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.

 Happyjew wrote:

Davor wrote:
GW has tourneys? That is new to me. I thought they gave up on them.

Wow, that is pretty bad for FW, if true. I mean how can you have a Tourney and you say your own product is not legal.

You know what else is not legal at Tournaments? Codexes that have a newer edition (such as the 4th edition Eldar codex). If someone showed up at your store with that and said you wanna play my Eldar, are you going to say no?

If that is what is fun for the person, sure why not. I let a lot of things slide. I am a causal player. I am all for let's have fun.

I was just asking a question. I thought GW didn't hold tournies. So not sure what this has to do with 4th Eldar or what not. I lived under a rock lately, I don't know what is going on so it's why I asked.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
You're comparing a crappy unit to a unit that can be taken in large numbers for a start with the Sabre-Hydra comparison.

I'm comparing the Sabre Defense Platform as found in Imperial Armour Aeronautica to the Hydra, since it basically is an immobile Hydra.

Why is the Sabre better:
-Vehicles suck. They're too easy to kill and when they're as fragile as the Hydra you're practically handing your opponent first blood.

And the Sabre is an immobile vehicle with 2 HPs. If a Hydra is an easy First Blood, this is even easier.

-Did I mention Vehicles suck? They can't take use cover saves in area terrain and can be instantly killed pretty easily. Sabres aren't vehicles, they have a toughness value, that FAQ is out of date.

They are vehicles. As per IA Aeronautica (which came out after that FAQ). More specifically they are "Vehicle (Immobile)".

-Doesn't suck against ground targets
-Doubles as effective defense against those ground targets that come in from reserve.

This is about the only good thing the Sabre has going for it - Interceptor.

Unit composition for both: 1-3
Unit type for both: Vehicle
Side and Rear armour for both: 10
BS for both: 3

The only good thing about the Sabre is that it is a few points less and has Interceptor. And that is if you take the Hydra Autocannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Davor wrote:
GW has tourneys? That is new to me. I thought they gave up on them.

Wow, that is pretty bad for FW, if true. I mean how can you have a Tourney and you say your own product is not legal.

You know what else is not legal at Tournaments? Codexes that have a newer edition (such as the 4th edition Eldar codex). If someone showed up at your store with that and said you wanna play my Eldar, are you going to say no?

If that is what is fun for the person, sure why not. I let a lot of things slide. I am a causal player. I am all for let's have fun.

I was just asking a question. I thought GW didn't hold tournies. So not sure what this has to do with 4th Eldar or what not. I lived under a rock lately, I don't know what is going on so it's why I asked.

I wasn't calling you out. I was pointing out that just because something is not allowed at a GW Tournament (which I didn't even know still existed) doesn't mean that the rules are the same in standard play. Otherwise, in a 2000 pt game you might not be able to take a second FOC (which is clearly allowed).

Renegade_commander wrote:

thank you for your reply. Do you feel that any of those units listed are more OP than my taudar farsight bomb? Or my screamerstar?

No, I was replying to a question asking if any Forgeworld units were OP.

Ok, I only read the last two pages of this topic and I want to know all of this is about what at first? For now, is like an anti FW topic.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:
You're comparing a crappy unit to a unit that can be taken in large numbers for a start with the Sabre-Hydra comparison.

I'm comparing the Sabre Defense Platform as found in Imperial Armour Aeronautica to the Hydra, since it basically is an immobile Hydra.

Why is the Sabre better:
-Vehicles suck. They're too easy to kill and when they're as fragile as the Hydra you're practically handing your opponent first blood.

And the Sabre is an immobile vehicle with 2 HPs. If a Hydra is an easy First Blood, this is even easier.

-Did I mention Vehicles suck? They can't take use cover saves in area terrain and can be instantly killed pretty easily. Sabres aren't vehicles, they have a toughness value, that FAQ is out of date.

They are vehicles. As per IA Aeronautica (which came out after that FAQ). More specifically they are "Vehicle (Immobile)".

-Doesn't suck against ground targets
-Doubles as effective defense against those ground targets that come in from reserve.

This is about the only good thing the Sabre has going for it - Interceptor.

Unit composition for both: 1-3
Unit type for both: Vehicle
Side and Rear armour for both: 10
BS for both: 3

The only good thing about the Sabre is that it is a few points less and has Interceptor. And that is if you take the Hydra Autocannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Davor wrote:
GW has tourneys? That is new to me. I thought they gave up on them.

