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.

Dont think they are they are up to the shouders of a tac marine

Ala

Personally I think they are quite a bit smaller than they should be. I would probably not allow it for that reason.

yeah they are a bit small. they should be on a weapons team size base.

Would be alot easier to just use a Whirlwind Turret.

 whitedragon wrote:
Would be alot easier to just use a Whirlwind Turret.

And that turret needs to be on a large gun platform base which is at least 60mm around and raises the gun up. And the turret needs to be twice as wide as the real model is almost 2.5-3" across.

These fail rule of cool and MFA to me.

So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).

weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

MarkyMark wrote:
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).

weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html

You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.

Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.

Maybe I should have got two for each launcher really,





Food for thought if I decide to use them again

nkelsch wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).

weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html

You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.

Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.

How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).

weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html

You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.

Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.

How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.

He's probably guessing that the mount is compatable with a Razorback turret, which would make it about the width of a Rhino chassis.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).

weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html

You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.

Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.

How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.

He's probably guessing that the mount is compatable with a Razorback turret, which would make it about the width of a Rhino chassis.

And I have seen the model in real life, and that same part is sold 4 different ways on the FW webstore, one of which is mounted on a Rhino which shows the large size of it.

Annoyingly I havent seen it in person nor could I find a picture of it next to a model for comparsion even on google images when I first bought it. Also the models I bought seemed bigger....

Have no choice but to use them this weekend as my army list has been sent in and on their website but yes I totally agree size is a big factor, everything else in my army is WYSIWYG and 3 colour min and based, even though I have only been collecting for 3 weeks, imo that is also a important factor. Looks like I will have to buy another 3 to doube them up or just buy the FW ones to go with my assault ram.

Sorry I have taken this thread a little off topic but it has helped me

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ADyso9fY-QI/S-CQUTX_sjI/AAAAAAAABlw/6NEqRdLXDdQ/s1600/SDC13786.JPG

Here is a shot of the Hyperios turret next to a Chimera. The base is the same as the one supplied with the Sabre Platform.

MarkyMark wrote:
Annoyingly I havent seen it in person nor could I find a picture of it next to a model for comparsion even on google images when I first bought it. Also the models I bought seemed bigger....

Have no choice but to use them this weekend as my army list has been sent in and on their website but yes I totally agree size is a big factor, everything else in my army is WYSIWYG and 3 colour min and based, even though I have only been collecting for 3 weeks, imo that is also a important factor. Looks like I will have to buy another 3 to doube them up or just buy the FW ones to go with my assault ram.

Sorry I have taken this thread a little off topic but it has helped me

Just boost them up on their bases a bit so that they can't hide behind a rhino. That should silence most opposition to it as a model. GW really needs to standardize the size of it's models, so much of the games lose rules for LOS and cover can be exploited casually or accidentally.

nkelsch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
So buying three whirlwind turrets is a cheap option? ha, they are only a quick fix as I joined the tourny as a last minute entry to cover someone who couldnt make it (its a team tourny, i entered it last week and it is this weekend!).
weapons team base? you mean guard heavy weapons, what size are they? 60mm?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support/SPACE-MARINE-AIR-DEFENCE-LAUNCHER.html
You can see it is almost the width of a rhino, and sits on a quad-pod at least 60mm wide.
Having an appropriate profile for determining cover and LOS and appropriate base size are minimal requirements for acceptable conversions or 'counts as' IMHO.

How you are judging the size of that model in the infinite white limbo it's photographed in is beyond me.

He's probably guessing that the mount is compatable with a Razorback turret, which would make it about the width of a Rhino chassis.

And I have seen the model in real life, and that same part is sold 4 different ways on the FW webstore, one of which is mounted on a Rhino which shows the large size of it.

In the link you posted, you cannot see what I bolded.
It would've been better to link http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/Whirlhyp2.jpg instead - much more clear.

MarkyMark wrote:
Annoyingly I havent seen it in person nor could I find a picture of it next to a model for comparsion even on google images when I first bought it. Also the models I bought seemed bigger....

Have no choice but to use them this weekend as my army list has been sent in and on their website but yes I totally agree size is a big factor, everything else in my army is WYSIWYG and 3 colour min and based, even though I have only been collecting for 3 weeks, imo that is also a important factor. Looks like I will have to buy another 3 to doube them up or just buy the FW ones to go with my assault ram.

Sorry I have taken this thread a little off topic but it has helped me

I don't think you took it off topic I think asking an opinion and getting the responses is exactly what we need to do sometimes.

