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.

To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


, Ld7 (hooray fallback tests and psychic attacks)

Now as much as I like FW, if you play the Death Korps, you don't have to take LD tests ever, so charging is one of the option, pinning works, and the noise marine are the bane of my big guns.

This is not correct, you don't take Fear or 25% shooting Morale tests, you still take Ld tests from combat, psychic powers, pinning, etc.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

Maybe FW could issue points updates then when the rules drop, then? Maybe some oneupmanship on their part would make them more attractive. I still think the codices should be on the web and the points costs for all units be updated every month based on performance data.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


, Ld7 (hooray fallback tests and psychic attacks)

Now as much as I like FW, if you play the Death Korps, you don't have to take LD tests ever, so charging is one of the option, pinning works, and the noise marine are the bane of my big guns.

This is not correct, you don't take Fear or 25% shooting Morale tests, you still take Ld tests from combat, psychic powers, pinning, etc.

Yeah, forgot to type ''agaisn't shooting'' oops.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

Maybe FW could issue points updates then when the rules drop, then? Maybe some oneupmanship on their part would make them more attractive. I still think the codices should be on the web and the points costs for all units be updated every month based on performance data.

See, here's the thing though, GW doesn't care about the balance that much. They aren't making a competitive, balanced game. They freely admit this. They do not intend Warhammer 40,000 to be a tight, competitive ruleset, but rather a dramatic framework with which to play with the models they make.

To GW, it's just not something they're shooting for with their product.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

Maybe FW could issue points updates then when the rules drop, then? Maybe some oneupmanship on their part would make them more attractive. I still think the codices should be on the web and the points costs for all units be updated every month based on performance data.

If they did that, what would be the point of having Imperial Armour books if they're constantly invalidated?

FW often updates stuff (the IA Krieg Siege list is available for free for instance) and provides updates that aren't yet in a book for free (like the updated Repressor!).

Oh and that Siege list? The basic Platoon Squad is 20 points more than the IG version. That's 2ppm average more expensive for the +1WS and their rule about ignoring Fear and Shooting casualties. What was this about being undercosted again?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

Maybe FW could issue points updates then when the rules drop, then? Maybe some oneupmanship on their part would make them more attractive. I still think the codices should be on the web and the points costs for all units be updated every month based on performance data.

If they did that, what would be the point of having Imperial Armour books if they're constantly invalidated?

FW often updates stuff (the IA Krieg Siege list is available for free for instance) and provides updates that aren't yet in a book for free (like the updated Repressor!).

Oh and that Siege list? The basic Platoon Squad is 20 points more than the IG version. That's 2ppm average more expensive for the +1WS and their rule about ignoring Fear and Shooting casualties. What was this about being undercosted again?

What would be the point indeed? Trying to codify these point values at the time of publishing is actually quite futile and foolish. They need real time updates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
To be fair, this artillery being described doesn't sound fair at all. That's why it seems like FW just adds diesel fuel to the fire GW already started.

FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did. And FW isn't forcing anyone to take them, much less fill their HS slot with 9 of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I was wrong about Krieg being Fearless. That doesn't exist as a rule for them in IA 12. They can regroup as normal (even if under 25%) if they're in 6" of an Officer though. Not really the same thing.

So yeah, pinning and leadership tests are still options.

Maybe FW could issue points updates then when the rules drop, then? Maybe some oneupmanship on their part would make them more attractive. I still think the codices should be on the web and the points costs for all units be updated every month based on performance data.

See, here's the thing though, GW doesn't care about the balance that much. They aren't making a competitive, balanced game. They freely admit this. They do not intend Warhammer 40,000 to be a tight, competitive ruleset, but rather a dramatic framework with which to play with the models they make.

To GW, it's just not something they're shooting for with their product.

Since when are one-sided battles dramatic?

Martel732 wrote:
Since when are one-sided battles dramatic?

When the underdog wins.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Since when are one-sided battles dramatic?

When the underdog wins.

