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.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
While the pro-FW strike team in this thread has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.

Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Tyranids ?

Fairness is not an attitude. It's a professional skill that must be developed and exercised.

Brit Hume ?

MVBrandt wrote:
If you don't use it, you're obviously just not aware of the rules that say it is an automatic must-use part of the game!!!!!!

According to this quote, MVB is totally pro-FW.

NeedleofInquiry wrote:Well, I'd pull out my sisters army but I can not seem to get a GW Codex codex for it.....I keep getting stares when I pull out 2 White Dwarf magazines that are falling apart.....

Seriously? I have never had anyone give me crap or look at me funny for pulling out the white dwarfs or my photocopied version that I use during games. I do usually explain why I use the photocopy and show them the WD though at the start of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
While the pro-FW strike team in this thread has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.

Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Tyranids ?

I think he meant good arguments.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Tyranids ?

There isn't a single model there that would convince me to say "Man... I sure do wish Forge World was more accepted around here."

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
While the pro-FW strike team in this thread has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.

Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Tyranids ?

Fairness is not an attitude. It's a professional skill that must be developed and exercised.

Brit Hume ?

This link does 100% nothing for persuasion. Harridans, Heirophants, and Heirodules are not 40k approved. Already own several fexes, shrikes, and sky slashers self converted. So the best thing you have for me is a Malanthrope? Got anything better, I'll pass on the malanthrope if it means I don't have to face thudds, sabres, and basilisk carriages.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
While the pro-FW strike team in this thread has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.

If you'll notice, there were some non-witty responses, and there was no response from you to any of the arguments put forth in response to your claims.

You claimed that the pro-FW posters all play IG. This was retorted with statements that no, it's not just IG players or people who only play IG. I myself happen to play Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Eldar, Tau, and sometimes Sisters and Grey Knights in addition to Imperial Guard.

You claimed that your issue was with FW having more units for certain armies. It was then pointed out that already there's nothing resembling unit count balance between books currently, and that no such issue is apparently seen for White Dwarf releases, so why the double standard?

You pointed out that you can go into a store and just pickup and play with the stuff there, this was responded to by pointing out that no, there are in fact certain models, units, and even armies that aren't FW that this is not possible for, such as Sisters of Battle, Hydra Flak Tanks, etc.

All I've seen is:

"40k approved, I don't need permission"

and

"Codexes already have broken units, so what's the problem with including more?"

Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?

You're misrepresenting the argument.

Someone puts forth "its broken", its responded with "X, Y, Z codex units have similar issues, why the double-standard for unit A from FW?" It's not just 'well X can do it why can't Y", there's a double standard being applied with the only justification being "it's not in a book where the title starts with "Codex:".


I can't argue specifically for a Tyranid player, you're looking for a carrot. I will respond, why do you need the carrot to let someone else have theirs? If you're going to be against FW just because it has nothing for your army and not allow other people to use their Warhammer 40,000 models to represent things from the Warhammer 40,000 universe, I can't give you anything other than you get to see cool new models and play against armies that you might otherwise not ever get to.

MVBrandt wrote:
You can say it until you are blue in the face, but a large mass of players, and the fairly obvious "status quo" is not pro-FW, and does not see FW as an OBVIOUS part of 40k rules that everyone needs to just accept and play.

Taking the stance that it *already is* fully accepted and used everywhere by "normal" 40k players and should be accepted by tournaments of all kinds and formats, and that any tournament that doesn't is somehow outlawing part of the "basic" game ... is an ineffective stance to take, b/c it doesn't resonate even really with those who are putting it forth (or else, why argue so hard?).

You are more likely to be effective trying to persuade the masses who do not routinely see it or play with it that it SHOULD BE, and is fun to use, and no more expensive, and has no broken units, and has fun things for every codex to enjoy, etc., etc., than basically saying "If you don't use it, you're obviously just not aware of the rules that say it is an automatic must-use part of the game!!!!!!"

"What are you doing here? We don't want your kind here. We took a vote and we don't care what the rules says. We just think you look and act different and might scare the women folk so you just clear on out...." Just cleared up your soliloquy for you...

