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.

@ OverwatchCNC – I am talking about the fact that we are playing 40k 6th Edition and FW has 40k approved units. I could easily say “The Current” Edition. FW units are 40k approved and they have all the 6th references in their newest FAQ.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf

ForgeWorld will help balance Tournaments not imbalance them. You don’t need a 1 for 1 equivalent per Codex to balance the game. Having FW in your Tournaments will open Anit-Flyer units in a larger scale and in turn you will see less Flyer spam as a result. This retroactively helps Armies that have problems with Flyers, helping those Armies without them ever having to take a FW unit themselves.

I’m talking big picture here guys.

All that said, OverwatchCNC you and other TOs can run Tournament however you guys see fit. Many of us on here are just happy to have you brave guys running these events and I commend you for doing so. I’m just giving my opinion and do understand that this will be a heated topic for some time to come. This doesn’t mean I will not attend a Tournament that does not allow FW, it just means that I would rather have FW and would have to weigh the rule set of said Tournament with cost of going and decide, much like everyone does already. ;-)

 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.

Or, in other words, "I haven't read the thread and just thought I'd post this here, despite the point having been raised six or seven times already".

If you don't let forge world in Tournaments, then how do Red Scorpion players (with Apothecaries for all squads) enter? Hmm?

 The Survivor wrote:
If you don't let forge world in Tournaments, then how do Red Scorpion players (with Apothecaries for all squads) enter? Hmm?

Easy, change your list around to make them fit with one of the Marine codecies. They may not be as Red Scorpion-y as before, but at least they're tournament legal if the tournament in question has decided that it's not allowing Forge World. That's like saying, if you don't allow Forge World, then how do people with Contemptor Dreadnoughts in their army lists enter? Take the Contemptor Dreadnoughts out.

Run them as Blood Angels and take a ton of Sanguinary Priests and attach one to each unit? And just take some modelling liberties. That one's actually pretty easy!

 RiTides wrote:
Run them as Blood Angels and take a ton of Sanguinary Priests and attach one to each unit? And just take some modelling liberties. That one's actually pretty easy!

I don't think he's trying to lose . Red scorpions would probably slot pretty well into current meta actually. The marine sarge is a wasted opportunity cost these days, and FNP on all troops without the heavy added cost or vulnerability of something like the sang priest would be great.

 ironicsilence wrote:
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?

I had no strong feelings either way, but now I am leaning toward no FW in tournaments. I see it sort of like the different formats in MTG (forgive me it has been a long time since I was into that game) because there is a huge difference between the decks that draw from all the sets and the decks that draw from only the newer ones. In smaller games of 1500 points or less it seems that FW can be a huge imbalancer depending on the army, perhaps limit it to larger competitions (2000+ points) so that the armies that don't get big FW buffs can at least take double FOC.

I think a double standard for counts-as exists when you allow FW units but not the same counts as freedoms that you allow with codex units. Then you factor in the "not so serious" tournament player who leaves with a "gotcha" feeling in his gut after facing a unit he wasn't fully familiar with. I should also explain that I don't have FW books or models so I have no real stake in the argument but it does make me wary of spending time and money to go to events that allow them because of unfamiliarity, perceived elitism, and biased counts as justifications.

Just my opinions from what I have learned from this very informative thread.

Or just mabey he wants to play the army he built. He may have spent a ton of money and time on it.

From my experince last weekend, which I already mentioned, it wasnt the average players that were moaning (and there was quite a bit of moaning....) it was the higher end players that complained about forgeworld

Pretty much all the forgeworld models I have the rules for (ok I have read aeronautica a little) mainly use the USR's found in the 'core' rule book, i.e skyfire interceptor jink etc etc, a few have one new rule. I offered my aeronautica book to every opponent before the game, most said its cool after I explained its basically a krak missile with skyfire interceptor.

I can go through the rules and note exactly how many new rules there are but I doubt there will be more then 10 which covers all the units for the different races in there.

I will have to say that I am not a big fan of using FW in tournaments.

That being said I will still go to tournaments that do allow FW.

