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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Just Dave wrote:

 Seneca wrote:
I find the mention of a first Inter-Legion Civil War in the Scorpius flufftext pretty interesting.

Isn't that just the Horus Heresy?

Are you sure you're not reading it as an intra-legion civil war, such as with the Dark Angels?

It depends whether the fluff is being written from the perspective of 30K or 40K, the blurbs on the FW site have a nasty habit of jumping back and forth between the two even within the same paragraph. If the latter, it means the Heresy, if the former, it could be anything from a quick mention of the whole "humbling of Angron" thing, or yet another "hee hee, we're never going to tell you what happened to the missing legions, but that won't stop us from continually throwing mutually-contradictory hints at you!" reference.

To me, it just seems another way of saying "Horus Heresy" without saying "Horus Heresy". I don't see why they would be referring to anything else with it, because if they were, its not like they'd reveal any information about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

So what? Codex typhoon speeders aren't all that impressive, so making a better one isn't really a problem. It's ok to improve on and replace weaker units, whether that source is FW or a new codex.

Also, the loss of squadroning is not a trivial drawback.

It is a problem if some units get made utterly redundant. In this case blatantly so, exactly same, except better. For free!

Squadron thing matters only if you want field squadrons, most people try to avoid that. DA especially have free FA slots as their bikes get converted to troops anyway and their fliers suck.

I know you're an avid supporter of FW units, so you should be worried about this. This is exactly what most people who are apprehensive about allowing FW fear the FW units are.

 Crimson wrote:
It is a problem if some units get made utterly redundant. In this case blatantly so, exactly same, except better. For free!

But what you're saying is really bad design. If unit X is weak then requiring that no new unit with a similar role ever be better than X probably means that those new units will be too weak and won't be used. And since nobody likes making unused units, requiring that no C:SM fast shooting unit ever be better than a land speeder is really saying that GW/FW can never design a new fast shooting unit for C:SM. The solution is to just accept that land speeders are a bit on the weak side and refuse to let that cut off all the potential design space of things that would be better than land speeders.

Making units redundant is only a problem if you start making powerful units redundant, because then you quickly get problems with codex creep.

I know you're an avid supporter of FW units, so you should be worried about this. This is exactly what most people who are apprehensive about allowing FW fear the FW units are.

Why would I be worried about a unit that isn't even close to overpowered when sabre guns and heavy artillery exist?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It is a problem if some units get made utterly redundant. In this case blatantly so, exactly same, except better. For free!

But what you're saying is really bad design. If unit X is weak then requiring that no new unit with a similar role ever be better than X probably means that those new units will be too weak and won't be used. And since nobody likes making unused units, requiring that no C:SM fast shooting unit ever be better than a land speeder is really saying that GW/FW can never design a new fast shooting unit for C:SM. The solution is to just accept that land speeders are a bit on the weak side and refuse to let that cut off all the potential design space of things that would be better than land speeders.

Making units redundant is only a problem if you start making powerful units redundant, because then you quickly get problems with codex creep.

I know you're an avid supporter of FW units, so you should be worried about this. This is exactly what most people who are apprehensive about allowing FW fear the FW units are.

Why would I be worried about a unit that isn't even close to overpowered when sabre guns and heavy artillery exist?

I think the problem he has is that these new units are just better versions of units we already have... It essentially invalidates units that already exist in the codex in favour of the FW version. He's not talking about external game balance here, but the internal balance of individual codexs becoming disrupted.

IMHO that has been historically a huge problem with alot of the FW releases for space marines.

 Lockark wrote:
I think the problem he has is that these new units are just better versions of units we already have... It essentially invalidates units that already exist in the codex in favour of the FW version. He's not talking about external game balance here, but the internal balance of individual codexs becoming disrupted.

Yes, but the same principle applies just as much to internal balance (what I was talking about). If you insist that you can never "invalidate" even weak units you cut off a lot of design space and ensure that entire strategies (for example, a fast and cheap gun platform for C:SM) remain less appealing. Sometimes you just have to accept that your new design is going to make something else obsolete.

Surely this supposed invalidation of older units is not all that different to marine codex creep? For example, over on a more power armour centric board you often see army list discussions revolving around getting Dark Angel allies because they now have much cheaper scoring troops able to take special weapons without being full sized, whereas the older codicess don't have this.

