted to play with ignoring the fact that most FW units are not very good.

But certainly this specific ban is the right approach then? Instead of blanket banning FW or even Leviathans they're just banning this one specific combination.

Aye but it is a slippery slope imo.

But i am also of the opinion that Gw cranked back up the power-creep levels to 11.

I dont agree with the ban personally, just what i see. and i think 8th already went up to an 11 a long time ago, i hardly even play it anymore compare to aos/warcry/apoc when a Space marine isnt even a threat thats a bad thing (PS i dont even play marines), sure IH mega vehicles are scary but Marines on the field are not.

I don't think creep is a strong enough term. More like gw poured gas into a fire. But the leviathan is still not the problem it's the fething codex. I don't know what gw were thinking when they wrote it. I'm sure other armies will get a boost but as usual it will take time. In the meantime I'd still have to try at least one game against ih. Probably get tabled but if I could just kill that leviathan I'd consider it an immoral victory for heretics everywhere lol.

Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.

Codex 2.0 is fine though, just wish csm 2.0 would have been also treated that way.
My opinion is, the issues come from the supplements.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.

Have you ever seen a FW rulebooks?

Spoletta wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
They are still about killing.

Don't want to say that CA18 or ITC are better or worse than the other, but they are surely different.

The objectives are different, and that accounts for a lot.

It's like reading a book about chess and then going to play a version of chess where you win when you take all enemy pawns.

Same game. Same pieces. Taking pieces will still push you toward your objective.

Tactics employed will be worlds apart.

so you wanna just have a game about sitting on objectives and not killing? in a game with the tagline "...there is only war"?
sorry, killing enemy models is a core aspect of this game and EVERY mission requires models to die through the very mechanics presented in the mission.

need to hold more objectives? kill things near the objective/kill things of off it.
the only extras are the flavor of secondary effects GW puts into their missions.

to each their own, i just think you dont like ITC (which is fine) and just wanna bandwagon against the more popular form of public tourney play currently to my knowledge.

Games in CA18 are still quite killy don't worry. The difference is that killing is a mean, not an end.

You are right in saying that i don't like ITC, but it is for a much simpler reason than the one you exposed.

The game has stats and rules which have different impact on a game, and those are balanced through the point cost.
If ITC changes the objectives of the game without changing the point costs, it is obvious that they will meet a lot of balance problems.
The most obvious example are noLoS weapons, which in ITC have been called OP more than once, while in CA18 no one has problems with those.
I would hugely prefer if ITC together with a different set of rules also adopted his own point costs, that would more coherent.

This is just absurd. ITC missions do not change balance in any dramatic way that makes the current points ineffectual.

Christ, GW balances off their tournaments. ITC missions give TONS of opportunity to score without killing.

The leviathan is pretty ridiculous, to be fair, but I'm not convinced it needs a ban. All things considered, it's tougher than a knight with arguably better output than some knights, but it can be tagged and it's not going to win the game by existing, so at some point piling onto it has diminishing returns.

I feel like if it's in the position to receive all the buffs, the player might be over-investing in it and potentially limiting themselves and making it more vulnerable.

Fundamentally, it can still be tagged and cornered, and a leviathan is pretty crap at melee and won't be fighting it's way out of a block of cheap infantry any time soon. If everything is hanging out with the Ironstone and Fierros, you're really putting all your eggs in one basked [and if it's both a character and receiving half damage you're probably wasting a lot of CP]

If you ask me which is the more annoying property: I'd say grot shields from nearly space marines, because that's like a seriously obnoxious ability on anything bigger than an INFANTRY that has it. However, if you ask me which ability it shouldn't qualify for, I'd say the halving damage, because it doesn't have a answer in any capacity and while it's unoffensive on an 8 wound dreadnought [making it effectively 16 wounds], it's very offensive on a 14 wound dreadnought, making it beefier than a knight.


The Leviathan itself is also just an obnoxious unit [mostly just because it's the absurd conclusion of "more autocannons solves all problems better than specialized weaponry"], so giving it an obnoxious stratagem just makes it more obnoxious. I've beat these things before, though, usually by just pinning them down and cornering them with more infantry than they can hope to kill.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
They are still about killing.

Don't want to say that CA18 or ITC are better or worse than the other, but they are surely different.

The objectives are different, and that accounts for a lot.

It's like reading a book about chess and then going to play a version of chess where you win when you take all enemy pawns.

Same game. Same pieces. Taking pieces will still push you toward your objective.

