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.

 Blackmoor wrote:
There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.

Sure there are. There might not be counters that you want to have in your list in a no-FW metagame, but banning stuff because it might change the metagame is a terrible idea.

Meltagun/plasma gun, drop pod. Instant artillery counter. That's as effective as SM anti-air.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
^ Ignore the bit about SM anti-air, I'm half asleep. Forget about the Stormsparrow/pigeon.

Taking one issue and extrapolating it out to the extreme doesn't make a convincing argument. Players will be more easily familiar with Tau, which will make for faster games.

The AdeptiCon team tourney method of making FW 0-1 was a good solution, imo (it was this way in 2012 when I played and faced 2 FW units without issue- I think it was the same in 2013?). All I'm saying is, disallow the few most egregious from the Hundreds of options, and call it done for an event like that.

I'd even be open to non-limited FW (ie not 0-1) in an event if the worst ones were banned. But it adds nothing to my experience to go to an event allowing FW if all the awesome units are at home because artillery is legal.

I know the response will be "Ban helldrakes then1!?" but it's just not the same. That's a single unit from a codex of how many units? Versus allowing ALL of FW. Giving IG a million more units (slightly exaggerated) and other armies just some. There is no way you can say that is the same as allowing a codex. It gives IG WAY more than a codex's worth of options. Banning the most broken is extremely reasonable.

If you can't consider that, it's hard to have this discussion. What ruleset would give one army That many more units than all the others? You've got to be willing to compromise to gain any traction on a FW discussion. AdeptiCon, again, does this nicely with the 0-1 restriction, imo. But if you banned the worst offenders, that could easily become 0-3 or the like.

But it never will at many of the non-FW events if people insist they absolutely must be allowed to use all hundred extra guard units FW gives, with no exceptions. I know a few events are OK with this, but many won't be. Compromise is needed, again, for any traction on this issue...

Can someone familiar with IG read the contents page for Volume One (2E) and answer the following:
How many non-apocalypse units are on that page that do not appear in the codex?
That will answer the problem of how many units STANDARD Imperial Guard get.

ItsPug wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Uh, game speed is IMO a very strong reason. I actually consider it a much more serious issue than balance concerns. Most FW units are more or less fine and I'm happy to play against them. I've had totally fun games against people with Sabre Defense Platforms, Mortis Contemptors, etc. But it's also always taken extra time before the game to go over the FW rules, make sure I understand what they do, and clear up any confusions or ambiguities. In a tournament environment, where time is a very important concern, if someone shows up with 5 or 6 different units that we will have to go over together before the game, that could very well mean we get one fewer turn in, which could in turn decide the outcome.

And if you turn up to a tournament with Tau, and I have never played them before and have you go through your 5-6 different units so that I can "understand what they do, and clear up any confusions or ambiguities" is this not a problem too? Tau have a lot of special rules and equipment that breaks the basic rules, if I have you explain these to me does that not also use up valuable time, resulting in the game possibly not reaching its natural conclusion? Unfamiliarity is not a good reason to disallow something, especially when new rules are being released every few months anyway.

There's a reasonable expectation that people will know the basics of new armies. Knowing FW is much more complicated, since some FW units are published in multiple books, their updates are much less well-publicized than those of GW units, and so on. For instance when I played against a Hades Breaching Drill, I thought that I knew what it did but went over the rules to make sure-- and it was a good thing, too, since I had missed hearing about a new IA book that had changed its rules substantially. It's certainly possible that someone will not have heard about the latest Codex coming out, but it seems far less likely. Further, major tournaments already institute delays in what Codexes are allowed to prevent this very issue.

The Necron-heavy Adepticon results were in part caused by the new Tau not being allowed because people wouldn't have time to digest yet-- similarly, when I attended the Bay Area Open this year the new Daemons were not allowed, as they came out literally on the day of the tournament and would cause a lot of logistical problems for both players and organizers!

Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
While some might certainly wish that Heldrakes were 0-1, the opportunity really isn't there in the same way.

Of course the opportunity is there. If you're running a tournament you say "Helldrakes are 0-1" and that's the end of it. People either bring 0-1 Helldrake, or they don't play in your event.