The existence of Forge World's allegedly stronger landspeeder at the same time as 'worse' Codex: Space Marine options only means that C:SM is an old book in need of an update and that Games Workshop's fringe subsidiary is carrying on with business as usual.

Also, is this speeder even meant for regular 40k? It's supposed to be a Legion Speeder according to the newsletter, in which case you can't get annoyed about it being our of step with 40k as that's not the system it's supposed to operate in. Just my two pennies.

sockwithaticket wrote:
Also, is this speeder even meant for regular 40k? It's supposed to be a Legion Speeder according to the newsletter, in which case you can't get annoyed about it being our of step with 40k as that's not the system it's supposed to operate in. Just my two pennies.

It's for regular 40k, see the "is a X choice for Y codex" note.

So my Space Marine army can take either a normal Land Speeder Typhoon, or a Land Speeder Typhoon with +1 AV, twin-linked, Outflank, a 1 point searchlight, and up to 2 HKMs at 5 points each? And the second one costs 15 points less?

Stuff like this is why people don't like Forge World. I do like Forge World, and I think this is ridiculous.

 Kingsley wrote:
So my Space Marine army can take either a normal Land Speeder Typhoon, or a Land Speeder Typhoon with +1 AV, twin-linked, Outflank, a 1 point searchlight, and up to 2 HKMs at 5 points each? And the second one costs 15 points less?

Exactly. Typhoon speeders got a nice little boost that might actually make them an appealing choice. Would you prefer that they remain a mediocre option that costs way too many points?

 Peregrine wrote:

sockwithaticket wrote:
Also, is this speeder even meant for regular 40k? It's supposed to be a Legion Speeder according to the newsletter, in which case you can't get annoyed about it being our of step with 40k as that's not the system it's supposed to operate in. Just my two pennies.

It's for regular 40k, see the "is a X choice for Y codex" note.

Fair enough, that'll teach me to comment on things before I've had my morning coffee!

Anyone noticed the odd armor valus on the WW? 13/12/10 instead of 11/11/10 seems to be somewhat OP on a barrage firing tank Oo

AV13 Front armour okay, that's Predator chassis (usually AV13/11/10, no?). But AV12 side armour is odd.

 Shandara wrote:
AV13 Front armour okay, that's Predator chassis (usually AV13/11/10, no?). But AV12 side armour is odd.

Jeah better armor than a predator ... for an artillery piece that is odd. Except when predators get av14 front in the new marine dex ... one can dream

 Kingsley wrote:
So my Space Marine army can take either a normal Land Speeder Typhoon, or a Land Speeder Typhoon with +1 AV, twin-linked, Outflank, a 1 point searchlight, and up to 2 HKMs at 5 points each? And the second one costs 15 points less?

Stuff like this is why people don't like Forge World. I do like Forge World, and I think this is ridiculous.

As mentioned new codex makes units cheaper, let's wait and see what the new SM codex will cost them.

sockwithaticket wrote:

The existence of Forge World's allegedly stronger landspeeder at the same time as 'worse' Codex: Space Marine options only means that C:SM is an old book in need of an update and that Games Workshop's fringe subsidiary is carrying on with business as usual.

Regular land speeder is not 'worse', it is worse this is a case of comparing units that are otherwise identical, except other has more armour and special rules for free. And I know vanilla marine codex is old, which is why I was comparing it to DA book where the price of the Typhoon is already reduced -- and it is the exact same price as this clearly superior FW version. This is not case of FW rules invalidating an unit from some old codex, it is FW rules invalidating a unit that just got price cut from a new codex.

You can squadron Land Speeders and/or buy a multi-melta. Can't do that with the FW one.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You can squadron Land Speeders and/or buy a multi-melta. Can't do that with the FW one.

Why would you put multi-melta on typhoon? Typhoon keeps its distance and shoots.

Lack of squadrons is only drawback, but this is still not sufficient justification. Squadroning is something that people try to avoid anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Given that most Whirlwinds usually sit still for most of a game anyway (hiding behind cover), it isn't exactly hard to potentially wipe out an entire Space Marine squad every turn.

Maybe if you play against bad players who never space out their models. It's D3+1 small blasts, which means you should be hitting an average of 3-4 models per turn at most. Add in a potential cover save from area terrain and you're looking at decent firepower, but far short of "an entire space marine squad every turn".