I am for ForgeWorld in Tournaments. They are part of the rules now and restricting them for the LAYMAN is not a valid reason. Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The World of 40k has changed and we must adapt to all of it.

To restrict FW on the basis of unfamiliarity screams “CHANGE IS BAD”. 6th Ed is a big change and FW units are part of the game now and if you come up against a FW unit you haven’t played before you simply read the rules on that unit, which your opponent is required to have and you adapt. This is not a difficult thing to do for a competent General. I still have to explain and show rules from my normal Codex to my opponents from time to time at Tournaments and I am running Orks.

I read through your posts and understand the points you are making and I have to disagree with you OverwatchCNC on this. Furthermore, I hope Frontline and other Major GTs keep allowing us to play with all available units allowed through the new GW rules.

6th Ed is a different game. We have to adapt to all of it and not jump to a negative outlook of restricting parts of it.

 Dugg wrote:
6th Ed is a different game. We have to adapt to all of it and not jump to a negative outlook of restricting parts of it.

The change from 5th ed to 6th ed ≠the change from allowing FW to disallowing it (or vice versa). I think that was actually the reason for the OP's post. For some reason, people wanted to link the edition change to allowing/disallowing FW. They are separate issues, imo.

The tourny I used the hyperios at of course allowed FW rules, there was a lot, and I mean a lot of hyperios launchers there, I only took 3 but some people took 12, I can understand both sides of the story, it is a mean weapon against flyers and deep strikers, against demons it is over powered against flyers it is a good deterent.

On the warhammer forum there is quite a bit of moaning about these rules, a few people are asking for FW rules to be restricted so they cant be spammed, this was suggested by a necron player with 6 flyers, well imo if you are going to spam flyers, dont be suprised when your opponent spams AA units.

I have no problem with FW being used at tournies but it seems a few of the more competitive players are the ones moaning about them after this weekends tourny, most of these competitive players spammed either transports (i,e 5 GK razorbacks 5 chimerias with 3 'detta's, the two necron players with 3 nightsycthe 3 doom sycthe and a demon player with 3 lots of 9 flamers) from what I have seen spam begets spam, no matter if its codex or FW

MarkyMark wrote:
T from what I have seen spam begets spam, no matter if its codex or FW

This is so true.

I have no problem with people bringing them but i would be willing to bet most people didn't have the forgeworld books with them. if an event is allowing forgeworld, you should be required to have the books with you not photo copies of the rules.

 skkipper wrote:
I have no problem with people bringing them but i would be willing to bet most people didn't have the forgeworld books with them. if an event is allowing forgeworld, you should be required to have the books with you not photo copies of the rules.

People should always have the rules for any unit they wish to use on hand. I used to agree they needed the book with them and always carried two backpacks full of books, but now days I have to drive at least 3.5 hours for a game so I just bring my iPad with PDF versions of all of the rules. I also bring a few print outs from my computer for opponents to read thru for Forgeworld stuff.

 Dugg wrote:
I am for ForgeWorld in Tournaments. They are part of the rules now and restricting them for the LAYMAN is not a valid reason. Reasonable men adapt to the world around them; unreasonable men make the world adapt to them. The World of 40k has changed and we must adapt to all of it.

To restrict FW on the basis of unfamiliarity screams “CHANGE IS BAD”. 6th Ed is a big change and FW units are part of the game now and if you come up against a FW unit you haven’t played before you simply read the rules on that unit, which your opponent is required to have and you adapt. This is not a difficult thing to do for a competent General. I still have to explain and show rules from my normal Codex to my opponents from time to time at Tournaments and I am running Orks.

I read through your posts and understand the points you are making and I have to disagree with you OverwatchCNC on this. Furthermore, I hope Frontline and other Major GTs keep allowing us to play with all available units allowed through the new GW rules.

6th Ed is a different game. We have to adapt to all of it and not jump to a negative outlook of restricting parts of it.

Sorry Dugg, I respect you and your opinion but equating 6th ed to FW doesn't work.

There is zero evidence in the actual 6th ed rulebook to support the idea that FW is somehow now part of 6th ed. There is just as much evidence of FW being part of the core rules in the 3rd-5th ed rulebooks as there is in the 6th ed book.

Like RiTides said the change to 6th ed does not automatically equal the necessity to include FW. This idea stems from the argument Reecius, Yakface, and many others to name a few made when 6th came out. The argument that "Hey, there are so many changes happening with 6th we may as well just go whole hog, jump in the deep end, and allow FW as well!" While a descent argument in and of itself it has absolutely zero basis in anything actually written in the 6th ed book more so than was written in 5th or before.