That would be received extremely differently from "Forge World is 0-1." I speak as a frequent tournament player and sometime tournament organizer. If you don't believe me on this, that's fine, but I think I have more relevant experience than you and trust me when I say the community would not receive those two rulesets anywhere near the same way.

for standard 40k (ie non super heavy) IG get...

2 extra leman russ varients - a TL Lascannon turret and a small blast turret
Thunderer seige tank - a demolisher with a hull mounted cannon instead of a turret
Destroyer Tank Hunter
Salamanders - basically fast chimeras with no transport capacity
platform versions of some of the artillery tanks
the dreaded heavy artillery battery
tarantula sentry guns - which are outclassed by eaven a single HWT
sabres
the rapier laser destroyer
the hades breaching drill - freshly nerfed
the atlas, trojan and sentinel power lifter - real fluff bunnies only
the tauros buggy
drop sentinel
centaur carrier

link for people looking for a list of FW units and where to find the up to date rules.

 RiTides wrote:
That's a single unit from a codex of how many units?

And, as we've already established, it doesn't matter how many units are available because people only play the best ones. Anything in the Helldrake's FOC slot that isn't a Helldrake might as well not exist.

It gives IG WAY more than a codex's worth of options.

Except most of them aren't worth playing. Who cares if IG get three new flyers if all three of them are worse than the Vendetta? Who cares if IG get a cargo hauler Sentinel that exists only for fluff reasons? Compare that to Tau, where there are fewer units total but every Tau player in a FW-legal tournament would replace all their codex flyers with Barracudas. The total number of units is irrelevant, what matters is how much benefit each army gets.

But it never will at many of the non-FW events if people insist they absolutely must be allowed to use all hundred extra guard units FW gives, with no exceptions. I know a few events are OK with this, but many won't be. Compromise is needed, again, for any traction on this issue...

Fine, just as long as we compromise on the Helldrake issue. I want them banned entirely, so we'll compromise at 0-1 Helldrake/Vendetta/Scythe (pick one, not one of each) for each army.

 RiTides wrote:

The AdeptiCon team tourney method of making FW 0-1 was a good solution, imo (it was this way in 2012 when I played and faced 2 FW units without issue- I think it was the same in 2013?). All I'm saying is, disallow the few most egregious from the Hundreds of options, and call it done for an event like that.

Its boggling me that people are using the terms "solution" and "need" without stating a goal or problem.

This is because as soon as you state either a problem that needs solving or a goal to fulfill, you immediately see its equally applicable to codex units and IA units alike.

I'm on board assuming equal application. The helldrake and Vendetta are two particularly egregious infractors with respect to undercosted units, so lets ban them in the same document since they fit the same reason.

I know the response will be "Ban helldrakes then1!?" but it's just not the same. That's a single unit from a codex of how many units? Versus allowing ALL of FW. Giving IG a million more units (slightly exaggerated) and other armies just some. There is no way you can say that is the same as allowing a codex. It gives IG WAY more than a codex's worth of options. Banning the most broken is extremely reasonable.

All I'm saying is that if balance is really that important and out of whack, why would you stop with just units appearing in IA material? I see no distinction that makes unbalanced units from a codex exempt from this approach.

That link is awesome. Thanks for that.

 Kingsley wrote:
That would be received extremely differently from "Forge World is 0-1." I speak as a frequent tournament player and sometime tournament organizer. If you don't believe me on this, that's fine, but I think I have more relevant experience than you and trust me when I say the community would not receive those two rulesets anywhere near the same way.

Of course it would be received differently, and that's a problem. There's a ridiculous double standard where balance disasters like the Helldrake are sacred and untouchable, while FW must be banned unless none of it is good enough that you'd ever put it in a winning list.

 Dracos wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

The AdeptiCon team tourney method of making FW 0-1 was a good solution, imo (it was this way in 2012 when I played and faced 2 FW units without issue- I think it was the same in 2013?). All I'm saying is, disallow the few most egregious from the Hundreds of options, and call it done for an event like that.

Its boggling me that people are using the terms "solution" and "need" without stating a goal or problem.

This is because as soon as you state either a problem that needs solving or a goal to fulfill, you immediately see its equally applicable to codex units and IA units alike.