Just for comparison, the average of three shots per turn covers an area of 21 square inches, while the 5" shot from a Basilisk covers 19.6 square inches. Add in the coherency distance factor and the Basilisk is almost always going to be doing more damage.

I did say "potentially." I did not say it was a guarantee. Second, maximum coherency spacing is an ideal, but not always a reality, due to the vagaries of terrain and cover on different game boards, as well as different armies.

Let's also keep in mind that these are experiential rules.

 d-usa wrote:
Let's also keep in mind that these are experiential rules.

I do and I'm pretty sure FW designers read threads like these, so it is important to voice any concerns. Though it might be more effective to mail them.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
So my Space Marine army can take either a normal Land Speeder Typhoon, or a Land Speeder Typhoon with +1 AV, twin-linked, Outflank, a 1 point searchlight, and up to 2 HKMs at 5 points each? And the second one costs 15 points less?

Exactly. Typhoon speeders got a nice little boost that might actually make them an appealing choice. Would you prefer that they remain a mediocre option that costs way too many points?

Yes. FW shouldn't expand the design space, they should work within the lines. FW's willingness to take the game in a new direction is the main reason their rules aren't widely accepted, as the direction that FW seems to want to take the game in is different than that preferred by GW and many players. I say this as someone who owns dozens of FW models.

Well experimental rules plus Space Marine Codex around the corner suggests to me that the current SM Landspeeder might get a bit of a boost. Or not.

I agree with Peregrine here: I don't think new units should be made bad (or mediocre or whatever) just because existing/old units are; better to buck the trend and make the new stuff worthwhile IMHO, even if that means outdating older rules.

 Just Dave wrote:
I agree with Peregrine here: I don't think new units should be made bad (or mediocre or whatever) just because existing/old units are; better to buck the trend and make the new stuff worthwhile IMHO, even if that means outdating older rules.

That's true for GW but not for FW IMO. FW rules that outclass GW ones always tend to leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

 Kingsley wrote:

 Just Dave wrote:
I agree with Peregrine here: I don't think new units should be made bad (or mediocre or whatever) just because existing/old units are; better to buck the trend and make the new stuff worthwhile IMHO, even if that means outdating older rules.

That's true for GW but not for FW IMO. FW rules that outclass GW ones always tend to leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

Agreed. Many people already see Forgeworld as a "pay-to-win" element that is often priced outside of the average player's reach. It's fine when FW releases something inferior or on par with widely released Codex rules, but to release something clearly superior, that only reinforces those people's negative opinions. That's not to say Forgeworld should not make good stuff, but not something that basically outclasses a Codex unit to the point where the Codex unit is completely obsolete in favor of the FW replacement.

[EDIT} It has been mentioned this could be a sign of things to come with the upcoming Space Marine Codex, but let's not forget that the Dark Angels are still a very new book, and for the same price as the Javelin, a Dark Angels Typhoon doesn't have the twin-linked missiles, Outflank and the extra armor.

 Kingsley wrote:
So my Space Marine army can take either a normal Land Speeder Typhoon, or a Land Speeder Typhoon with +1 AV, twin-linked, Outflank, a 1 point searchlight, and up to 2 HKMs at 5 points each? And the second one costs 15 points less?

Stuff like this is why people don't like Forge World. I do like Forge World, and I think this is ridiculous.

No, people dislike Forgeworld because they're A; unable/unwilling to buy the books, and for some reason think this gives them the right to decide how other people write their army lists, B; have become so entrenched in their petty semantics over what exactly the word "official" means that they require nothing less than a contract signed in blood by Kirby himself and conveyed to them on a silk cushion by angels set to an orchestral fanfare personally conducted by the disembodied spirit of Bach before they will include FW units within that meaning, C; are capable of cognitive dissonance so enormous you'd think they'd had their corpus callosum surgically severed as they accuse FW of making overpowered imbalanced rules while simultaneously handwaving away the fact that GW can't go more than three codices in a row without giving powergamers an entirely new set of unbalanced tools, D; don't like that their personal favourite army doesn't get the amount of attention from FW that they'd like and so don't think anyone else should be able to enjoy it either, or E; insist on concluding that a unit is terminally overpowered based on the Experimental rules and have never, in my experience, bothered to actually playtest those rules in an actual game and submit feedback.