I never said you had to use the 40K approved, I did say it is a part of the rules. i do not particularly care what the "status quo" is or how things, how did you put it, oh yes "Resonate" ... I just believe in playing by all of the rules.

You can chose what to do.

I'm not blue in the face either....

And I am suggesting, as a TO who runs substantially-attended events in all forms of "FW approved/not-approved," you may be more successful in creating venues to play the way you *believe* to be "full / all rules 40k" by doing something other than trolling (however cleverly) // posting about how you believe it's one way and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.

Giving fair due to the thoughts and opinions of many other people is part of what being a TO is all about. That doesn't mean you have to also, but you'll be more convincing with your opinions.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
While the pro-FW strike team in this thread has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.

If you'll notice, there were some non-witty responses, and there was no response from you to any of the arguments put forth in response to your claims.

You claimed that the pro-FW posters all play IG. This was retorted with statements that no, it's not just IG players or people who only play IG. I myself happen to play Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Eldar, Tau, and sometimes Sisters and Grey Knights in addition to Imperial Guard.

You claimed that your issue was with FW having more units for certain armies. It was then pointed out that already there's nothing resembling unit count balance between books currently, and that no such issue is apparently seen for White Dwarf releases, so why the double standard?

You pointed out that you can go into a store and just pickup and play with the stuff there, this was responded to by pointing out that no, there are in fact certain models, units, and even armies that aren't FW that this is not possible for, such as Sisters of Battle, Hydra Flak Tanks, etc.

All I've seen is:

"40k approved, I don't need permission"

and

"Codexes already have broken units, so what's the problem with including more?"

Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?

You're misrepresenting the argument.

Someone puts forth "its broken", its responded with "X, Y, Z codex units have similar issues, why the double-standard for unit A from FW?" It's not just 'well X can do it why can't Y", there's a double standard being applied with the only justification being "it's not in a book where the title starts with "Codex:".


I can't argue specifically for a Tyranid player, you're looking for a carrot. I will respond, why do you need the carrot to let someone else have theirs? If you're going to be against FW just because it has nothing for your army and not allow other people to use their Warhammer 40,000 models to represent things from the Warhammer 40,000 universe, I can't give you anything other than you get to see cool new models and play against armies that you might otherwise not ever get to.

Yes, the pro side play other armies but the common unifying factor is IG across the board, which is beyond coincidence since FW primarily favors IG.

Yes, some codexes have more total units than others, but the bottom line is every army has a codex with multiple options from 2-8 in each FO slot. FW does not provide the same opportunities for every army.

The double standard you claim is invented. GW makes an army codex for every army. FW does not provide an army supplement for every army. They offer HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast, and Heavy options for IG but do not for tyranids, DE, and many other xenos.

I'm not denying others their "carrot". I have my codex and they have theirs. There's enough diversity and options to build limitless armies given the code codexes, fortifications, and allied matrix. Why would I push to change my tournament environment in a way that GROSSLY favors some armies over others? Using existing units as example of imbalance to justify futher imbalance doesn't work for me.

MVBrandt wrote:
And I am suggesting, as a TO who runs substantially-attended events in all forms of "FW approved/not-approved," you may be more successful in creating venues to play the way you *believe* to be "full / all rules 40k" by doing something other than trolling (however cleverly) // posting about how you believe it's one way and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.

Giving fair due to the thoughts and opinions of many other people is part of what being a TO is all about. That doesn't mean you have to also, but you'll be more convincing with your opinions.

40k Approved is legal for 40k according to the company that makes it.

There is not an opinion there.

You can run your events as you wish.

I understand to sell more tickets and to keep your elites happy, and qualm the fears of those masses of folks who may have never actually played against a 40k Approved army that think it is over balanced or pay to win as I have seen in this discussion.

I just happen to disagree.

In my mind if you say you are running a 40k event, you need to use all of the rules.

In the end it is your event.

hyv3mynd wrote:

Yes, the pro side play other armies but the common unifying factor is IG across the board, which is beyond coincidence since FW primarily favors IG.

So was Sisters and Tau apparently.