I'm on board assuming equal application. The helldrake and Vendetta are two particularly egregious infractors with respect to undercosted units, so lets ban them in the same document since they fit the same reason.

I know the response will be "Ban helldrakes then1!?" but it's just not the same. That's a single unit from a codex of how many units? Versus allowing ALL of FW. Giving IG a million more units (slightly exaggerated) and other armies just some. There is no way you can say that is the same as allowing a codex. It gives IG WAY more than a codex's worth of options. Banning the most broken is extremely reasonable.

All I'm saying is that if balance is really that important and out of whack, why would you stop with just units appearing in IA material? I see no distinction that makes unbalanced units from a codex exempt from this approach.

I think that quite sums up the issue of imbalance with units pretty well. Thank you.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

 cerbrus2 wrote:
Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form.

Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.

As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of FW into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible? I go. I spend lots of money, make new friends and try to have some fun.

So should we ban armies that have the most expensive GW models? Maybe we should just ban anything over a certain cost and call it all even.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
That would be received extremely differently from "Forge World is 0-1." I speak as a frequent tournament player and sometime tournament organizer. If you don't believe me on this, that's fine, but I think I have more relevant experience than you and trust me when I say the community would not receive those two rulesets anywhere near the same way.

Of course it would be received differently, and that's a problem. There's a ridiculous double standard where balance disasters like the Helldrake are sacred and untouchable, while FW must be banned unless none of it is good enough that you'd ever put it in a winning list.

These are the kind of pronouncements one is unlikely to hear from someone who plays in big events. In part because people who do have learned to deal with Helldrakes. Also because of their experiences, most of such people are less likely to use rhetoric like "sacred and untouchable", and are a bit more pragmatic.

Blackmoor wrote:The problem with the "All codexes have broken units" argument is the amount of units that are broken.

For example: The Necron codex has 18 units in it (not counting HQs). So there are a few good units that you can choose from.

Now look at the Forge world books: How many units are in there?

It is like if you get to take the best units out of every codex and put them together for an army. You can say that the FW books have units for every army, but really they do not. For the most part they are all IG and a few

You mean like allying necron flyers with GK bodies? Wow, it's like picking the best units out of two codexes and putting them together for an army...

There are a good number of FW units, although if you limit it to the non-apoc units only, that number drops substantially. But, when you consider allies, there are a huge number of possible choices even without FW, and the interactions between these seem far less intentional or tested than the FW ones. DA+Guard = 4++ blobs? You think that was playtested?

There are 2 arguments that go nowhere when you talk about forge world.
#1. They are official GW rules.
This can't really be proven one way or another.

The only way this can't be proven is if you're so stubborn as to ignore the fact that it's printed in the books that they're legal. Prove to me that Codex: Necrons is official. Or better yet, the Sisters Rules. The only way we know anything is legal is because it says it is, and it's published by GW. Any argument that you make to disqualify FW books as official will also disqualify other books.

[

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWhex wrote:

 The Everliving wrote:

No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.

I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.

If an argument is valid on its own merit and logic then it really does not matter who makes it. You probably are not going to get a lot of good fitness tips from someone who hasnt exercised in ten years but that would not be an argument against good advice if they gave it.

The reason why I ask is that if you do not play any tournaments you have no "skin in the game". It has no impact on you one way or another and you are just telling other people how they should play their games of 40k.

I would like to point out that most of the people who do not want FW at tournaments are tournament players, and the people who are for it are generally not.

That's a curious point, and one that I'm not sure I believe. Possibly, it is the case if you limit the discussion to people posting in your thread. The current 40k competitive scene bores me. Does that mean I'm not a tournament player? I've got a lot of top-ten finishes at GTs for a non-tournament player. But, is this chicken/egg question. I've gone out of my way to attend FW-allowed tournaments. If you take people who prefer to attend FW-allowed events, and then say they're not tournament players because they're not going to non-FW events, then of course you'll have an environment where the defined tournament players don't want it.