Most Forgeworld units are either underpowered or overcosted, and GW put out far more imbalanced "Heldrake" units than FW do "old-Hades Drill" style ones, but that hasn't prevented a dedicated few from perpetuating this irritating myth that FW are some sort of powergamer paradise.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
So my Space Marine army can take either a normal Land Speeder Typhoon, or a Land Speeder Typhoon with +1 AV, twin-linked, Outflank, a 1 point searchlight, and up to 2 HKMs at 5 points each? And the second one costs 15 points less?

Stuff like this is why people don't like Forge World. I do like Forge World, and I think this is ridiculous.

No, people dislike Forgeworld because they're A; unable/unwilling to buy the books, and for some reason think this gives them the right to decide how other people write their army lists, B; have become so entrenched in their petty semantics over what exactly the word "official" means that they require nothing less than a contract signed in blood by Kirby himself and conveyed to them on a silk cushion by angels set to an orchestral fanfare personally conducted by the disembodied spirit of Bach before they will include FW units within that meaning, C; are capable of cognitive dissonance so enormous you'd think they'd had their corpus callosum surgically severed as they accuse FW of making overpowered imbalanced rules while simultaneously handwaving away the fact that GW can't go more than three codices in a row without giving powergamers an entirely new set of unbalanced tools, D; don't like that their personal favourite army doesn't get the amount of attention from FW that they'd like and so don't think anyone else should be able to enjoy it either, or E; insist on concluding that a unit is terminally overpowered based on the Experimental rules and have never, in my experience, bothered to actually playtest those rules in an actual game and submit feedback.

Most Forgeworld units are either underpowered or overcosted, and GW put out far more imbalanced "Heldrake" units than FW do "old-Hades Drill" style ones, but that hasn't prevented a dedicated few from perpetuating this irritating myth that FW are some sort of powergamer paradise.

well said good sir. and its not like people wont go oh look here is my typhoon speeder as a counts as fw model.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's fine when FW releases something inferior or on par with widely released Codex rules, but to release something clearly superior, that only reinforces those people's negative opinions. That's not to say Forgeworld should not make good stuff, but not something that basically outclasses a Codex unit to the point where the Codex unit is completely obsolete in favor of the FW replacement.

And, again, when the codex unit is a weak one refusing to allow anyone to outclass it just cuts off valuable design space. The FW speeder just fixes the codex typhoon and makes it a viable option, you should be celebrating that now the basic concept of the unit is useful.

 Yodhrin wrote:


No, people dislike Forgeworld because they're A; unable/unwilling to buy the books, and for some reason think this gives them the right to decide how other people write their army lists

Yup, that's exactly what they can do. Here's a tip, you don't get to force an opponent to play against you.

And in any case, in my experience, an opponent (or me), is just as likely to tell someone to bugger off if they show up with 3 Helldrakes or if they turn up with an ironclad dreadnought in a dreadnought drop pod.

Which by the way, I did play against and found to be as much bs as its reputation gave it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's fine when FW releases something inferior or on par with widely released Codex rules, but to release something clearly superior, that only reinforces those people's negative opinions. That's not to say Forgeworld should not make good stuff, but not something that basically outclasses a Codex unit to the point where the Codex unit is completely obsolete in favor of the FW replacement.

And, again, when the codex unit is a weak one refusing to allow anyone to outclass it just cuts off valuable design space. The FW speeder just fixes the codex typhoon and makes it a viable option, you should be celebrating that now the basic concept of the unit is useful.

What's our balance point? I think both sides of the FW debate can agree that there is a large spread of quality in any book, regardless of which branch of GW publishes it. There are the good units, the OK stuff, and the trash. There may or may not be stand out broken stuff (for good or bad) depending. I would prefer they based the game around the "OK" level, rather then just adding more high-powered units. This speeder might be in line with sabre platforms, vendettas, helldrakes, etc. on the high end of "good"

The problem is how GW operates. Balance usually happens when you get a new codex. They don't admit to screwing up and do things like adjust prices in the errata. So when something is falls on the outside of the power curve, high or low, it stays there for a long time. GW doesn't (generally) nudge units back towards the center to keep things balanced.

Just because there are already a number of units pushing the high end of the power curve does not mean there need to be more there. In my mind, this is not a GW/FW argument, but an issue of where the balance is. If the title of this thread was "rumored leaks for new SM codex" I'd still have issues with the new speeder. It blows the curve for the old C:SM, and is even better then the new DA codex.