I am not for banning FW in all respects or at all tournaments. I just want there to be actual variety and I am encouraging TOs to not all jump on the FW bandwagon for bandwagonings sake.

MarkyMark wrote:

I have no problem with FW being used at tournies but it seems a few of the more competitive players are the ones moaning about them after this weekends tourny, most of these competitive players spammed either transports (i,e 5 GK razorbacks 5 chimerias with 3 'detta's, the two necron players with 3 nightsycthe 3 doom sycthe and a demon player with 3 lots of 9 flamers) from what I have seen spam begets spam, no matter if its codex or FW

Agreed, there is nothing quite so fine as a Mechanised Spamming Tank list, meets an Anti-Tank heavy Army and gets spanked.

Spammy army's are a specialist build, but as with many specialist build they exploit ill thought through rules and points undercosting to maximum effect. The problem is that to beat a Spammy Army, you generally have to Spam in the opposite direction and then you end up in a SPAM ARMS RACE.

Back on FW stuff, it should be at the TO discretion, I like the playing in tournaments with 1500 points + 250 point FW on models / Spearheads / Apocalypse units. But I wouldn't want to play that all the time, they are Fun Tournaments where we have board based special rules like Necron Pylon shooting at random units.

So long as the TO is clear it's a take it or leave it affair, I certainly don't spit my dummy out when I cannot take a Titan Hammer Squad or a Thunderhawk to a 2000pt Tournament. People need to get some perspective.

Without the hyperios launchers and I think quite a few saber things? and hydras the top players with the spammy lists would have walked it even more, but facing a lot of anti tank which were usually hiding behind a defence line a lot of them were restricted Without the hyperios's a lot of the marine armies wouldnt have been able to field that much anti tank

Sadly I didnt get a chance to watch the top table, where the ETC boys were playing as I would have liked to have seen them in action.

I am both for competitive tournies and fun tournies, as i have just started playing, heck i am used to losing but its a learning curve, most games I learnt something new about my army, or about the other codex's

Forgeworld is not part of 6th edition core rules. My bet is that tournaments in general that disallow FW will have a higher attendance than tournies that do.

Not all forgeworld is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in forgeworld. Call it what you will but I think that forgeworld opens up a whole new bag of imbalance into 6th and overly favors imperial armies.

OverwatchCNC wrote:
There is zero evidence in the actual 6th ed rulebook to support the idea that FW is somehow now part of 6th ed. There is just as much evidence of FW being part of the core rules in the 3rd-5th ed rulebooks as there is in the 6th ed book.

There is also zero evidence in the 6th ed rulebook to support the idea that Space Wolves are legal. The Space Wolf codex says it's legal, and so you go with that. Guess what, the FW books say they're legal. They're published by GW. Their copyrights are owned by GW. They're sold at GW shops. They're just as legal as any codex. It is only your stubborn refusal to acknowledge what is written in clear English that keeps this argument going.

mortetvie wrote:Not all forgeworld is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in forgeworld. Call it what you will but I think that forgeworld opens up a whole new bag of imbalance into 6th and overly favors imperial armies.

Not every codex is created equal and not all armies have equal access to equivocal units in their codex. This game isn't balanced from the get go. Space Marines don't get 2 base attacks, space wovles do. Space Marines don't get a heavy weapon squad that can split fire, space wolves do. Big F'n Deal. Favours Imperial armies? What codex doesn't? You're only pointing out the similarities between Forgeworld and the rest of GW here, you know.

Rules too difficult to get - but yet currently everyone is supposed to have a working knowledge of a dozen or so codices so what's one more.

Models too expensive - convert them from cheaper ones.

My army that was going to destroy all has been undone by FW units - deal with it like you expected that opponent you were going to wipe off the table to do.

It looks like FW AA may have saved the game from turning into a one sided strafing run or flyer fest.

Given that a lot of FW models are designed for larger games, it doesn't seem likely that FW will have that much effect.

I'm betting that a lot of those upgrades for land raiders will appear in the new codex and the same for the other units in their codecis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:

Guess what, the FW books say they're legal. They're published by GW. Their copyrights are owned by GW. They're sold at GW shops.

FW models are also GW models. Anyone who has ever bought anything from FW will see that their sprues have Games Workshop on them.

Some interesting points made on both sides of the aisle in this thread...just for interest...has reading peoples comments changed anyone's personal stance on FW in tournaments?