Yes, some codexes have more total units than others, but the bottom line is every army has a codex with multiple options from 2-8 in each FO slot. FW does not provide the same opportunities for every army.

The double standard you claim is invented. GW makes an army codex for every army. FW does not provide an army supplement for every army. They offer HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast, and Heavy options for IG but do not for tyranids, DE, and many other xenos.

You'll pardon me if I have issues with this but...this really doesn't make sense to me.

GW makes a codex book with a random, unequal and *highly* variable number of units in each FoC slot for every army and that's fine. Ok, everyone is on the same page.

FW offers additional units for those armies with similar random and unequal distribution...that's where there is a problem.

I'm not denying others their "carrot". I have my codex and they have theirs. There's enough diversity and options to build limitless armies given the code codexes, fortifications, and allied matrix. Why would I push to change my tournament environment in a way that GROSSLY favors some armies over others?

So, codex updates then that massively change the meta-game are out too? I can guarantee you using the new Eldar codex against your Tyranids is going to put those nids at a much greater disadvantage than using the old book. That said, the codex books do not cover the full breadth of the 40k universe. Hell, some units have gone from being Codex to FW and back to Codex again (e.g. IG Griffon and Vanquisher) and nobody seems to have an issue when an IA units shows up in a codex (e.g. Pirhanas, Hydras...Trygons).

Again, this largely seems to boil down to "I want a carrot too", yet doesn't seem to apply to anything but FW stuff. I don't see anyone trying to use this line of thinking to refuse playing against WD units or new codex units for example.

Using existing units as example of imbalance to justify futher imbalance doesn't work for me.

That's largely been in response to the accusations that FW is severely more imbalanced than GW codex units, which such comparisons are used to show is not demonstrably true.

rigeld2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's not an auto-lose dude.

I didn't say it was ... ? I said I was scared of it. As in - it's possible for me to win but it would take exceptional luck/stupidity from my opponent. And I use a low model count Nid army - horde Nids are essentially auto-lose.

A Tervagon list? Now, THAT list scares me... all them biomancy powah!

Fair enough.

This player really didn't want to play against a dual Ravenwing/Death wing list. (well, from memory one squad of termies and rest bikes/speeders). Fortunately, he didn't face the DA player... because if the DA player has first turn, he can neuter the thudd guns by scouting forward and on first turn, turn the bikes side-ways and be 1" away. The cupcake template wouldn't be able to land w/o touching his own unit.

That's not true. The bikes are 1" away, the base of the bike is about an inch thick. Placing the center of the "cupcake" marker at the edge of the bike means you're short of hitting your own unit.
Or are you under the mistaken impression that the center of the marker must be centered on the target's base?

Well dip me in butter... I re-checked the rules book... you're right. I thought you had to center the blast hole on the target's base. Well... then, that tactic wouldn't work. THANKS!

Another list he really didn't want to play was a 5 (or 6) Landraider BA spam. The only reason he still won that game, was that the terrain was stacked to his favor... there were terrain pieces all over the place, such that the LR player had to roll for dangerous terrain multiple times per movement phase... thus, immobilising himself more often than not.

Then it wasn't a well built IG army. Tanks are something that IG just should never be afraid of.

It was a gimmick IG list for sure... all the LRs had to do was to tankshock 'em off the table.

I was playing CSM+Deamon allies... I was chopping at the bit to get matched up to him as I could deepstrike half my army easily. *shrugs*

Deep Striking is actually the thing you really don't want to do. If you fire, you're in perfect "Own me now" position for all the blasts. If you run and spread out a) you can roll a 1 b) you caused no casualties for 2 turns with that unit.

DS + run was the idea...

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
And I am suggesting, as a TO who runs substantially-attended events in all forms of "FW approved/not-approved," you may be more successful in creating venues to play the way you *believe* to be "full / all rules 40k" by doing something other than trolling (however cleverly) // posting about how you believe it's one way and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.

Giving fair due to the thoughts and opinions of many other people is part of what being a TO is all about. That doesn't mean you have to also, but you'll be more convincing with your opinions.