Each TO has the right to run his or her own tournament the way they wish and FW is no different then say using custom Missions or Comp or any other thing they can think of.

AS LONG AS IT IS CLEAR before the tournament and we as players know what can happen then it would be fine with me.

The one thing I would really like to see is a list of each FW unit allowed in your tournament and what book it is currently in. There are too many cases of the same unit being in two or more books and if I as a player don't know about it then it really dosen't matter if my opponent shows me the rules in his book. If it's not the most recent book I would have no way of knowing.

I agree with Doc above and second a list with the updated rules that will be allowed at a tournament. That way the most recent rules are going to be used. Every should be able to look at a codex and realize it's the old rules. That's not something that's possible with FW items.

Seperately I'll add that I feel FW heavily favors Imperial forces. Does this mean there are a higher percentage of poop units for Imperials? Sure. But the higher number means even a small percentage of good units is going to be higher for imperial forces, especially with allies.

Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.

Just my read on it.

 Hulksmash wrote:

Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much.

Given that most aren't exactly spectacularly powerful units and serve little purpose if there aren't flyers around, they're not that big a deal for what typically are basically easily killed autocannon-equivalent units. One will notice that without Interceptor, Hydras actually aren't making as big appearance on tables as they were previously under 5th, at least in my observations, despite possibly being the best AA unit in the game otherwise.

And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.

That may be reading a bit too much into it. Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities isn't something one typically associates with CSM's, unlike say, Tau or Imperial Guard. Additionally just because one book doesn't have it doesn't mean they intend for such abilities to be super-rare, they may just not have thought it appropriate for CSM's for whatever reason (theme, want to wait until 6th is well and entrenched before bringing the hammer down on flyers, etc) or just legitimately didn't think about it. It's one book in, one that is largely a fantasy book mashed with the previous book more than anything truly new.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That may be reading a bit too much into it. Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities isn't something one typically associates with CSM's, unlike say, Tau or Imperial Guard. ...

Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities weren't something I typically associated with any 40k faction, given that aircraft were unknown 40,000 years in the future, until quite recently. If no one has aircraft, then why would anyone need anti-aircraft tools? Conversely, now that everyone has aircraft, it makes no sense that everyone doesn't have an answer to it.

having FW at tournaments is nothing but great for the game. space sharks, shadow spectres, tomb stalkers, beautiful models with cool rules..what's not to like?

the biggest bonus, outside of the aesthetic, is the addition of having a broader and more diverse meta which is continually changing: forgeworld regularly releases new stuff, which means that the meta isn't a static environment where one small subset of spam lists will dominate the tournament scene. i love the idea of showing up to a tournament and having no idea what kind of force i'm going to be facing.

it also doesn't hurt to know that if you're saddled with a weak codex for another 3 or 4 years, forgeworld might have something that makes your army playable again coming out next month.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
That may be reading a bit too much into it. Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities isn't something one typically associates with CSM's, unlike say, Tau or Imperial Guard. ...

Heavy anti-aircraft capabilities weren't something I typically associated with any 40k faction, given that aircraft were unknown 40,000 years in the future, until quite recently. If no one has aircraft, then why would anyone need anti-aircraft tools? Conversely, now that everyone has aircraft, it makes no sense that everyone doesn't have an answer to it.

True to an extent, however aircraft and defensive weapons are generally associated more with certain factions than others. The Imperial Guard for example, have had a model for AA units since almost the 90's from FW and an epic model longer IIRC, in addition to having it in their codex for more than 3 years now, along with extensive fluff/imagery of aircraft and cannons firing into the sky.

And I'm not saying every faction shouldn't have AA capabilities, only that GW doesn't necessarily think along the lines most rational people do. Oblits being Ld8 and no longer fearless with the new CSM book being one example of such

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

Personally I think a lot of the drive of certain people to allow forgeworld is because of the percieved OP'ness of flyers in 6th. Personally I don't like the increase numbers of the interceptor rule in FW. If more units were just skyfire I'm cool with that. But being able to take relatively cheap units (Imperially anyway) that can affect flyers and ground units is a little much.