Tactics employed will be worlds apart.

so you wanna just have a game about sitting on objectives and not killing? in a game with the tagline "...there is only war"?
sorry, killing enemy models is a core aspect of this game and EVERY mission requires models to die through the very mechanics presented in the mission.

need to hold more objectives? kill things near the objective/kill things of off it.
the only extras are the flavor of secondary effects GW puts into their missions.

to each their own, i just think you dont like ITC (which is fine) and just wanna bandwagon against the more popular form of public tourney play currently to my knowledge.

Games in CA18 are still quite killy don't worry. The difference is that killing is a mean, not an end.

You are right in saying that i don't like ITC, but it is for a much simpler reason than the one you exposed.

The game has stats and rules which have different impact on a game, and those are balanced through the point cost.
If ITC changes the objectives of the game without changing the point costs, it is obvious that they will meet a lot of balance problems.
The most obvious example are noLoS weapons, which in ITC have been called OP more than once, while in CA18 no one has problems with those.
I would hugely prefer if ITC together with a different set of rules also adopted his own point costs, that would more coherent.

This is just absurd. ITC missions do not change balance in any dramatic way that makes the current points ineffectual.

Christ, GW balances off their tournaments. ITC missions give TONS of opportunity to score without killing.

So making an means to an end into an end by itself has no consequences?
Also gw might use them for their balance, which allready can be seen to have adverse effects. That does not mean that they are fundamentally good choice as measurments.

Honestly I'm just going to shoot the rest of their army and LOS the blob that can move 8" a turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:


So making an means to an end into an end by itself has no consequences?
Also gw might use them for their balance, which allready can be seen to have adverse effects. That does not mean that they are fundamentally good choice as measurments.

This argument has no substance. You guys are just waxing poetic about a mission style that you are not intimately familiar with and trying to tie it to data that doesn't exist.

I feel like we're having the same discussion we had about Knights like a year ago. The solution wasn't the counter meta, or a change is strategy, it was a nerf to the unit that solved it. Problem really was how long it took for Games Workshop to get around to it. There might be some other units that come out (or new rules) that are specifically good against them, and are able to hold their own vs the rest of the list, but we don't know for sure.

Karol wrote:
Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.

I have a lot of FW, i have a full FW army that is almost not playable anymore that i would love to play, all my units from FW has never been "OP" some has been high mid tier like Hornets in 7th but basic Reaver Bands, Tantalus, etc.. has never been "good". So no, as someone that does have them, they are not good.

You tell me is a 10pt power sword on a 2 attack Str 3 eldar guardian good?

Or is a 400pt T7 5++ 18 wound transport good? It cost more than a knight and dies faster than 1, there i no -1 to hit on it, there is no way to make the invul better.

Or how about new Hornets, Vypers are everything they are and better for 1/2 the cost.

Or the FW Skathach Wraithknight, yeah i have that too, its 540pts for something that is worst than a Castellan.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Honestly I'm just going to shoot the rest of their army and LOS the blob that can move 8" a turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:


So making an means to an end into an end by itself has no consequences?
Also gw might use them for their balance, which allready can be seen to have adverse effects. That does not mean that they are fundamentally good choice as measurments.

This argument has no substance. You guys are just waxing poetic about a mission style that you are not intimately familiar with and trying to tie it to data that doesn't exist.

Excuse me but you are wrong objectively.
You don't balance around glorified houserules now do you, so why accept it here?

Or would you be happy if you wanted help drawing a circle and you get a triangle?

You can't deny the fact that the missions fundamentally change the flow of the game, as do the ITC terrain rulings.
Spoletta mentioned that in etc someone did run harlequin troupes, something not really seen in ITC.
So it has no influence and we are biased against it because we don't know it?

Karol wrote:
Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.

You could make that same argument about eldar flyers, tau gun lines, knights and on and on. Just because you don't have it doesn't mean it's op. Resin isn't magically better than plastic. Fw units are not inherently any better than codex units. Or are you going to argue that renegades and heretics are stronger than guard?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.

I have a lot of FW, i have a full FW army that is almost not playable anymore that i would love to play, all my units from FW has never been "OP" some has been high mid tier like Hornets in 7th but basic Reaver Bands, Tantalus, etc.. has never been "good". So no, as someone that does have them, they are not good.

You tell me is a 10pt power sword on a 2 attack Str 3 eldar guardian good?

Or is a 400pt T7 5++ 18 wound transport good? It cost more than a knight and dies faster than 1, there i no -1 to hit on it, there is no way to make the invul better.

Or how about new Hornets, Vypers are everything they are and better for 1/2 the cost.

Or the FW Skathach Wraithknight, yeah i have that too, its 540pts for something that is worst than a Castellan.

Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.

I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.

Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.

 Horst wrote:
What about ITC is terrible? There is literally one change in the core rules, that's it. Other than that, it's just custom missions... which I think are more balanced than book missions. Have you actually played ITC?

Three years at LVO, and I never get passed turn 2 because of the stupid way ITC handles objectives, which also favors gunline elite armies over hoards. CA2018 missions are superior in every way.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.

I have a lot of FW, i have a full FW army that is almost not playable anymore that i would love to play, all my units from FW has never been "OP" some has been high mid tier like Hornets in 7th but basic Reaver Bands, Tantalus, etc.. has never been "good". So no, as someone that does have them, they are not good.

You tell me is a 10pt power sword on a 2 attack Str 3 eldar guardian good?

Or is a 400pt T7 5++ 18 wound transport good? It cost more than a knight and dies faster than 1, there i no -1 to hit on it, there is no way to make the invul better.

Or how about new Hornets, Vypers are everything they are and better for 1/2 the cost.

Or the FW Skathach Wraithknight, yeah i have that too, its 540pts for something that is worst than a Castellan.

Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.

I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.

Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.

I was just talking to him b.c he was acting like the players that play with FW down play their power.

But thats also the point, GW models are not balanced either, so many units are so terrible and some are so powerful that everyone takes max of them every game. Why stop at FW then? Why not remove all top 5% strongest units from all tournaments? Isnt the point of tournaments to bring the best anyways? If there is 1 over powering list players will try to find a way to stop it and they will.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Karol wrote:
Of course, only someone who already has FW and wants to use them, would claim that they are normal and good. That is how all group interaction seems to work.

I have a lot of FW, i have a full FW army that is almost not playable anymore that i would love to play, all my units from FW has never been "OP" some has been high mid tier like Hornets in 7th but basic Reaver Bands, Tantalus, etc.. has never been "good". So no, as someone that does have them, they are not good.

You tell me is a 10pt power sword on a 2 attack Str 3 eldar guardian good?

Or is a 400pt T7 5++ 18 wound transport good? It cost more than a knight and dies faster than 1, there i no -1 to hit on it, there is no way to make the invul better.

Or how about new Hornets, Vypers are everything they are and better for 1/2 the cost.

Or the FW Skathach Wraithknight, yeah i have that too, its 540pts for something that is worst than a Castellan.

Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.

I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.

Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.

Some armies like csm need fw because the codex units are week or don't fit certain armies. Night lords shouldn't be running lots of daemonic/mutated stuff. Why should the rules be written for competitive and narrative players have to use competitive rules? Why not the other way around?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.

I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.

Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.

Some armies like csm need fw because the codex units are week or don't fit certain armies. Night lords shouldn't be running lots of daemonic/mutated stuff. Why should the rules be written for competitive and narrative players have to use competitive rules? Why not the other way around?

Because narrative doesn't matter, but competitive does. You don't need balance for a narrative game. Like, at all. The social contract and mutual desire to tell a story rather than compete with each other should take care of balancing.

You do, however, need very precise and tightly controllable balance when the goal is literally to play the game at a high or highest personally attainable level of strategic and tactical efficiency and test oneself against other players.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.

I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.

Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.

Some armies like csm need fw because the codex units are week or don't fit certain armies. Night lords shouldn't be running lots of daemonic/mutated stuff. Why should the rules be written for competitive and narrative players have to use competitive rules? Why not the other way around?

Because narrative doesn't matter, but competitive does. You don't need balance for a narrative game. Like, at all. The social contract and mutual desire to tell a story rather than compete with each other should take care of balancing.

You do, however, need very precise and tightly controllable balance when the goal is literally to play the game at a high or highest personally attainable level of strategic and tactical efficiency and test oneself against other players.

Well maybe if competitive players would stop trying to find all the most broken rules and combos that the game designers never thought of the rules wouldn't need so much constant rebalancing.

A relic that gives Wave Serpent field to every vehicle in an aura including even close combat attacks - what could have gone wrong? No playtester probably ever thought about taking it!
Or a new character who is about half as expensive than should be - requires extreme competence and competetive level think to notice.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Because narrative doesn't matter, but competitive does. You don't need balance for a narrative game. Like, at all. The social contract and mutual desire to tell a story rather than compete with each other should take care of balancing.

You do, however, need very precise and tightly controllable balance when the goal is literally to play the game at a high or highest personally attainable level of strategic and tactical efficiency and test oneself against other players.

QFT. I've been in some narrative games before, they involve a lot of discussion beforehand to ensure there is at least a somewhat balanced game to be played, like what units you can bring, what your army should look like, etc. Way more customization before the game is even played than a competitive game.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.