As for your skin-in-the-game comment, that too swings both ways. Your army is built for a metagame where there is no FW. In order for it to remain competitive in a FW environment, you may need to tweak it. It may fall from the ranks of competitive, forcing you to get an entirely new army. You've got a vested personal interest in keeping FW out of events, not because it's going to ruin the scene, but because it's going to force you to personally adjust your army and/or spend more money. And that's going to be true for anyone who built their army for a non-FW metagame. You can't be impartial about the actual impact of allowing FW on a philosophical level, because allowing it will hit your pocketbook.




-------------

JWhex wrote:
Your price comparison is not very accurate because you forgot to add on the cost of the rule books which are very expensive. Perhaps if you are going to label someone completely ignorant of the facts you should get your relevant facts arranged in pretty straight line.

My price comparison was not accurate because I did not include all possible things that someone might buy? Seriously, that's the argument you're making? Cerberus's point was that allowing 40k would mean fat wallets would rule the game. I was pointing out that the good FW units often cost less than the good codex units. As such, allowing FW is unlikely to cause budget concerns to dominate the game. Seriously, the number of tri-drake, tri-vendetta, or multi-riptide armies out there already beg the question, is this a game where wallets rule, and that's without questioning the cost of buying every $50 codex in order to stay on top of what our opponent might possibly run.

ItsPug wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.

Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.

Again you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the meta because of the release of the 6th edition codexes now have counters to Helldrakes and Vendettas. That is my point in the original post.

There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.

poison would be the main one, such as used by pretty much every dark eldar unit, sternguard, etc
forcing a morale text via terrify, as artillery units usually have low leadership, psychic shriek also works as it gets around the high tougness and decent armour save.
eldar shuriken weapons now automatically wound on a 6 and ignore the armour.

theres 3 off the top of my head.

This is why you need practical experience with FW before you can comment on it because all of the counters that people think of have counters.

Leadership
IG takes a lord commissar with a standard so they have a re-rollable 10 leadership bubble.

Any psychic power
There are a couple of allied rune priests to stop it on a 4+ and a deny the witch roll

Deep strike/Outflank/reserve
The FW artillery is buried behind an aegis defense line and has a bubble wrap of a couple of blob squads so you are not shooting melta or rapid firing plasma, and remember that sabers have interceptor so they get a free shot at you before the blobs crush you. Also getting in their minimum range? Have you even played against this? There is no "minimum range" anymore with 6th edition. All it means is that they scatter now the full roll on the 2d6", but here is the kicker... you get to cast prescience on them so you get to re-roll the scatter dice to get a hit.

Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.


This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?

 Blackmoor wrote:

Again you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the meta because of the release of the 6th edition codexes now have counters to Helldrakes and Vendettas. That is my point in the original post.

There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.

But again, your 'argument' is based upon a faulty premise. Imperial Armor should never be allowed or disallowed because it helps to balance anything nor should it be allowed or disallowed because they are 'too powerful'...GW never makes any claim that Imperial Armor is meant to balance ANYTHING, so anyone who is making that claim is building their argument on supposition.

Regardless of what codexes come out and counter this or that type of units, this SHOULD NOT AFFECT WHETHER IMPERIAL ARMOR IS USED OR NOT because the reason for allowing Imperial Armor is simply because they are rules put out by Games Workshop for the models they sell for the game of Warhammer 40k.

Why the hell shouldn't I be able to use my Tau Tetras because you happen to think Imperial Guard artillery is too powerful? Why do you get to make the decision that because you think some units are too powerful that all of a sudden I can't use my models in my tournament games?

Why is it that in every other regard we simply have to 'suck it up' and deal with over/underpowered units in codexes, but just because they happen to be in Imperial Armor suddenly its perfectly okay to play armchair rules designer and decide that in this case these units are just *too good* to allow?

And as for IG artillery having no counter...c'mon, that's total BS. Artillery always has a giant weakness, and that is being assaulted. Is it easy to capitalize on that weakness? Not particularly, but that weakness DOES exist.

(edit: @ Blackmoor) Yes we get it, we can go on an infinite loop of countering counters.

You fail to address why forgeworld's less balanced options are worse than the less balanced options in any given codex.

edit: Yakface has it!

I think the cost/durability ratio with FW artillery is way out of whack with the 6th ed change. I think that's pretty clear. Thudd Guns and Helios platforms make Helldrakes and Annihilation Barges look overpriced by comparison.