Given that most aren't exactly spectacularly powerful units and serve little purpose if there aren't flyers around, they're not that big a deal for what typically are basically easily killed autocannon-equivalent units. One will notice that without Interceptor, Hydras actually aren't making as big appearance on tables as they were previously under 5th, at least in my observations, despite possibly being the best AA unit in the game otherwise.

The point is they are cheap enough to take so that they aren't a choice if there might be flyers. The reason you don't see hydra's is people being forced to choose anti-air over killing stuff on the table. Most forgeworld units aren't a choice. They give you the ability to do both. Havocs have the ability to do both but bear in mind that you pay out the nose for them (175pts for 5 dudes w/4 missile launchers) and still don't have the interceptor rule. Compare that to the sabre platforms. Honestly I feel that the inclusion of FW pushes us back toward 5th. Not away from it.

Redbeard covered the anti-air thoughts. Personally I'd think chaos would have more than marines since they are self reliant to an extent.

Hulksmash wrote:

The point is they are cheap enough to take so that they aren't a choice if there might be flyers.

Hrm, I don't think so, most are fairly easily engaged and/or easily killed (hydra platforms, flakkatraks, etc) or are hideously expensive (Eldar Firestorm).

The reason you don't see hydra's is people being forced to choose anti-air over killing stuff on the table.

and the fact that you can just take a ton of anti-infantry autocannons instead and still be decently covered for anti-air. Pure AA platforms just aren't worth it because too many armies don't have flyers and of those that do half are MC's that most AA weapons are rather pitiful against (oh yay, T6 3+sv flying dudes that I need more than twice as many flakk missiles/AA autocannon shots to kill as I do to kill a Stormraven!) or aren't taken all the time. They're *too* niche, and you're better off just bringing flyers of your own instead. Flyers themselves on the other hand are not too niche as they can engage every target without too much trouble.

Most forgeworld units aren't a choice. They give you the ability to do both.

You mean...just like Flyers themselves do? It's not like most of these are spectacular units in and of themselves for the most part either here.

Havocs have the ability to do both but bear in mind that you pay out the nose for them (175pts for 5 dudes w/4 missile launchers) and still don't have the interceptor rule.

And one will notice many feel they are overcosted as such. Point for point, you're not much worse off buying autocannons instead for 60pts less. A Forgefiend for the same cost will give you better anti-infantry/anti-vehicle capabilities and have an equal chance of killing a flyer outright and require only a slightly higher average number of shots to kill a flyer through HP loss.

Compare that to the sabre platforms. Honestly I feel that the inclusion of FW pushes us back toward 5th. Not away from it.

In what way?

Redbeard covered the anti-air thoughts. Personally I'd think chaos would have more than marines since they are self reliant to an extent.

I dunno, typically to my mind and the way it looks like they've been designed, they're more offensive oriented, prone to engage enemy flyers with their own flyers than ground based AA units. Either way, I'm not against them having AA units, just trying to explain how I see the designers choice regarding AA not as one purely of game balance, especially as the studio came right out and plainly stated at their open day event that they didn't design 6th and don't intend to design codex books around balanced competitive play.

So if you're playing that, you're already playing the game in a manner the design studio never intended and isn't writing rules/units for. I really wish the situation were different because I feel it'd benefit everyone, but it's not.

Vaktathi wrote:True to an extent, however aircraft and defensive weapons are generally associated more with certain factions than others. The Imperial Guard for example, have had a model for AA units since almost the 90's from FW and an epic model longer IIRC, in addition to having it in their codex for more than 3 years now, along with extensive fluff/imagery of aircraft and cannons firing into the sky.

And I'm not saying every faction shouldn't have AA capabilities, only that GW doesn't necessarily think along the lines most rational people do. Oblits being Ld8 and no longer fearless with the new CSM book being one example of such

When I think of anti-aircraft, I think of German 88mm guns, and handheld ground-to-air missiles. While the former might look IGish, the latter is perfectly reasonable to imagine in the hands of chaos, marines, guard, orks or whatever. I think it's somewhat funny that an argument against forgeworld in tournaments is that it might give anti-air guns to factions "not perceived to have anti-air capabilities", based on a perception formed by FW units.

