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.

Well, a lot of that artillery doesnt need LoS, so you'd actually be making it a bigger issue in some ways!

I think currently, the best way to handle it would be to restrict the amounts of each unit you can take. As far as I am aware that is how the 11th Company GT is handling it, as of now and I believe that would be a good compromise.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

I have heard a request for Mathhammer! Ask and it shall be so!

Hits (Twin-linked, 20 shots, BS3): 20*(1/2 + ((1-1/2)*1/2)) = 15

MEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T4) = 10
Unsaved Wounds (3+) = 3.33

GEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T3) = 12.5
Unsaved Wounds (5+) = 8.33

No, it's not THAT scary.

Edit for Corrected Math:

Hits (Twin-linked, 20 shots, BS4): 20*(4/6 + ((1-4/6)*4/6)) = 17.78

MEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T4) = 11.85
Unsaved Wounds (3+) = 3.95

GEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T3) = 14.81
Unsaved Wounds (5+) = 9.87

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

And you know how I deal with sabres? I swamp them and assault them at which point they're undersized guardsmen blocks who die in mere moments. This is the edition of massive hordes, you should have enough boys to get into assault range and murder them all without hassle.

And I do mind them being banned, because it punishes people who have put time and effort into their armies to accommodate some gripers. I've been playing since 2e and I'm certainly not going to bend over to some little timmy who's upset that he has to horror of horrors, adapt a little to accomodate to some new units like he does every time a new codex hits.

I have no sympathy to people who can't adapt to meta alterations. Which apparently includes you good sir.

it shows the ignorance of people when they just look at one unit and figure out a way to beat it, and they completely ignore the reality of the game of 40k.

It is how all of these units work together that is the problem. Remember Thudd Guns? You have them with your saber platforms, and they will kill your gant squads. Also they are bubble wrapped with blob guardsmen backed up by rune priests. They can blow your gants off of the table before you can even get close.

You show how little you know about 40k when you make a statement that all you have to do is swamp them in assault.

Ad hominem attacks, classy as ever I see.

Biovores should clear off his bubble wrap squads with relative ease, at which point he's vulnerable to the literal tidal wave of bugs that have been spawned by this point.

Things like podding in choir Zoanthropes en masse and swarms of devilgants and toxin gargoyles bulldozing in for assault while the biovores pound away to let the borer gants and tervigons roll forward provide for maximum threat overload. There's too many threats to handle at once (unless you're the ****ing Tau, the damned Grey Knights, or Crons with their damned AV13 wall), so you effectively do nothing of value before dying.

And just to spite you, I have freshly spawned gants on the objectives while your guardsmen are digested in the bellies of the Tyranids.

FW Imperial Guard has never bothered me, and I've prided myself on repeatedly tabling the FW IG players around my meta with the "lolsucks" Tyranids. They're not that much of a problem for me.


Now the Tau...

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

I have heard a request for Mathhammer! Ask and it shall be so!

Hits (Twin-linked, 20 shots, BS3): 20*(1/2 + ((1-1/2)*1/2)) = 15

MEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T4) = 10
Unsaved Wounds (3+) = 3.33

GEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T3) = 12.5
Unsaved Wounds (5+) = 8.33

No, it's not THAT scary.

It's definitely not an OP scary unit. But it's very, very good, good enough that I would always take one alongside 2 Vendettas. It offers very good anti-air with the ability to hit rear arc of other Flyers with a ton of Str. 5.

 LValx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

I have heard a request for Mathhammer! Ask and it shall be so!

Hits (Twin-linked, 20 shots, BS3): 20*(1/2 + ((1-1/2)*1/2)) = 15

MEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T4) = 10
Unsaved Wounds (3+) = 3.33

GEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T3) = 12.5
Unsaved Wounds (5+) = 8.33

No, it's not THAT scary.

It's definitely not an OP scary unit. But it's very, very good, good enough that I would always take one alongside 2 Vendettas. It offers very good anti-air with the ability to hit rear arc of other Flyers with a ton of Str. 5.

Vendettas are better for AA. From the perspective of an Elysian player, if you're playing a flyer, knowing your opponent has a Vulture with TL Punishers, and you still set yourself up for a 20 rear-arc Str 5's, then the issue lies with you and not the other flyer. Also, Stormravens laugh at rear arc str 5's.