Wow, that is pretty bad for FW, if true. I mean how can you have a Tourney and you say your own product is not legal.

You know what else is not legal at Tournaments? Codexes that have a newer edition (such as the 4th edition Eldar codex). If someone showed up at your store with that and said you wanna play my Eldar, are you going to say no?

If that is what is fun for the person, sure why not. I let a lot of things slide. I am a causal player. I am all for let's have fun.

I was just asking a question. I thought GW didn't hold tournies. So not sure what this has to do with 4th Eldar or what not. I lived under a rock lately, I don't know what is going on so it's why I asked.

I wasn't calling you out. I was pointing out that just because something is not allowed at a GW Tournament (which I didn't even know still existed) doesn't mean that the rules are the same in standard play. Otherwise, in a 2000 pt game you might not be able to take a second FOC (which is clearly allowed).

...Hydras have to snapshoot at anything that's not a flyer, which is why they're useless in 6th. Sabre Defence Platforms do not have this limitation, and S9 is a lot more helpful than a hydra's S7.

They also don't take up a heavy support slot, which is a massive advantage.

It is on the legality of using Forgeworld rules in a regular friendly game of Warhammer 40K.

I think. I came in part way to people calling other people trolls.

 hellpato wrote:
Ok, I only read the last two pages of this topic and I want to know all of this is about what at first? For now, is like an anti FW topic.

It's not, it's people complaining that other people don't want to play against Forgeworld.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
It is on the legality of using Forgeworld rules in a regular friendly game of Warhammer 40K.

Has anyone questioned the legality of Forgeworld rules? I don't recall anyone saying that.

xruslanx wrote:
...Hydras have to snapshoot at anything that's not a flyer, which is why they're useless in 6th.

Or Skimmers. Or Jetbikes. Or Flying Monstrous Creatures. Of course they do have a Heavy Bolter they can fire at non-Flyers no problem.

Sabre Defence Platforms do not have this limitation, and S9 is a lot more helpful than a hydra's S7.

Where are you getting S9 from? The Sky Eagle Missiles which are one shot and cost 50 points for 4?

They also don't take up a heavy support slot, which is a massive advantage.

Yes they do take up a Heavy Support slot.

There are two types of Sabre Defense Platforms. The cheaper is literally just the Hydra Autocannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xruslanx wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
It is on the legality of using Forgeworld rules in a regular friendly game of Warhammer 40K.

Has anyone questioned the legality of Forgeworld rules? I don't recall anyone saying that.

That is why I said "I think." I started reading about page 5 when people were just going on about how Pergrine is a troll who loves him some Forgeworld cheese. Or something like that. I don't remember the exact wording.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Check this pdf. The Sabre Defence platforms in it are *very* powerful for what you pay. 60 points for a twin-linked lascannon with AV 10 and 3 wounds. Oh and they get to shoot at aircraft with normal BS too.

Let's compare to the Hydra shall we: Sabre - cheaper, less HP, worse front armour, fewer options, immobile, and has Interceptor.

Or check out this. 290 points for a Land Raider with 25 transport capacity (!!!) and four twin-linked lascannons (well actually 2 Heavy 2 lascannons). And for 20 points it can be made immune to melta. That is crazy op.

295 points. And 25 model capacity? Whoop-de-doo. The only two ways you will get close to filling that capacity is with either a full 10-man terminator squad, or a crap-ton of Death Company. Hmmm...this gives me an idea for starting up a BA army...

You're comparing a crappy unit that takes up IG's limited HS slots to a unit that can be taken in large numbers for a start with the Sabre-Hydra comparison.

Why is the Sabre better?

-Vehicles suck. They're too easy to kill and when they're as fragile as the Hydra you're practically handing your opponent first blood.
-Did I mention Vehicles suck? They can't take use cover saves in area terrain and can be instantly killed pretty easily. Sabres aren't vehicles, they have a toughness value, that FAQ is out of date.
-Doesn't suck against ground targets
-Doubles as effective defense against those ground targets that come in from reserve.

295 points for an effective tank hunter/MC tackler that is very hard to kill and can transport the hardest of Deathstars that you can imagine is a very good deal.