Hulksmash wrote:
The point is they are cheap enough to take so that they aren't a choice if there might be flyers. The reason you don't see hydra's is people being forced to choose anti-air over killing stuff on the table.

Agreed with Hulk, but wanted to add, this is absolutely ridiculous from any realism perspective. The aforementioned German 88s were one of the most feared anti-tank guns in WWII. They were designed as anti-aircraft guns. The idea that you can't point an anti-aircraft gun at a ground target is so laughably bad, it could only have come from GW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
... especially as the studio came right out and plainly stated at their open day event that they didn't design 6th and don't intend to design codex books around balanced competitive play.

So if you're playing that, you're already playing the game in a manner the design studio never intended and isn't writing rules/units for. I really wish the situation were different because I feel it'd benefit everyone, but it's not.

Strangely, the GW design team said the exact same thing, that they weren't interested in designing rules or codexes around balanced competitive play. Simply being involved in a tournament is playing the game in a manner that the designers never intended...

 Redbeard wrote:


When I think of anti-aircraft, I think of German 88mm guns, and handheld ground-to-air missiles. While the former might look IGish, the latter is perfectly reasonable to imagine in the hands of chaos, marines, guard, orks or whatever. I think it's somewhat funny that an argument against forgeworld in tournaments is that it might give anti-air guns to factions "not perceived to have anti-air capabilities", based on a perception formed by FW units.

I'm not saying that perception is based on FW units, hydras originally are from epic if I'm not mistaken, but really it's more about how CSM's are generally portrayed. They are offensive in nature, they don't carry lots of defensive countermeasures. The new book illustrates this concept several ways. One is that SM's have Bolster Defenses, CSM's have Shatter Defenses, etc.

It's just one way to look at *why* they didn't necessarily include lots of AA stuff in the CSM book that's not game balance related. I'm not saying it's definitive or anything like that.

Hulksmash wrote:
Agreed with Hulk, but wanted to add, this is absolutely ridiculous from any realism perspective. The aforementioned German 88s were one of the most feared anti-tank guns in WWII. They were designed as anti-aircraft guns. The idea that you can't point an anti-aircraft gun at a ground target is so laughably bad, it could only have come from GW.

Indeed it is, in fact, 88's were much better AT guns than they were AA guns. As AA guns they were designed to engage aircraft at high altitude in conjunction with multiple other guns, whereas in an AT role they could engage and destroy multiple tanks within minutes by themselves.

Strangely, the GW design team said the exact same thing, that they weren't interested in designing rules or codexes around balanced competitive play. Simply being involved in a tournament is playing the game in a manner that the designers never intended...

Right, that's exactly what I was saying, so if you're already engaging in play in a manner that the game wasn't intended for, that was never designed to be balanced in the first place, I'm not really seeing the standing on "balance" for tournaments not allowing Forgeworld considering it's already way outside what the game was designed and intended for in the first place, all it's going to do is produce a slightly different meta.

Indeed it is, in fact, 88's were much better AT guns than they were AA guns. As AA guns they were designed to engage aircraft at high altitude in conjunction with multiple other guns, whereas in an AT role they could engage and destroy multiple tanks within minutes by themselves.

One of the interesting things about AA Guns, is that you want a High Velocity shell with as straight a trajectory as possible combined with very high elevation angles in order to lay fused shells precisely in space so they detonate providing Flak bursts for aircraft to fly through. (the high speed and relatively flat trajectory tend to make good AT guns!).



The Royal Navy has had issues as the 4.5" Gun designed back in 1938 (although it has been updated through service life), it is a very accurate and good gun system. The problem is it is too accurate, great at hitting a precise point in space, however in shore bombardment it is too accurate and therefore area bombardments were ineffective until they designed the system to have an Error input in the system to make it more effective against land based targets.

Every hear of gun being too accurate? Also that is alot of Brass there, some serious cash at a scrap merchants we used to make them into Umbrella Stands... Till the penny pinchers came in.

Way off-topic but couldn't resist. *ahem* back to FW at Tourneys.