Math is wrong on the Vulture. It has the strafing run special rule so it's BS4 against infantry. Just throwing it out there.

Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

Yeah, my bad on that one. I copied over an old formula I used for IG last time. I'll go fix it.

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

That's like...one more dead marine...

Yay?

 Kain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

That's like...one more dead marine...

Yay?

I wasn't arguing about the Vulture's quality as a unit. I'm not really sure what your point is.

As ever in this discussion, it's not really about whether good players can deal with FW. Arguing they can is utterly pointless to the issues TO's are faced with. I'm not going to stop winning most of my GT games just because FW is added; hell, I'll happily abuse the more powerful FW units to even more potently win games. I don't care about me, or any other vetted successful GT gamer. On their own, know what they're getting into, and know they'll win or lose based on skill against their top peers, and not on whether FW is legal. That's really not the point.

 Kain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

That's like...one more dead marine...

Yay?

It is 12+ dead gants that you are swarming the sabers with.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

I have heard a request for Mathhammer! Ask and it shall be so!

Hits (Twin-linked, 20 shots, BS3): 20*(1/2 + ((1-1/2)*1/2)) = 15

MEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T4) = 10
Unsaved Wounds (3+) = 3.33

GEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T3) = 12.5
Unsaved Wounds (5+) = 8.33

No, it's not THAT scary.

It's definitely not an OP scary unit. But it's very, very good, good enough that I would always take one alongside 2 Vendettas. It offers very good anti-air with the ability to hit rear arc of other Flyers with a ton of Str. 5.

Vendettas are better for AA. From the perspective of an Elysian player, if you're playing a flyer, knowing your opponent has a Vulture with TL Punishers, and you still set yourself up for a 20 rear-arc Str 5's, then the issue lies with you and not the other flyer. Also, Stormravens laugh at rear arc str 5's.

Sure, a smart player can avoid it. But if the threat of the Vulture forces you to play differently then it's already having a meaningful impact.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Kain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

That's like...one more dead marine...

Yay?

I wasn't arguing about the Vulture's quality as a unit. I'm not really sure what your point is.

As ever in this discussion, it's not really about whether good players can deal with FW. Arguing they can is utterly pointless to the issues TO's are faced with. I'm not going to stop winning most of my GT games just because FW is added; hell, I'll happily abuse the more powerful FW units to even more potently win games. I don't care about me, or any other vetted successful GT gamer. On their own, know what they're getting into, and know they'll win or lose based on skill against their top peers, and not on whether FW is legal. That's really not the point.

How's this different from everyone jumping onto the Necron, Tau, and Eldar bandwagon now that they're the current kings of the meta?

 LValx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 LValx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:

It won't kill enough infantry. Punisher vultures can't put enough of a dent in my gant swarms to matter and they can't get enough wounds through my MCs to matter either. Not unless you want to divert three of them to one target, in which case you are better served by the Vendetta, which is still the most unfair unit of all time.

I don't have my books with me but how many MEQs/GEQs can it kill?

I have heard a request for Mathhammer! Ask and it shall be so!

Hits (Twin-linked, 20 shots, BS3): 20*(1/2 + ((1-1/2)*1/2)) = 15

MEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T4) = 10
Unsaved Wounds (3+) = 3.33

GEQs
Inflicted Wounds (S5 vs. T3) = 12.5
Unsaved Wounds (5+) = 8.33

No, it's not THAT scary.

It's definitely not an OP scary unit. But it's very, very good, good enough that I would always take one alongside 2 Vendettas. It offers very good anti-air with the ability to hit rear arc of other Flyers with a ton of Str. 5.

Vendettas are better for AA. From the perspective of an Elysian player, if you're playing a flyer, knowing your opponent has a Vulture with TL Punishers, and you still set yourself up for a 20 rear-arc Str 5's, then the issue lies with you and not the other flyer. Also, Stormravens laugh at rear arc str 5's.

Sure, a smart player can avoid it. But if the threat of the Vulture forces you to play differently then it's already having a meaningful impact.

What, just like how every unit you spend points for would?

Not every unit can threaten Flyers reliably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 Kain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Vultures are BS4 vs. Ground Targets. OIne more little bit of data to prove the much bigger point ... MOST players (not noisy pro/con dakka posters like all of us here) don't really know much about FW, and that's exacerbated by the fact that among even the knowledgeable "us" we get things wrong routinely.