Sabres can't do anything Tau can't do better.
Sabres are manned by Guardsmen, one good burst of ignores cover shooting and your Sabres are removed full health because the crew is all dead.
Sabres aren't blast and don't ignore cover unlike interceptor Riptides...

So 300+ transport for an easily 300+ deathstar, yeah lets ignore the superior "official" deathstars that don't need the 300+ transport and still get across the table faster.

If you read more then the last two pages you waste your time. The gist is always just...

"Forgeworld is for normal games and banning is house rule not official GW."
"FW books say they are "standard" game legal. So that means GW approves of FW because they are owned by GW"

Counter is...

"FW isn't legit because a GW publication doesn't say that."
"FW is not legit just because it says it is. Does not matter they are owned by GW."

Just kind of a round up of sorts. Then intermixed with legitimate debate are personal assaults and bickering.

I am on the "legal" side but still think it would be nice for a GW published book (NOT a FW one as silly as that may sound) to mention FW legality by name. Not that it would stop the fighting.

OK, I'm sorry.
I was looking at the wrong thing. Minor confusion on my part. I was looking at the Imperial Support Weapons Platform, not the Sabre Weapons Battery.
I apologize. Please ignore my last few posts discussing them.

 Happyjew wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
...Hydras have to snapshoot at anything that's not a flyer, which is why they're useless in 6th.

Or Skimmers. Or Jetbikes. Or Flying Monstrous Creatures. Of course they do have a Heavy Bolter they can fire at non-Flyers no problem.

Sabre Defence Platforms do not have this limitation, and S9 is a lot more helpful than a hydra's S7.

Where are you getting S9 from? The Sky Eagle Missiles which are one shot and cost 50 points for 4?

They also don't take up a heavy support slot, which is a massive advantage.

Yes they do take up a Heavy Support slot.

There are two types of Sabre Defense Platforms. The cheaper is literally just the Hydra Autocannon.

Block-quote bickering can go on all night. Point is, many *do* consider Sabre Defence Platforms to be op.

xruslanx wrote:
Block-quote bickering can go on all night.

No, because eventually I'll have to go to bed. Of course, someone might pick up the slack.

Point is, many *do* consider Sabre Defence Platforms to be op.

As I pointed out, I just realized I was arguing in the defense of a completely different unit. And for that I apologize for wasting everybody's time and effort.

 Matt1785 wrote:
If you read more then the last two pages you waste your time. The gist is always just...

"Forgeworld is for normal games and banning is house rule not official GW."
"FW books say they are "standard" game legal. So that means GW approves of FW because they are owned by GW"

Counter is...

"FW isn't legit because a GW publication doesn't say that."
"FW is not legit just because it says it is. Does not matter they are owned by GW."

Just kind of a round up of sorts. Then intermixed with legitimate debate are personal assaults and bickering.

I am on the "legal" side but still think it would be nice for a GW published book (NOT a FW one as silly as that may sound) to mention FW legality by name. Not that it would stop the fighting.

Look like narrow mind people talking.

I play FW stuff in all my armies. In all the new FW books we can read if they are for 40k or apo games. I don't see any problems for tournament or friendly games. Just open the book and read the rules. Nothing is really over power. We just need to learn to use or deal with it.

xruslanx wrote:
Block-quote bickering can go on all night. Point is, many *do* consider Sabre Defence Platforms to be op.

So that's one unit, which is only overpowered because of GW's utterly stupid changes to the 6th edition rules (making artillery T7 and making interceptor the only way to fire at ground targets in addition to giving free shots at arriving reserves). Before 6th edition Sabres, earthshaker carriages, etc, were all mediocre at best. Blaming FW for how overpowered they are is missing the point pretty badly.

And compare that to all of GW's blatant balance mistakes: 5-Riptide Tau, re-rollable 2++ death stars, 130 point Vendettas, etc. Complaining about overpowered FW units when the codex-only game is full of enough "cheese" to satisfy the worst WAAC TFGs already is just insane.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Block-quote bickering can go on all night. Point is, many *do* consider Sabre Defence Platforms to be op.

So that's one unit, which is only overpowered because of GW's utterly stupid changes to the 6th edition rules (making artillery T7 and making interceptor the only way to fire at ground targets in addition to giving free shots at arriving reserves). Before 6th edition Sabres, earthshaker carriages, etc, were all mediocre at best. Blaming FW for how overpowered they are is missing the point pretty badly.