I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced, but I do think including those two units indisputably makes it more so.

 Blackmoor wrote:

This is why you need practical experience with FW before you can comment on it because all of the counters that people think of have counters.

Leadership
IG takes a lord commissar with a standard so they have a re-rollable 10 leadership bubble.

Any psychic power
There are a couple of allied rune priests to stop it on a 4+ and a deny the witch roll

Deep strike/Outflank/reserve
The FW artillery is buried behind an aegis defense line and has a bubble wrap of a couple of blob squads so you are not shooting melta or rapid firing plasma, and remember that sabers have interceptor so they get a free shot at you before the blobs crush you. Also getting in their minimum range? Have you even played against this? There is no "minimum range" anymore with 6th edition. All it means is that they scatter now the full roll on the 2d6", but here is the kicker... you get to cast prescience on them so you get to re-roll the scatter dice to get a hit.

Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.


This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?

But why do you get to make the decision that in this case these units are 'too good' to be allowed? Isn't that Games Workshop's job? And if you get to decide that these units are indeed 'too good' to be used, then why are you lobbying to ban all Imperial Armor units and not just artillery? And if you're going to get to make the decision to ban IA artillery (and the rest of IA along with it), then why aren't you looking to ban codex units that you judge to be 'too good'?

If Games Workshop believed that IA artillery was 'too good' they'd change it. Forgeworld is constantly updating their stuff, so if that's what they decide, then they'll change it. But for the time being, those artillery units get to run around being super good. Its just the nature of the game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think the cost/durability ratio with FW artillery is way out of whack with the 6th ed change. I think that's pretty clear. Thudd Guns and Helios platforms make Helldrakes and Annihilation Barges look overpriced by comparison.

I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced, but I do think including those two units indisputably makes it more so.

But again, that's Games Workshop's call to make, not ours, unless we're making a decision as a community to start playing armchair games designer and allowing or disallowing certain units based on them being perceived as too good. And if we're doing that, then why is all of Imperial Armor being targeted because certain units are seen as being too good?

Again, the reality is that Forgeworld constantly updates their rules if they think something is too good. They've done it time and time again. So if those units exist for the time being as being super-good, then that's just the reality of the game currently. Its no different than it has ever been before and will be again. People that want to go crazy and buy a bunch of those units can do so knowing that in a year or two the rules will likely be revised making them nearly worthless. That's just how 40k is.

But it shouldn't be the players making the decisions about what things are just 'too good' unless we're really going ahead and looking at everything and deciding which things to include and which not to include.

But ALL of Imperial Armor is being thrown under the bus because people want to play armchair games designer and claim that certain units are simply too good to exist, when that is Games Workshop's call to make.

Blackmoor wrote:Leadership
IG takes a lord commissar with a standard so they have a re-rollable 10 leadership bubble.

Any psychic power
There are a couple of allied rune priests to stop it on a 4+ and a deny the witch roll

Deep strike/Outflank/reserve
The FW artillery is buried behind an aegis defense line and has a bubble wrap of a couple of blob squads so you are not shooting melta or rapid firing plasma, and remember that sabers have interceptor so they get a free shot at you before the blobs crush you. Also getting in their minimum range? Have you even played against this? There is no "minimum range" anymore with 6th edition. All it means is that they scatter now the full roll on the 2d6", but here is the kicker... you get to cast prescience on them so you get to re-roll the scatter dice to get a hit.

Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.


This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?

There are counters for everything. Guess what. You have you sacrifice other parts of your army (at varying levels) to do that. More points sunk into defensive counters = less points for your big guns. And let's be real, if the opponent is fielding that many artillery batteries, the size of the models will prevent them from all receiving the LC's bubble. And if you're going to field and LC as well as a CCS for your orders, that's a lot of points. IG bubble wraps also die to flamers. Ohai Helldrake.

Mannahnin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
That would be received extremely differently from "Forge World is 0-1." I speak as a frequent tournament player and sometime tournament organizer. If you don't believe me on this, that's fine, but I think I have more relevant experience than you and trust me when I say the community would not receive those two rulesets anywhere near the same way.

Of course it would be received differently, and that's a problem. There's a ridiculous double standard where balance disasters like the Helldrake are sacred and untouchable, while FW must be banned unless none of it is good enough that you'd ever put it in a winning list.