That's not a one-sided battle, by definition. I'm talking about the statistically probably outcome of many of GW's "dramatic" matchups. It's also not a good dramatic system when the models on the table can't deliver the fluff from the codex.

Seriously though, I don't think people understand how little GW's concern for real "balance" is. In 3rd they had a mission called "Meathgrinder". One player was the defender and put their entire army in the middle of the board. The other player could deploy pretty much everywhere else. The point of the game as the defending player was to not get tabled. If you managed that you won, otherwise you lost.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Seriously though, I don't think people understand how little GW's concern for real "balance" is. In 3rd they had a mission called "Meathgrinder". One player was the defender and put their entire army in the middle of the board. The other player could deploy pretty much everywhere else. The point of the game as the defending player was to not get tabled. If you managed that you won, otherwise you lost.

There's a reason I only own one army and will only ever own one army. I refuse to play their little "poorly play-tested codex of the quarter" game. It's also a reason I've probably logged 5 X more hours in the last 4 month playing Starcraft than 40K.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Seriously though, I don't think people understand how little GW's concern for real "balance" is. In 3rd they had a mission called "Meathgrinder". One player was the defender and put their entire army in the middle of the board. The other player could deploy pretty much everywhere else. The point of the game as the defending player was to not get tabled. If you managed that you won, otherwise you lost.

There's a reason I only own one army and will only ever own one army. I refuse to play their little "poorly play-tested codex of the quarter" game. It's also a reason I've probably logged 5 X more hours in the last 4 month playing Starcraft than 40K.

I currently only play Sisters but I do want to get into other armies eventually because they look cool. But I'm getting my entire Sisters collection painted before I even consider that.

Martel732 wrote:
Since when are one-sided battles dramatic?

I don't disagree, but that's how GW views their ruleset.

I don't know where the argument has gone but the last two pages have been completely off topic.

Topics are overrated. Besides, to OP nature or NOT OP nature of FW units is of direct relevance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't know where the argument has gone but the last two pages have been completely off topic.

So about those Red Sox.

Seriously though, the topic was broached by the argument against FW being seen as "legal" is their supposed OP nature. Pointing out why that's wrong is still in line with the nature of the discussion.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Oh and that Siege list? The basic Platoon Squad is 20 points more than the IG version. That's 2ppm average more expensive for the +1WS and their rule about ignoring Fear and Shooting casualties. What was this about being undercosted again?

Its actually 1ppm because they have Krak grenades as standard, which are 1ppm.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did.

You creating a division between the two entities that doesn't actually exist in real life. Forgeworld is Games Workshop, remember?

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
FW didn't write the artillery rules that made them so "broken" or "OP", GW did.

You creating a division between the two entities that doesn't actually exist in real life. Forgeworld is Games Workshop, remember?

Sorry I mean the "FW" brand dev team didn't break the game with broken artillery rules but the "GW" brand dev team did. Is that better?

Same company, but they are two different groups of people responsible for things here. the group who does stuff branded as "FW" didn't write 6th edition, but they did work with the group that wrote the stuff branded as "40k 6th Edition" to update their stuff. I'm not trying to pretend they're different companies, just trying to keep it simple to track whom I'm speaking about.

Everyone loves car comparisons, so... does Porsche make official announcements regarding Lamborghini? Ferrari regarding Dodge? I'd imagine not. It's not really that different with FW and GW, at least from a customer's point of view. They come off as different brands (and just in case people don't know, Porsche and Lamborghini are both owned by VW, and the other two by Fiat). With different books and models. If they wanted them to be unequivocally official and one and the dame, the differentation wouldn't exist to begin with, at least on the rules level. There just wouldn't be a reason for that. As it is, different product lines, different design teams, different brands, thus differing player opinions. Especially with no statement on the matter under the GW brand rather than FW.

And once again for the record I'm not against FW - I don't really care of my opponents want to use them, they're welcome to it. Official GW stuff is broken enough as is. Locally though they're not allowed in tournaments, part of why I don't have any (the other primary reason being price).