And compare that to all of GW's blatant balance mistakes: 5-Riptide Tau, re-rollable 2++ death stars, 130 point Vendettas, etc. Complaining about overpowered FW units when the codex-only game is full of enough "cheese" to satisfy the worst WAAC TFGs already is just insane.

You forgot the 90 point Doom with Iron Arm.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Block-quote bickering can go on all night. Point is, many *do* consider Sabre Defence Platforms to be op.

So that's one unit, which is only overpowered because of GW's utterly stupid changes to the 6th edition rules (making artillery T7 and making interceptor the only way to fire at ground targets in addition to giving free shots at arriving reserves). Before 6th edition Sabres, earthshaker carriages, etc, were all mediocre at best. Blaming FW for how overpowered they are is missing the point pretty badly.

They were op in 5th too...do you not remember Artillery? 50 points cheaper than the vehicle kind but insanely tough against enemy shooting.

Oh and I forgot about these guys. For fifty points less than a vehicle artillery you get an immobile artillery piece with 5 T7 wounds and a 3+ save. That is insane.

And compare that to all of GW's blatant balance mistakes: 5-Riptide Tau, re-rollable 2++ death stars, 130 point Vendettas, etc. Complaining about overpowered FW units when the codex-only game is full of enough "cheese" to satisfy the worst WAAC TFGs already is just insane.

Take a cheesy IG list without forgeworld. Then add Sabre Defence Platforms to it, and it just became even more OP. I don't know if DKOK can

Spartan is a bit different, since it's only available to fairly mediocre marine codexes so it doesn't seem as OP since it's part of the codexes it plays with.

xruslanx wrote:
They were op in 5th too...do you not remember Artillery? 50 points cheaper than the vehicle kind but insanely tough against enemy shooting.

Err, lol? Did you even play with artillery in 5th (don't bother answering, we know the answer is "no")? You're talking about a unit where all hits have a 33% chance of going on the gun, which is an AV 10/11 model that is automatically destroyed by a single glancing or penetrating hit. Or you can just take the 66% chance of hitting the crew and kill the T3/no-save models with a round of bolter fire. Oh, and it's an immobile vehicle so it can't turn to fire at new targets and you're stuck with whatever is in the narrow arc in front of it when you deploy them. Finally, just to add insult to injury, dawn of war deployment completely screws you because now you have to put them in reserve and deep strike them since they can't walk on with the rest of your army.

Speaking as someone who actually used those units in 5th they were hilariously easy to kill and cheaper than a Basilisk for very good reason. The only reason to ever take them over proper artillery tanks was if you had a fluffy army where static siege guns were appropriate.

Take a cheesy IG list without forgeworld. Then add Sabre Defence Platforms to it, and it just became even more OP.

And the point is that codex-only balance is already completely broken. If you're concerned about "cheese" then the solution is to talk to your opponent about bringing weaker lists and refuse to play anyone who brings "cheese" you don't enjoy, not to impose blanket bans against whole categories of units because you're afraid someone (who you already don't want to play against) will bring too much "cheese".

I don't know if DKOK can

So you admit that you don't even know the rules you're complaining about?

Psh. The weapons platform is hardly gamebreaking. The argument im trying to make is that in todays meta, thete are NO forgeworld units that are any more broken than whats in todays codexes. Therefor, any arguement otherwise made towards why antone wouldnt allow a forgeworld unit/army, in a friendly game or otherwise, is completely invalid.

Fear. Fear of losing. Fear of the unknown.

Renegade_commander wrote:
Fear. Fear of losing. Fear of the unknown.

This. A thousand times this.

Xanrn wrote:
So is that the best you can do?

Take a second to think about who you're arguing with, and then ask that question again.

The answer should be blindingly obvious.

 Happyjew wrote:
It is on the legality of using Forgeworld rules in a regular friendly game of Warhammer 40K.

I think. I came in part way to people calling other people trolls.

Despite what certain people may try and claim, this has been the argument forever. Some of us say it is a legitimate and legal part of the game, others say we're wrong.

The arguement since I've first seen it was if FW was legal in standard play or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt1785 wrote:
If you read more then the last two pages you waste your time. The gist is always just...