These are the kind of pronouncements one is unlikely to hear from someone who plays in big events. In part because people who do have learned to deal with Helldrakes. Also because of their experiences, most of such people are less likely to use rhetoric like "sacred and untouchable", and are a bit more pragmatic.

In the same vein, if you introduce FW as mainstream to tournaments, players will learn to deal with FW.

yakface wrote:...

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Honestly, he has it spot on here. If you think you know how to build the game better than GW, you should find a job there as a designer and show them how it's done.

I'm not aware of this constant rebalancing, when did this occur? Further when did it happen quickly? Furthermore if Gw wanted this stuff to be in base 40k why isn't in the codices (there are examples of units they took from FW. ). As for why ban all IA more or less because its easier and balance of units is not the only reason to do so. It is far easier to draw the line at no FW than start pointing to specific units and banning those. Then again I'm in the camp that thinks the non-FW meta game with the new book releases is far more balanced than ig dominating the remainder of 6th Ed.

If you think you know how to build the game better than GW, you should find a job there as a designer and show them how it's done.

Or perhaps run events with your own rules/restrictions, and judge success by attendance and the critical feedback you receive. Such as that of the Bay Area Open, NOVA Open, and Adepticon Championships.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:Leadership
IG takes a lord commissar with a standard so they have a re-rollable 10 leadership bubble.

Any psychic power
There are a couple of allied rune priests to stop it on a 4+ and a deny the witch roll

Deep strike/Outflank/reserve
The FW artillery is buried behind an aegis defense line and has a bubble wrap of a couple of blob squads so you are not shooting melta or rapid firing plasma, and remember that sabers have interceptor so they get a free shot at you before the blobs crush you. Also getting in their minimum range? Have you even played against this? There is no "minimum range" anymore with 6th edition. All it means is that they scatter now the full roll on the 2d6", but here is the kicker... you get to cast prescience on them so you get to re-roll the scatter dice to get a hit.

Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.


This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?

There are counters for everything. Guess what. You have you sacrifice other parts of your army (at varying levels) to do that. More points sunk into defensive counters = less points for your big guns. And let's be real, if the opponent is fielding that many artillery batteries, the size of the models will prevent them from all receiving the LC's bubble. And if you're going to field and LC as well as a CCS for your orders, that's a lot of points. IG bubble wraps also die to flamers. Ohai Helldrake.

Mannahnin wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
That would be received extremely differently from "Forge World is 0-1." I speak as a frequent tournament player and sometime tournament organizer. If you don't believe me on this, that's fine, but I think I have more relevant experience than you and trust me when I say the community would not receive those two rulesets anywhere near the same way.

Of course it would be received differently, and that's a problem. There's a ridiculous double standard where balance disasters like the Helldrake are sacred and untouchable, while FW must be banned unless none of it is good enough that you'd ever put it in a winning list.

These are the kind of pronouncements one is unlikely to hear from someone who plays in big events. In part because people who do have learned to deal with Helldrakes. Also because of their experiences, most of such people are less likely to use rhetoric like "sacred and untouchable", and are a bit more pragmatic.

In the same vein, if you introduce FW as mainstream to tournaments, players will learn to deal with FW.

yakface wrote:...

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Honestly, he has it spot on here. If you think you know how to build the game better than GW, you should find a job there as a designer and show them how it's done.

You can't be serious about getting a job at GW as a designer, that isn't really part of your argument is it?

While I appreciate that Yakface made, and has made in the past, some of if not the most convincing arguments for the inclusion of FW the response of "if you don't like the game get a job at GW and fix it" is ludicrous.

Breng77 wrote:
Furthermore if Gw wanted this stuff to be in base 40k why isn't in the codices (there are examples of units they took from FW. )

I believe the reason for this is due to their business model. GW as a business needs to put out a regular schedule of products and releases, be they codices or models, and constantly update them army by army. FW allows them to explore the more creative (and less-popular) side of their business and hobby both in fluff and models. For example, FW counterparts to GW units (including the FW Baneblade and FW Valkyrie, before GW released them, and other models such as variants of power armor) tend to be higher quality and well-received by hobbyists. It also allows them to have an irregular release schedule, working on their own time. We have seen two IA books released one month after the other, and sometimes we go for almost year without any IA book releases, such as when HH was first released.