I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.

Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.

Some armies like csm need fw because the codex units are week or don't fit certain armies. Night lords shouldn't be running lots of daemonic/mutated stuff. Why should the rules be written for competitive and narrative players have to use competitive rules? Why not the other way around?

Because narrative doesn't matter, but competitive does. You don't need balance for a narrative game. Like, at all. The social contract and mutual desire to tell a story rather than compete with each other should take care of balancing.

You do, however, need very precise and tightly controllable balance when the goal is literally to play the game at a high or highest personally attainable level of strategic and tactical efficiency and test oneself against other players.

Well maybe if competitive players would stop trying to find all the most broken rules and combos that the game designers never thought of the rules wouldn't need so much constant rebalancing.

Those combos shouldn't even be available on accident. This is one of the worst posts I've ever seen in terms of defending bad balance.

Game isnt balanced around ITC...It is not balanced at all. It's literally just like the memes...dudes drinking beer at the pub randomly coming up with stuff...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Forgeworld is not in general good at balance. Most of their stuff is effectively just a cool modelling project. Malcador, Macharius, 4 kinds of Vanquisher, Tarantula Sentry Guns, Heirophant, Orca, Thrunderhawk Transporter, etc. that just sort or exist because it's fun. I'm sure they know this, and don't really try to balance it. However, there are a few outliers: Lynx, Ulaator, Sabre Searchlights, Repressors, Leviathan Dreadnoughts, Whirlwind Scorpio, etc. to name a few from the present and the past that do end up being beyond the power curve. Most of these seem to be accidentally powerful rather than deliberate, but nobody does anything about it.

I can definitely see the argument against Forge World in tournaments on the same basis as Legends: if nobody is actively reviewing it for balance, then the bad units that aren't going to see play anyway won't lose anything while units that are really strong and aren't on the slate to have anything done about them will be out of it and not a concern. That said, I think the right option isn't to ban it, but is to have somebody check the units and keep them in line.

Optimally, they should probably establish a level of Forgeworld units being slightly under power curve, so they can be played for fun because you want to, but don't become a staple of tournament lists.

Some armies like csm need fw because the codex units are week or don't fit certain armies. Night lords shouldn't be running lots of daemonic/mutated stuff. Why should the rules be written for competitive and narrative players have to use competitive rules? Why not the other way around?

Because narrative doesn't matter, but competitive does. You don't need balance for a narrative game. Like, at all. The social contract and mutual desire to tell a story rather than compete with each other should take care of balancing.

You do, however, need very precise and tightly controllable balance when the goal is literally to play the game at a high or highest personally attainable level of strategic and tactical efficiency and test oneself against other players.

Well maybe if competitive players would stop trying to find all the most broken rules and combos that the game designers never thought of the rules wouldn't need so much constant rebalancing.

Those combos shouldn't even be available on accident. This is one of the worst posts I've ever seen in terms of defending bad balance.

I wasn't talking about the ih stuff. It's pretty obvious and I already said I don't know what gw was thinking when they wrote this codex. I was talking about stuff like parking a riptide next to a los blocking piece of terrain and stacking shield drones behind it so they can't be shot away. Things like that. I was also getting a little salty about the typical move of nerfing a unit for every faction that can use it just because one factions rules make it op. Once again fw isn't the problem this codex is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Off the top of my head, if you want that extra Levi, you need to buy another Heavy Support because Relic.

Ah yes what a big tax. Have to take another great unit. It's soooo bad to have to take another good unit. It's like claiming something on necrons were bad if you had to take immortal or dda to unlock it.

Personally would like to see FW banned from many tournaments. Not because I think they are unbalanced or unfair, but mostly because it's just another stack of models/datasheets to learn on top of the million that already exist.
Would much prefer to see people take ven Dreads and redemptors, and keep the deredeos and leviathans for home play.

As a side note, GW should just come out and FAQ that the Iron Stone relic cannot be used with the Duty Eternal strat.

Sure. Ban the marine supplements as well then. Why you need to learn more rules? Oh and get rid of all the specialist detachments as well on the same logic!

 bullyboy wrote:
Personally would like to see FW banned from many tournaments. Not because I think they are unbalanced or unfair, but mostly because it's just another stack of models/datasheets to learn on top of the million that already exist.
Would much prefer to see people take ven Dreads and redemptors, and keep the deredeos and leviathans for home play.

So come Nov. when the SoB codex arrives (no doubt with new units/strats etc) you gonna sob that they should also be banned because you can't remember them all? How about whatever Psychic Awakening brings? Whatever books come in 2020?