"Forgeworld is for normal games and banning is house rule not official GW."
"FW books say they are "standard" game legal. So that means GW approves of FW because they are owned by GW"

Counter is...

"FW isn't legit because a GW publication doesn't say that."
"FW is not legit just because it says it is. Does not matter they are owned by GW."

Just kind of a round up of sorts. Then intermixed with legitimate debate are personal assaults and bickering.

I am on the "legal" side but still think it would be nice for a GW published book (NOT a FW one as silly as that may sound) to mention FW legality by name. Not that it would stop the fighting.

I doubt that would stop the fighting as some of the arguments made by the anti-FW crowd are based on opinions regarding OP versus facts or rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Renegade_commander wrote:
Fear. Fear of losing. Fear of the unknown.

This. A thousand times this.

Xanrn wrote:
So is that the best you can do?

Take a second to think about who you're arguing with, and then ask that question again.

The answer should be blindingly obvious.

Apparently the answer is "no" followed by a sense that someone hasn't read any of the thread and has only come in to try and force his personal views of what the issue really is on everyone else and claim things that aren't true (like that rules were never an actual part of the debate).

All I see lately is alot of people saying "Forgeworld is Cheese and I dont want to have to deal with it", again I will say the VAST majortiy of Forgeworld does not fit this description in the slightest. In fact it probably has less OP stuff when compared to the standard codex's in regards to so called "cheese" and overpowered units. As someone mentioned above its the fear of the unknown which drives people to scream OP and refuse to play it, despite the fact that most (in my personal experience and what it seems on here) have never even played against it. And guess what, even if you have played it and found it tough opposition, maybe trying to adapt? Whenever a meta shift takes place in the game good players will find ways to counter and deal with it, wether its OP or not, instead of sitting there acting like a kid and throwing a "tempertantrum" that its cheese.

I think that at times the experimental rules are somewhat OP and cheesy, and since those are the free rules that everybody can see (and are therefore the rules that people tend to be most familiar with) they could assume that FW is OP.

I personally find that every book version of a model had improved (and more balanced) rules than the experimental rules though.

I was reminded today that there are in fact a few grand tournaments that allow forgeworld units.

Renegade_commander wrote:
I was reminded today that there are in fact a few grand tournaments that allow forgeworld units.

And? So? But? Therefore?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Apparently the answer is "no" followed by a sense that someone hasn't read any of the thread and has only come in to try and force his personal views of what the issue really is on everyone else and claim things that aren't true (like that rules were never an actual part of the debate).

Threads are open to anyone to comment on, it is not a prerequisite of contribution to first read through ten pages. Anyway, all Forgeworld threads are the same.

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Apparently the answer is "no" followed by a sense that someone hasn't read any of the thread and has only come in to try and force his personal views of what the issue really is on everyone else and claim things that aren't true (like that rules were never an actual part of the debate).

Threads are open to anyone to comment on, it is not a prerequisite of contribution to first read through ten pages. Anyway, all Forgeworld threads are the same.

Actually, I'd argue that it's a prerequisite to read the thread, because otherwise you've not got a clue what you're talking about. What are you adding to the discussion by stating something that's been discussed already?

xruslanx wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Apparently the answer is "no" followed by a sense that someone hasn't read any of the thread and has only come in to try and force his personal views of what the issue really is on everyone else and claim things that aren't true (like that rules were never an actual part of the debate).

Threads are open to anyone to comment on, it is not a prerequisite of contribution to first read through ten pages. Anyway, all Forgeworld threads are the same.

You may be free to comment, but you're not in a position to control the discussion nor are you in a position to argue what the actual topic of discussion is though. The argument, despite your claims otherwise, has always included the rules. Namely people demanding their be a rule saying FW is legal. Now that we have a rule that fills that role some people want an even more specific rule that says FW is legal.

Next time you feel like butting in, please take the time to read the thread because then you might actually be on the same page idea wise as everyone else.

Well I haven't broken any rules so you'll just have to put up with me eh.

Though, could you point me to any posts that dispute the legality of Forgeworld? Since that's the topic of this thread - and apparently the only topic that's allowed - it seems strange that it doesn't seem to have cropped up in the past few pages.

Whilst these rules should be considered official.......

Should..not will....not shall....should.

That being said,I don't mind playing against forgeworld stuff.