The best business analogy I can give to this is Google [X] Labs.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

You can't be serious about getting a job at GW as a designer, that isn't really part of your argument is it?

While I appreciate that Yakface made, and has made in the past, some of if not the most convincing arguments for the inclusion of FW the response of "if you don't like the game get a job at GW and fix it" is ludicrous.

Yes, I can, and I will. If it's anything I've learned from serving in the army, it's easier when you're at the bottom looking up and criticizing everyone above you. It's a lot harder when you're actually the person doing the job.

 Enigwolf wrote:

There are counters for everything. Guess what. You have you sacrifice other parts of your army (at varying levels) to do that. More points sunk into defensive counters = less points for your big guns. And let's be real, if the opponent is fielding that many artillery batteries, the size of the models will prevent them from all receiving the LC's bubble. And if you're going to field and LC as well as a CCS for your orders, that's a lot of points. IG bubble wraps also die to flamers. Ohai Helldrake.

Again, there are no counters to the FW artillery, there are only counters to what everyone thinks are counters.

So again I ask you what are the counters?

Do you want me to show you the list that I played against that had everything that I mentioned in it to you can try to find a way to counter it? Here is a rough outline:
1850 points
CCS
LC
2 Blob squads
Vets in Chimera
3 Lascannon sabers
3 Lascannon sabers
Vulture Gunship
Vendetta
2 Earthshaker batteries
2 Medusa batteries
ADL

2 Rune Priests
8 Grey Hunters w/Drop pod


And the LC+CCS is 120 points. Blob squads are dirt cheap. You still have plenty of points for your FW artillery and your SW allies.

Helldrakes eh? You forgot that the blob squads get to take lascannon saber defense platforms that have skyfire and interceptor and some of the best fliers in the game. And it's not like heldrakes are that big of a threat to cheap IG and T7 artillery anyways.

 Blackmoor wrote:

This is why you need practical experience with FW before you can comment on it because all of the counters that people think of have counters.

Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.


This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?

Maybe you should read the rules again yourself, the guns in an artillery unit cannot go to ground and so are stuck with a 4+ cover save. have you heard of focus fire? I pick 4+ and then you can choose not to go to ground with the squad and take 4+ coversaves on everybody, or go to ground and have the wounds resolved against the guns.

so to benefit thats pretty much your entire army, hidden behind an aegis in a corner of your deployment zone, clustered for an artillery strike. wow, thats er, "competitive". how are you going to take objectives?

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think the cost/durability ratio with FW artillery is way out of whack with the 6th ed change. I think that's pretty clear. Thudd Guns and Helios platforms make Helldrakes and Annihilation Barges look overpriced by comparison.

I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced, but I do think including those two units indisputably makes it more so.

These are my thoughts nicely summed up.

yak, it's every TO's call to make. There is no "right" imo, which makes it worth discussing (and discussing compromises / common ground).

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think the cost/durability ratio with FW artillery is way out of whack with the 6th ed change. I think that's pretty clear. Thudd Guns and Helios platforms make Helldrakes and Annihilation Barges look overpriced by comparison.

I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced, but I do think including those two units indisputably makes it more so.

These are my thoughts nicely summed up.

And long fangs were just as unbalanced when they were released, but we didn't ban them.

ItsPug wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

This is why you need practical experience with FW before you can comment on it because all of the counters that people think of have counters.

Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.


This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?

Maybe you should read the rules again yourself, the guns in an artillery unit cannot go to ground and so are stuck with a 4+ cover save. have you heard of focus fire? I pick 4+ and then you can choose not to go to ground with the squad and take 4+ coversaves on everybody, or go to ground and have the wounds resolved against the guns.

so to benefit thats pretty much your entire army, hidden behind an aegis in a corner of your deployment zone, clustered for an artillery strike. wow, thats er, "competitive". how are you going to take objectives?

Hmmmmm, no, I hadn't thought of that. What's the pg. #?

I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced

Exactly! GW has really done an amazing job this go-round. Its becoming more and more clear with each new codex.