 Hulksmash wrote:
. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.

Just my read on it.

Quad gun or Icacrus las cannon?

I'd be fine with Forge World as long as there was a ban list for the few units that simply ruin some matchups (Sabre Defense Platforms, Cæstus Assault Ram, etc.), but I think that no Forge World is a more logical way to go than Forge World with a ban list, and Forge World without a ban list seems extremely unbalanced.

Hulksmash's points about the restriction of Interceptor are dead on. Interceptor is an extremely powerful rule and should not be handed out as liberally as it is with many Forge World units.

Interceptor just auto wins on Daemons too.

O'gosh, I get to shoot them with one gun out of sequence and that makes it OP.

MarkyMark wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
. And GW obviously doesn't endorse this since their most recent book had the interceptor rule present zero times and only a single skyfire option outside of the flyer.

Just my read on it.

Quad gun or Icacrus las cannon?

That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?

And that's why I said I feel like allowing forgeworld unlimited is going back to 5th. Since flyers would quickly go down the toilet bowl and Daemons would be back to being nearly unplayable. Yay!

@Gray Templar

The problem is it isn't a single weapon. Forgeworld gives you access to quite a few. That's why I said nearly, not totally.

Consider what you give up to take all that Skyfire from Forge World.

FW units often come with a steep price tag, either in points or competitive FoC slot.

Just because you can take X number of good FW units doesn't mean its the best idea. You often lose out on other choices in your codex that might be essential.

 Hulksmash wrote:
That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?

Well, given that they published IA:Aeronautica instead of telling the author to go back and try again, I'd say it's a safe bet that GW wants that much AA available.

And you could also argue that the rest of 6th has so little AA because FW offers those units. If FW has printed a perfectly good AA unit already and you don't have an additional model to sell with new rules, why add it to the codex? You might even suggest that GW sees flyers as being a rare supplement to the game, so a quad gun is fine and the only reason you'd need AA is if you're also adding lots of flyers to make a special flyer-based scenario. I would not be surprised at all to hear that GW had no clue stuff like Necron flyerspam was ever going to be played in a real game.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Consider what you give up to take all that Skyfire from Forge World.

FW units often come with a steep price tag, either in points or competitive FoC slot.

Just because you can take X number of good FW units doesn't mean its the best idea. You often lose out on other choices in your codex that might be essential.

That is so untrue. FW gives these out like candy at very cheap. The FW has been proposed by some to help boost attendance at their events in my opinion.

Based on this tread I don't their is enough true support to get it off the ground and Adepticon is an exception to the general rule.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
That's pretty out of context. GW allows every army the option to buy a single interceptor/skyfire model. The first codex in 6th has zero interceptor and one skyfire unit that isn't a flyer. Only a single unit was given skyfire at the beginning of 6th across the entire range. So we're up to two non-fortication/flyer units with skyfire. Does it seem they want it as prevelant as Forgeworld gives out?

Well, given that they published IA:Aeronautica instead of telling the author to go back and try again, I'd say it's a safe bet that GW wants that much AA available.

And you could also argue that the rest of 6th has so little AA because FW offers those units. If FW has printed a perfectly good AA unit already and you don't have an additional model to sell with new rules, why add it to the codex? You might even suggest that GW sees flyers as being a rare supplement to the game, so a quad gun is fine and the only reason you'd need AA is if you're also adding lots of flyers to make a special flyer-based scenario. I would not be surprised at all to hear that GW had no clue stuff like Necron flyerspam was ever going to be played in a real game.

I'm pretty sure I'm a reasonable human being. After the way you've conducted yourself in this thread and a few others you're one of those people I simply won't bother discussing things with you. I felt the need to let you know since it will save us both time. I will however have conversations with rational individuals with whom I disagree.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'm a reasonable human being. After the way you've conducted yourself in this thread and a few others you're one of those people I simply won't bother discussing things with you. I felt the need to let you know since it will save us both time. I will however have conversations with rational individuals with whom I disagree.

Yeah, such an unreasonable position, suggesting that the default be that we play the game according to the actual rules...