That's like...one more dead marine...

Yay?

I wasn't arguing about the Vulture's quality as a unit. I'm not really sure what your point is.

As ever in this discussion, it's not really about whether good players can deal with FW. Arguing they can is utterly pointless to the issues TO's are faced with. I'm not going to stop winning most of my GT games just because FW is added; hell, I'll happily abuse the more powerful FW units to even more potently win games. I don't care about me, or any other vetted successful GT gamer. On their own, know what they're getting into, and know they'll win or lose based on skill against their top peers, and not on whether FW is legal. That's really not the point.

How's this different from everyone jumping onto the Necron, Tau, and Eldar bandwagon now that they're the current kings of the meta?

It isn't.

I know I said it like a couple posts ago, but can we stop arguing the tactics of dealing with FW units? Not only is it taking players in this thread goign back and forth to even process all the issues with them, how to counter them, and why initially thought of counters don't work after all (which means, in a game when someone sees them the first time and thinks up his initial game plan and is an average player ... OOPS he was wrong, and loses, and that's that), it's completely irrelevant - at least to me as a TO, and I think to most TOs.

Whoever the good players are in this day and age, they don't care what is legal or not that much. It may influence their decision to attend an event, but they can and will deal with what's thrown at them, and they will win or lose on skill, and not army list. Has been and will be.

The issue is the large swathe of the majority of GT attendees. MOST of them don't know much about FW, unless FW is already common in their region (I.E., my understanding is FW is common at local game stores on the West Coast). If it's not, when they attend the regionally "big" GT as their one big event of the year, FW units are going to catch them off guard where regular codex-legal units WILL NOT, especially the ones that the other MAJORITY of attendees from their region are already playing around with to begin with.

The argument to be had is about familiarity, access, and fairness toward the "Average" guy. The arguments about exactly HOW powerful things are or whether or not someone can theorycraft a solution to them with the time and space and utter list vacuum of the internet is completely irrelevant and ineffective to those of us making decisions about legalizing them in our events.

PS - I also wish people would stop putting up the unsupported claim that it's no different from perceived-as-OP codex units. It's not really about what is or isn't OP, or whether randoms on the internet think something is or isn't OP. I think NONE of the scythes/drakes/etc. are OP, and I'm a multi-GT winner! ALSO POINTLESS AS A COMMENT, despite it being one I can make with a straight face as being my opinion.

It's really about expectations and fairness to the average gamer, who is the majority by far of a tournament's attendance. My initial view was that the majority did not care. Then, a large # of that very hefty average majority told me NOT to allow them in my GT when I floated the idea. Guess that strawman was wrong, even though I was arguing it with myself. Didn't keep me from saying "Deal with it, FW LEGAL" in half my 4 x 40k events, but also did keep me from saying "DEAL WITH IT EVERYWHERE" to a big group of players being largely ignored by an argument circle almost entirely focused on "power level" and not spending nearly enough time on regional and global familiarity / commonality.

Powerful or not, the new "hotness" from codices is common EVERYWHERE. People may think they're too powerful, but they know exactly what they might run into b/c they're the basic codex units, they're popular, and they're new. This is entirely NOT the case with FW.

MVBrandt wrote:
I know I said it like a couple posts ago, but can we stop arguing the tactics of dealing with FW units? Not only is it taking players in this thread goign back and forth to even process all the issues with them, how to counter them, and why initially thought of counters don't work after all (which means, in a game when someone sees them the first time and thinks up his initial game plan and is an average player ... OOPS he was wrong, and loses, and that's that), it's completely irrelevant - at least to me as a TO, and I think to most TOs.

To be honest, I thought we exhausted every argument that there was at the end of Page 28. It was five days dormant, about to die naturally and quietly, and then Phazael and Blackmoor decided to post two unrelated posts which ressurected it, the latter of which was never substantiated. And then we had newcomers to the thread start posting arguments we had seen for the past 20 pages already.

MVBrandt wrote:
I know I said it like a couple posts ago, but can we stop arguing the tactics of dealing with FW units? Not only is it taking players in this thread goign back and forth to even process all the issues with them, how to counter them, and why initially thought of counters don't work after all (which means, in a game when someone sees them the first time and thinks up his initial game plan and is an average player ... OOPS he was wrong, and loses, and that's that), it's completely irrelevant - at least to me as a TO, and I think to most TOs.