40k Approved is legal for 40k according to the company that makes it.

There is not an opinion there.

You can run your events as you wish.

I understand to sell more tickets and to keep your elites happy, and qualm the fears of those masses of folks who may have never actually played against a 40k Approved army that think it is over balanced or pay to win as I have seen in this discussion.

I just happen to disagree.

In my mind if you say you are running a 40k event, you need to use all of the rules.

In the end it is your event.

As MVBrandt basically straight-out stated, you are not doing your cause any favors here.

The man already runs 2 out of 4 events at his GT allowing FW. Talking in absolutes and still using the language of "keep your elites happy" "qualm the fears of those masses", etc... yeah, not a very convincing argument

You'll catch more flies with honey, etc etc

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Yes, the pro side play other armies but the common unifying factor is IG across the board, which is beyond coincidence since FW primarily favors IG.

Except that IS a coincidence, since most of us started IG armies before the "overpowered" IG units existed. Remember, until 6th changed the artillery rules these were all mediocre at best things that nobody cared about. Most of us probably started because of the models, not the rules.

Yes, some codexes have more total units than others, but the bottom line is every army has a codex with multiple options from 2-8 in each FO slot. FW does not provide the same opportunities for every army.

I see, so as predicted you find a way to rationalize away the fact that codex favoritism is just as bad as FW favoritism. I guess C:SM getting almost twice as many units as Tau is fine, but IG getting more FW units than Tau by a similar margin is the end of the world.

They offer HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast, and Heavy options for IG but do not for tyranids, DE, and many other xenos.

And, as I've said, this is completely false. DE and Tyranids are the only xenos armies that FW doesn't make many options for. Orks, Tau, Necrons and Eldar get plenty of options (and all but Tau even get entire army lists), which means that only one third of the xenos armies are poorly supported. That is far, far short of "many other xenos".

(And let's not forget the historical reasons for that lack of balance: Tyranids got an entire book but then the Tyranid codex claimed those options, while DE were a banned subject for many years before GW redid their design.)

I'm not denying others their "carrot". I have my codex and they have theirs. There's enough diversity and options to build limitless armies given the code codexes, fortifications, and allied matrix.

Of course you're denying people stuff. GW says that certain units I have chosen for my army are part of the standard game. You are entitled to a belief that I don't deserve to be allowed to use them and should buy different ones to make a codex-only army, but don't pretend that you aren't taking anything away.

 RiTides wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
And I am suggesting, as a TO who runs substantially-attended events in all forms of "FW approved/not-approved," you may be more successful in creating venues to play the way you *believe* to be "full / all rules 40k" by doing something other than trolling (however cleverly) // posting about how you believe it's one way and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.

Giving fair due to the thoughts and opinions of many other people is part of what being a TO is all about. That doesn't mean you have to also, but you'll be more convincing with your opinions.

40k Approved is legal for 40k according to the company that makes it.

There is not an opinion there.

You can run your events as you wish.

I understand to sell more tickets and to keep your elites happy, and qualm the fears of those masses of folks who may have never actually played against a 40k Approved army that think it is over balanced or pay to win as I have seen in this discussion.

I just happen to disagree.

In my mind if you say you are running a 40k event, you need to use all of the rules.

In the end it is your event.

As MVBrandt basically straight-out stated, you are not doing your cause any favors here.

The man already runs 2 out of 4 events at his GT allowing FW. Talking in absolutes and still using the language of "keep your elites happy" "qualm the fears of those masses", etc... yeah, not a very convincing argument

You'll catch more flies with honey, etc etc

I too have to agree with what MVBrandt has commented. I like how he runs his tournaments. I also like how he has come to this site and express his viewpoints in a nice and yet professional manner.

So just in response to those that think codex imbalance should make additional imbalance a non issue

Codex sm + FW = 88 units

Codex tau + FW = 39 units.

So more than double 49 units more. The original gap is 20 units so the gap increases by 29 units....seems fair and balanced

Breng77 wrote:
So just in response to those that think codex imbalance should make additional imbalance a non issue

The point is that it's a blatant double standard to complain about a difference in number of units (ignoring power level of those units) favoring Imperial armies with FW rules while accepting a similar difference in number in codex units as just part of the game.