Also, never-ending argument so I'm not sure why I even bother... I guess I'll just blame boredom.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Oh and that Siege list? The basic Platoon Squad is 20 points more than the IG version. That's 2ppm average more expensive for the +1WS and their rule about ignoring Fear and Shooting casualties. What was this about being undercosted again?

Its actually 1ppm because they have Krak grenades as standard, which are 1ppm.

Fair enough. They're still more expensive than regular Guardsmen.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Same company, but they are two different groups of people responsible for things here. the group who does stuff branded as "FW" didn't write 6th edition, ...

And this is why people won't accept Forgeworld's word alone that their material is 'official', in a nutshell.

 tvih wrote:
If they wanted them to be unequivocally official and one and the dame, the differentation wouldn't exist to begin with, at least on the rules level.

But they aren't the same. GW sells high-end resin kits under their Forge World brand, standard plastic kits under their Citadel brand, and garbage under their Citadel Finecast brand. By putting "Forge World" on the book or model kit you know that you're getting a high-end product for the dedicated hobbyist, just like putting Finecast on a model kit informs you that you're getting a piece of that will go straight in the trash. This has nothing to do with whether some of those brands are more "official" than others, it's about establishing brand identity for the model kits.

Especially with no statement on the matter under the GW brand rather than FW.

Again, this is a requirement invented by certain players. There is no statement from GW that only "real GW" is allowed to make a ruling on the subject and anything said under a different brand name is somehow less official.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Same company, but they are two different groups of people responsible for things here. the group who does stuff branded as "FW" didn't write 6th edition, ...

And this is why people won't accept Forgeworld's word alone that their material is 'official', in a nutshell.

That's a terrible reason. Do you reject a new codex because its author didn't work on 6th edition? Having different teams working on different books does not make some of them more or less official than others, it just means that every book doesn't require every author to be involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
GW stuff is actually playtested, and goes through a balanceing process

Actually from what we've seen GW doesn't playtest, at least if you only consider the kind of professional playtesting that makes a good game. They might play some random casual games with cool scenario rules, but they don't do MTG-style playtesting that will settle the fine points of balance and rule issues. When you have stuff like 4-5 Riptide Tau, rerollable 2++ death stars, a YMDC forum full of arguments about how basic rules work, etc, it's pretty clear that GW did not do even basic playtesting and find these issues.

 Peregrine wrote:
But they aren't the same. GW sells high-end resin kits under their Forge World brand, standard plastic kits under their Citadel brand, and garbage under their Citadel Finecast brand. By putting "Forge World" on the book or model kit you know that you're getting a high-end product for the dedicated hobbyist, just like putting Finecast on a model kit informs you that you're getting a piece of that will go straight in the trash. This has nothing to do with whether some of those brands are more "official" than others, it's about establishing brand identity for the model kits.

Oh yes, that's clearly a distinction GW will want to make. "So this GW brand here is for crap, while FW is the good stuff!" FW models may be high end - though I've heard quite a few bad experiences with actually building certain kits such as Storm Eagles - and even their books may be good in terms of fluff, but apparently the rule side of things doesn't seem any better than GW's. So why even have a separate identity on the rules if they're all the same anyway? It just doesn't make sense to have a brand distinction just for the sake of having a brand distinction, if it's actually meaningless. For models with different production techniques and whatnot, OK, have a separate brand. But it just doesn't add up for the books. Or hell, even the fluff since it's all official and in the same universe.

Again, this is a requirement invented by certain players. There is no statement from GW that only "real GW" is allowed to make a ruling on the subject and anything said under a different brand name is somehow less official.

What is it that everyone keeps saying about a permissive ruleset? It's just being applied to this, as well.

 tvih wrote:
Oh yes, that's clearly a distinction GW will want to make. "So this GW brand here is for crap, while FW is the good stuff!"