Whoever the good players are in this day and age, they don't care what is legal or not that much. It may influence their decision to attend an event, but they can and will deal with what's thrown at them, and they will win or lose on skill, and not army list. Has been and will be.

The issue is the large swathe of the majority of GT attendees. MOST of them don't know much about FW, unless FW is already common in their region (I.E., my understanding is FW is common at local game stores on the West Coast). If it's not, when they attend the regionally "big" GT as their one big event of the year, FW units are going to catch them off guard where regular codex-legal units WILL NOT, especially the ones that the other MAJORITY of attendees from their region are already playing around with to begin with.

The argument to be had is about familiarity, access, and fairness toward the "Average" guy. The arguments about exactly HOW powerful things are or whether or not someone can theorycraft a solution to them with the time and space and utter list vacuum of the internet is completely irrelevant and ineffective to those of us making decisions about legalizing them in our events.

 Kain wrote:
Ad hominem attacks, classy as ever I see.

Would you like me to make it as classy as yours below?

 Kain wrote:

I have no sympathy to people who can't adapt to meta alterations. Which apparently includes you good sir.

MVBrandt, I agree with your post, and it's why I participated quite a bit in the debate this time. I felt that, at the start of 6th edition, this issue was considered in the wrong light. I think, absolutely, familiarity and what most players would prefer are large factors (I would say the "largest", but I think balance and the distribution of units matter, too).

That said, familiarity and preference, I think, become less pronounced as problems when considering some limitations on FW (like AdeptiCon). The issues are reduced, because nobody's going to be facing a Lot of anything, so it's a way for folks to "get their feet wet" facing FW. I certainly enjoyed doing so, whereas I would likely have been put off by all-out inclusion.

But anyway, I totally agree that arguing with the "average GT attendee" in mind is important. Of course, that's hard to tell since this is internet but maybe you can put out a poll after this year's Nova / hand it out along with the player packet / etc? Muwhe, maybe a similar process at AdeptiCon? I would be curious about the results, if things are trending a certain way, etc.

Cheers again to all the TOs taking part in this discussion, it is much appreciated

 RiTides wrote:
MVBrandt, I agree with your post, and it's why I participated quite a bit in the debate this time. I felt that, at the start of 6th edition, this issue was considered in the wrong light. I think, absolutely, familiarity and what most players would prefer are large factors (I would say the "largest", but I think balance and the distribution of units matter, too).

That said, familiarity and preference, I think, become less pronounced as problems when considering some limitations on FW (like AdeptiCon). The issues are reduced, because nobody's going to be facing a Lot of anything, so it's a way for folks to "get their feet wet" facing FW. I certainly enjoyed doing so, whereas I would likely have been put off by all-out inclusion.

But anyway, I totally agree that arguing with the "average GT attendee" in mind is important. Of course, that's hard to tell since this is internet but maybe you can put out a poll after this year's Nova / hand it out along with the player packet / etc? Muwhe, maybe a similar process at AdeptiCon? I would be curious about the results, if things are trending a certain way, etc.

Cheers again to all the TOs taking part in this discussion, it is much appreciated

The policies of AdeptiCon and NOVA regarding Forgeworld are remarkably similar, except that we do not apply any restrictions within the Narrative. Our GTs have the exact same policies. So do our team events. They are of a different scope, of course, but AdeptiCon is several times the size/scope and more than twice as well-established years-wise as NOVA, so I'm not sure how much a comparison is meaningful. Suffice to say our policies should show that I basically agree with you / AdeptiCon in terms of approaching FW.