So more than double 49 units more. The original gap is 20 units so the gap increases by 29 units....seems fair and balanced

One thing you're leaving out is that many of those extra C:SM "units" are actually just Badab War characters. C:SM get a long list of slight variations on a captain or chapter master, most of them completely forgettable and only included for the sake of giving every chapter that was involved in the war at least one character. So it increases the total unit count significantly, but doesn't really add all that many new options to C:SM.

Breng77 wrote:
So just in response to those that think codex imbalance should make additional imbalance a non issue

Codex sm + FW = 88 units

Codex tau + FW = 39 units.

So more than double 49 units more. The original gap is 20 units so the gap increases by 29 units....seems fair and balanced

Do all the additional units impart radical new capabilities and/or operate at such cost effectiveness as to blow everything else out of the water? If so, then balance probably won't be affected too much.

Additionally, how many of these are just characters and turret/weapon swaps or just new models for existing units, and how many are something completely new? Are you counting every single SM kit that FW sells as its own thing in this equation? 88 looks rather inflated, unless you're counting Horus Heresy stuff (which is *NOT* intended for normal games) and new models for existing units. I'm getting more of a ~20something new units for normal 40k games, if you include Characters, for SM's, not ~40.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So just in response to those that think codex imbalance should make additional imbalance a non issue

The point is that it's a blatant double standard to complain about a difference in number of units (ignoring power level of those units) favoring Imperial armies with FW rules while accepting a similar difference in number in codex units as just part of the game.

So more than double 49 units more. The original gap is 20 units so the gap increases by 29 units....seems fair and balanced

One thing you're leaving out is that many of those extra C:SM "units" are actually just Badab War characters. C:SM get a long list of slight variations on a captain or chapter master, most of them completely forgettable and only included for the sake of giving every chapter that was involved in the war at least one character. So it increases the total unit count significantly, but doesn't really add all that many new options to C:SM.

How is counting IC's leaving something else? Did you leave IC's out of your unit count comparison to Tau? You guys can't claim double standards are at play and then say special characters don't count because they're forgettable. How many people have forgotten sicarius, tigurius, and Cassius?

I would be thrilled if FW came out with 20 unique tyranid characters.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So just in response to those that think codex imbalance should make additional imbalance a non issue

Codex sm + FW = 88 units

Codex tau + FW = 39 units.

So more than double 49 units more. The original gap is 20 units so the gap increases by 29 units....seems fair and balanced

Do all the additional units impart radical new capabilities and/or operate at such cost effectiveness as to blow everything else out of the water? If so, then balance probably won't be affected too much.

Additionally, how many of these are just characters and turret/weapon swaps or just new models for existing units, and how many are something completely new? Are you counting every single SM kit that FW sells as its own thing in this equation? 88 looks rather inflated, unless you're counting Horus Heresy stuff (which is *NOT* intended for normal games) and new models for existing units. I'm getting more of a ~20something new units for normal 40k games, if you include Characters, for SM's, not ~40.

And when the first post quoted 45 to 25 how many of those are special ics? (Hint the answer is 11). S why not count them from FW. I got my count from the Adepticon list of what was allowed in their 40k approved events not including apoc units. In addition how good units are has nothing to do with the balance between army choices. If we are going with only competitive choices, then your initial assessment is way off between sm and tau. What I am saying is that FW exacerbates the existing problem.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
How is counting IC's leaving something else? Did you leave IC's out of your unit count comparison to Tau? You guys can't claim double standards are at play and then say special characters don't count because they're forgettable. How many people have forgotten sicarius, tigurius, and Cassius?

I'm just reminding everyone that the numbers are misleading and most of the C:SM "advantage" in total units is because of pointless fluff characters that nobody uses. Just like Tau are more competitive than C:SM in a codex-only game despite having fewer total units the number of units each army gets is just a number unless you look at what kind of units they get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
In addition how good units are has nothing to do with the balance between army choices.

Of course it does. What matters is power level balance between codices. If army X gets one powerful unit and 100 weak units while army Y gets three blatantly overpowered units then army Y is clearly getting more of a benefit from those rules. The fact that IG get stuff like cargo loader Sentinels or yet another Leman Russ turret variant that nobody will ever use doesn't really matter, it's just useless filler content to make a full-length book. The only time anyone cares about those units is when they're complaining about how biased FW is.

What I am saying is that FW exacerbates the existing problem.

And the point is that the problem isn't actually a problem. Unit count is irrelevant, and the only reason to count up C:SM vs. Tau units is to point out that the double standard in complaining about FW favoring Imperial armies in unit count while ignoring the fact that the codices do the exact same thing.

And my point is that they favor imperial armies as evidenced by unit choices and to a considerable extent more than Gw proper. Saying that it is no different when Gw provides 50% more sm options than tau and FW provides 100+% more options is false.

So when this is show you default to well those choices are no good, which is not the point if we go with that FW produces an infinite number of viable ig choices vs say nids, daemons or dark eldar, since FW provides no good choices (maybe 1 each) for those armies.

 Peregrine wrote:
The fact that IG get stuff like cargo loader Sentinels or yet another Leman Russ turret variant that nobody will ever use doesn't really matter, it's just useless filler content to make a full-length book. The only time anyone cares about those units is when they're complaining about how biased FW is.

That's not correct. In this thread I went through the Adepticon list and showed that IG get more non-fluff and non-"new turret" models from FW than Codex: Tau has in total. And iirc I didn't count ICs either.

And the point is that the problem isn't actually a problem. Unit count is irrelevant, and the only reason to count up C:SM vs. Tau units is to point out that the double standard in complaining about FW favoring Imperial armies in unit count while ignoring the fact that the codices do the exact same thing.

And the codecs are relatively balanced with their current unit counts.
Adding 26 units to one codex and 3 to another, completely ignoring balance along the way changes the balance.

So which major events that allowed the use of Forge World were won by armies including Forge World units?

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Hey, people are talking about me. Whee!

Yeah, I rolled out my Acanthrites to various tournies, including WGC. I made a "middle tables" type list for messing around. Every game the Acanthrites not only had a ridiculous impact, they also made the game less fun. I talked to my opponents and the majority said they'd trade Acanthrites for 6 Scythes, 3 Barges, 15 Wraiths or whatever are the "OP" units from the Codex.

Good players will do well regardless of format, because they're the most knowledgeable and capable to win. The vast majority of tourney attendees are the ones who suffer from "supah sekrit pay2win" rules. And, unsurprisingly, they're the ones who keep voting to keep FW confined to "safe" zones like the Nova Narrative.

If you want your Thudd Guns or whatever in tournaments, the best way to get that started is to actually go. Big, 40 page internet arguments are fun to read, but ultimately futile. Go to events, contribute, try and run your own. Join the community and changing things get a lot easier.

You can't just come in here on page 45 and start trying to make sense and speak in a non extremist manner!. Out with you!

OT this is getting old. Those of you who want FW in tournaments I suggest 2 things.

1. Take Chumbalayas advice.
2. Play in the events run by Reece and Frontline Gaming like the Vegas Open. FW is allowed

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not correct. In this thread I went through the Adepticon list and showed that IG get more non-fluff and non-"new turret" models from FW than Codex: Tau has in total. And iirc I didn't count ICs either.

Sorry, but no. IG have a total of 29 units from FW, compared to 25 codex units for Tau. That includes:

* Two Leman Russ variants (Conqueror/Annihilator) that nobody will ever use.
* An awful transport (Centaur) that nobody will ever use.
* The old rules for three artillery platforms that are worse in every way than the artillery carriages (only kept because some people still have the OOP models).
* Three fluff support vehicles (Atlas, Trojan, powerlifter Sentinel) that are only ever going to be used in special scenarios.
* Two awful flyer transports (Arvus and Aquila) that are just wasting paper as long as the Vendetta exists.
* One flyer (Lightning) with awful third-edition rules that only exists because the model wasn't quite OOP yet.