I didn't really mean a comparison between events (I'm a fan of both), just a poll of gamers at those events. If it was the exact same poll, that'd be even better! As you say, might not mean much... but it'd be a hard data point in a sea of hypotheses

Does the team tournament (Trios?) at Nova allow limited instead of full-FW? You mention their having the same policies... if so, that'd be very intriguing to me. One thing keeping me from competing in that is the need to have an entire army painted up to good standards, instead of just the half needed for team play, since players alternate into 1v1 matches too. I've been craving another 2v2 format if you ever decide to go that route (not to take the thread off-topic, but just to put it out there )

 RiTides wrote:
I didn't really mean a comparison between events (I'm a fan of both), just a poll of gamers at those events. If it was the exact same poll, that'd be even better! As you say, might not mean much... but it'd be a hard data point in a sea of hypotheses

Does the team tournament (Trios?) at Nova allow limited instead of full-FW? You mention their having the same policies... if so, that'd be very intriguing to me. One thing keeping me from competing in that is the need to have an entire army painted up to good standards, instead of just the half needed for team play, since players alternate into 1v1 matches too. I've been craving another 2v2 format if you ever decide to go that route (not to take the thread off-topic, but just to put it out there )

Yes, FW as Unique, same policy for the Trios.

Fascinating... thank you

MVBrandt wrote:
Whoever the good players are in this day and age, they don't care what is legal or not that much. It may influence their decision to attend an event, but they can and will deal with what's thrown at them, and they will win or lose on skill, and not army list. Has been and will be.

Speak for yourself. FW is the devil and I would lose all my games to it and never use a single unit and I'm awesome at toy soldiers

But seriously, I'd feel bad for my opponents for the first 2-3 rounds of a GT if FW was fully legal. That is all.

I love you, Brad. Also, Alan's overwhelming points accrual from rounds 1-4 and more plateaued showing in rounds 5-7 @ wgc kinda proves the point. The mid crowd gets punked even worse and less expectedly, while the top echelon is largely unaffected.

 Hulksmash wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Whoever the good players are in this day and age, they don't care what is legal or not that much. It may influence their decision to attend an event, but they can and will deal with what's thrown at them, and they will win or lose on skill, and not army list. Has been and will be.

Speak for yourself. FW is the devil and I would lose all my games to it and never use a single unit and I'm awesome at toy soldiers

But seriously, I'd feel bad for my opponents for the first 2-3 rounds of a GT if FW was fully legal. That is all.

I guess here it boils down to, do the current power lists not already make you do that? And if they're showing up to a GT for competitive ranked play, why should you feel bad?

I mean, I can understand the feeling for pickup games, I wouldn't bring a dozen Sabre platforms and an array of Thudd guns to a friendly pickup game any more than I'd bring a trio of Heldrakes, but these are the "big leagues", if someone didn't come prepared for competitive play, then that's their own mistake and their unpreparedness has likely made the game less fun for you as well if you came looking for a challenge.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "come prepared for competitive play".

'Ard Boyz for fantasy kind of illustrated this to me. There are some things that were legal, but were just not done for normal fantasy GTs. At 'Ard Boyz, all bets were off.

Personally, my showing up to a GT is not to participate in an 'Ard Boyz style event. I pay and travel for the whole experience: competitive play, beautiful armies, world-class gamers and hobbyists. Not just to kick somebody's teeth in.

So, imo it's a factor. This is also why familiarity matters, even though technically from a pure competitive standpoint you could say (and some here, have ) "suck it up!". People pay a lot of money to go to events they'll enjoy, and unlimited FW could be argued to take away from the whole experience. Whereas my experience with limited FW at AdeptiCon was the opposite, extremely positive. Didn't go near the Gladiator with a 10-foot pole, though (actually I did, but just to watch... not "Enter the dragon", so to speak)

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Ad hominem attacks, classy as ever I see.

Would you like me to make it as classy as yours below?

 Kain wrote:

I have no sympathy to people who can't adapt to meta alterations. Which apparently includes you good sir.

I made no attack on your credibility as the crux of my argument. It is not logically fallacious to call someone wrong and dumb, it is a fallacy to call them wrong because they are dumb however. Here I'm simply saying that you are apparently to hidebound to a meta that in reality is utterly imbalanced without FW to which the addition of does nothing to worsen and therefore are not worthy of my sympathy.

Necrons, Tau, and Eldar have almost completely gutted the meta and turned it topsy turvy. Shall we ban those three armies because they have forced the entire game to bend around ways to killing them?

No that would be silly.

I get that, but then we're still back to the question, do you feel bad already? If so, FW won't make much of a difference, it'll just be different things that do it.

And realistically most of what we're talking about boils down to a very small number of units. Even amongst the much bemoaned Artillery, nobody seems to be calling out units like Heavy Mortars, Rapiers, Tarantulas, or non-Lascannon Sabres.