So if we take out the clearly irrelevant units we have a total of 17 FW IG units, compared to 25 Tau codex units. Meanwhile Tau get 14 FW units of varying quality (counting all of the crisis suit and Hammerhead upgrades as one new unit each).

Adding 26 units to one codex and 3 to another, completely ignoring balance along the way changes the balance.

No it doesn't. No amount of cargo loader Sentinels will change competitive balance at all. If IG suddenly got an entire book full of 100 different variants of the cargo loader Sentinel (all equally weak) it wouldn't make even the slightest difference in what IG armies actually use. The only reason anyone would care about them at all would be to quote the total number of units as proof of "bias".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Saying that it is no different when Gw provides 50% more sm options than tau and FW provides 100+% more options is false.

It's also false to say that it's only 50% more units from GW. C:SM get 80% more units in their codex, not 50%.

So when this is show you default to well those choices are no good, which is not the point if we go with that FW produces an infinite number of viable ig choices vs say nids, daemons or dark eldar, since FW provides no good choices (maybe 1 each) for those armies.

Armies that get good units from FW:

IG
C:SM
DA
SW
BA
BT
SoB
Tau
Eldar
Necrons
Orks

Armies that don't get good units from FW:

Demons?
CSM?
DE
Tyranids

So looks like the majority of armies get good units, while two of the armies that don't have GW to blame (DE because GW told FW they couldn't do DE until the recent redesign was released, Tyranids because GW put all the FW Tyranid stuff in the codex).

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not correct. In this thread I went through the Adepticon list and showed that IG get more non-fluff and non-"new turret" models from FW than Codex: Tau has in total. And iirc I didn't count ICs either.

Sorry, but no. IG have a total of 29 units from FW, compared to 25 codex units for Tau. That includes:

* Two Leman Russ variants (Conqueror/Annihilator) that nobody will ever use.
* An awful transport (Centaur) that nobody will ever use.
* The old rules for three artillery platforms that are worse in every way than the artillery carriages (only kept because some people still have the OOP models).
* Three fluff support vehicles (Atlas, Trojan, powerlifter Sentinel) that are only ever going to be used in special scenarios.
* Two awful flyer transports (Arvus and Aquila) that are just wasting paper as long as the Vendetta exists.
* One flyer (Lightning) with awful third-edition rules that only exists because the model wasn't quite OOP yet.

So if we take out the clearly irrelevant units we have a total of 17 FW IG units, compared to 25 Tau codex units. Meanwhile Tau get 14 FW units of varying quality (counting all of the crisis suit and Hammerhead upgrades as one new unit each).

Adding 26 units to one codex and 3 to another, completely ignoring balance along the way changes the balance.

No it doesn't. No amount of cargo loader Sentinels will change competitive balance at all. If IG suddenly got an entire book full of 100 different variants of the cargo loader Sentinel (all equally weak) it wouldn't make even the slightest difference in what IG armies actually use. The only reason anyone would care about them at all would be to quote the total number of units as proof of "bias".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Saying that it is no different when Gw provides 50% more sm options than tau and FW provides 100+% more options is false.

It's also false to say that it's only 50% more units from GW. C:SM get 80% more units in their codex, not 50%.

So when this is show you default to well those choices are no good, which is not the point if we go with that FW produces an infinite number of viable ig choices vs say nids, daemons or dark eldar, since FW provides no good choices (maybe 1 each) for those armies.

Armies that get good units from FW:

IG
C:SM
DA
SW
BA
BT
SoB
Tau
Eldar
Necrons
Orks

Armies that don't get good units from FW:

Demons?
CSM?
DE
Tyranids

So looks like the majority of armies get good units, while two of the armies that don't have GW to blame (DE because GW told FW they couldn't do DE until the recent redesign was released, Tyranids because GW put all the FW Tyranid stuff in the codex).

"All the FW Tyranid stuff in the codex" You mean one.. The Trygon. The Winged variants were just upgrades at the time of their release. Tyranids only ever had 3 non-apoc things from Forgeworld, now they have 2.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not correct. In this thread I went through the Adepticon list and showed that IG get more non-fluff and non-"new turret" models from FW than Codex: Tau has in total. And iirc I didn't count ICs either.

Sorry, but no. IG have a total of 29 units from FW, compared to 25 codex units for Tau. That includes:

* Two Leman Russ variants (Conqueror/Annihilator) that nobody will ever use.
* An awful transport (Centaur) that nobody will ever use.
* The old rules for three artillery platforms that are worse in every way than the artillery carriages (only kept because some people still have the OOP models).
* Three fluff support vehicles (Atlas, Trojan, powerlifter Sentinel) that are only ever going to be used in special scenarios.
* Two awful flyer transports (Arvus and Aquila) that are just wasting paper as long as the Vendetta exists.
* One flyer (Lightning) with awful third-edition rules that only exists because the model wasn't quite OOP yet.

So if we take out the clearly irrelevant units we have a total of 17 FW IG units, compared to 25 Tau codex units. Meanwhile Tau get 14 FW units of varying quality (counting all of the crisis suit and Hammerhead upgrades as one new unit each).

Adding 26 units to one codex and 3 to another, completely ignoring balance along the way changes the balance.

No it doesn't. No amount of cargo loader Sentinels will change competitive balance at all. If IG suddenly got an entire book full of 100 different variants of the cargo loader Sentinel (all equally weak) it wouldn't make even the slightest difference in what IG armies actually use. The only reason anyone would care about them at all would be to quote the total number of units as proof of "bias".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
Saying that it is no different when Gw provides 50% more sm options than tau and FW provides 100+% more options is false.

It's also false to say that it's only 50% more units from GW. C:SM get 80% more units in their codex, not 50%.

So when this is show you default to well those choices are no good, which is not the point if we go with that FW produces an infinite number of viable ig choices vs say nids, daemons or dark eldar, since FW provides no good choices (maybe 1 each) for those armies.

Armies that get good units from FW:

IG
C:SM
DA
SW
BA
BT
SoB
Tau
Eldar
Necrons
Orks

Armies that don't get good units from FW:

Demons?
CSM?
DE
Tyranids

So looks like the majority of armies get good units, while two of the armies that don't have GW to blame (DE because GW told FW they couldn't do DE until the recent redesign was released, Tyranids because GW put all the FW Tyranid stuff in the codex).

I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)


To address your last piece there: Really FW could not have addressed DE or Tyranids in the last 3 years that they have been released? I'd buy the it's GWs fault prior to that but those books have been out for quite some time.

Fact is (and I believe they have said it) the FW guys are big Tread heads and IG fans which is why they produce more content for those armies than any other. Every book has imperial stuff in it because every book is Imperium Vs somebody else... Throw in that FW adds more "Broken" stuff to IG than some other units get options (most of the small options armies get crap)

Also your whole line of thinking leads toward why people don't want FW, "well most of this stuff is useless but this other stuff is really good and everyone will use it." So we don't get the advertised Moar variety, we get different spam...

rigeld2 wrote:

Marginally more?

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I missed the second salamander in there accidentally but that's still 24 "extra" models just for IG (not counting the ones shared with SoB).
Please correct me if I missed any. And before you start arguing "Well not all of those are worth the points." there isn't a single Tyranid unit from FW that's worth the points. None.

So the Adepticon list isn't accurate? Or did I miss some fluff units because I'm not familiar with them?

Enough with the "all armies have 2+ choices in each FOC" bovine gak; Templars and Sisters have one Troops Choice each. Xenos bias? No, it just means said armies don't get as many options as some others. Where's the outrage over how unfair that is? Why is diversity only seen as a bad thing when it's ForgeWorld?

Just to adress the FW is GW issue. It's just not true. Forge World is its own legal entity. While it may be a subsidiary of GW it is not GW. If someone sued FW then they would not be able to touch the assets of GW.
As such FW putting an "approved for 40K" stamp on things could be looked at, at best, as a license from GW. I don't see it as anything more than any other company saying that their rules/models are 40K compatable. Until GW makes an official announcement saying that FW is part of the 40K rules set then it can not be held in any higher regard than any other 3rd party company.