You understand the concept of selling based on low prices, right? GW's Citadel plastic kits are sold as good kits for the basic stuff in your army, at a price the average player will pay. FW kits are sold as expensive high-end stuff for the dedicated hobbyist that is willing to pay $50 for special shoulder pads for their space marines.

So why even have a separate identity on the rules if they're all the same anyway?

For two reasons. The rules exist to sell the model kits, so GW sells the rules for FW kits under the FW brand name. Also, the IA books that contain most of the rules for FW units are different from the books sold under the GW brand name (fluff about single campaigns vs. an army's general fluff, etc), so again, selling them under a different brand name makes sense.

What is it that everyone keeps saying about a permissive ruleset? It's just being applied to this, as well.

That doesn't make any sense. A permissive ruleset just means that you can only do X if the rules say you can do X. However, in this case the rules do say X and you're just arguing that the rules aren't really the rules because they aren't delivered in the form you want.

 tvih wrote:
What is it that everyone keeps saying about a permissive ruleset? It's just being applied to this, as well.

Which takes us to page 108 in the core rulebook which says you can play an army list from a codex, an altered army list (which is what FW stuff does) or something of your own creation (which is homebrew). The permission to do it is there, but then we get people tacking on new qualifiers like "there must be a rule AND that rule needs to mention FW by name".

 TheCustomLime wrote:

First, WoW expansions don't work the same way 40k Expansions do. You don't log on and say to yourself, "Hey, I am in the mood for WotLK today" unless you are leveled for it. It works as a progression towards the ultimate end of the game. 40k expansions are just add ons to the game to spice things up. To relate things to WoW, imagine Blizzard made an expansion that allowed for naval combat in WoW and it was totally optional. (Now, imagine if they made an optional expansion that added additional spells/classes. The community would explode from rage! )

WoW expansions are official though, plus the bit in bold is unsupported conjecture which has already been proved wrong.

Secondly, this isn't an argument over how "Official" it is. Forgeworld is official. The argument is whether you can just plop a Earthshaker carriage on the table without asking your opponent if it's cool to use it.

As pointed out you can't actually put any list down on the table without your opponent being cool with it. This means nothing.

To tie these two points together, WoW expansions are basically updates to the game that they charge for while 40k expansions are entirely optional. You basically need the former to progress while you can have a great time without the latter. Now, IA books are expansions. They say so right on the cover. Now, the preface that everyone likes to talk about says that these rules are intended for use in standard 40k. I at first didn't understand why this was different from, say, "These rules are standard 40k rules". The difference here is that the Forge world "Expansion" is a bunch of add ons for standard 40k matches instead of updates to the Codices. If they were the book would have said, "These rules are updates to the Imperial Guard codex and should be treated as part of said codex".

The whole point of what I said is that the word expansion =/= unofficial. That is all.

Now, you may be wondering if I am anti-FW. I actually love the company and their sexy big stupid models. Those LR variants (Stygies Vanquisher on a Mars Alpha Hull anyone?) are awesome. I've even played against a FW list and had a good time. I just think that people should educate their opponents on how IA is since they probably aren't familiar with the books.

I am more than happy to let my opponents know what my units can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 juraigamer wrote:
You mean the one quad riptide netlist? That daemon prince/dogs/screamers netlist? Those eldar/tau or tau/eldar combo lists?

Lets be fair, those are simply the only thing people complain about. Normal tau/daemon/eldar players don't get flak. Besides, the only reason they are winning is everyone is busy running elite armies, and they are good at killing elite armies.

Also, don't forget the FAQ's have been lacking. The daemons thing comes from the grimore, which can be easily changed to max invul of a 3+. The moment people start running lots of stuff rather than few things, the riptide/wraith problem vanishes.

But forgeworld isn't the same. Forgeworld has good models, decent rules, but the issue comes from the fact there is no codex and X forgeworld model testing when the codex is created. FW stuffs have variant power, not equal to points and/or army allowance. If the problematic FW units that people take for powergaming purposes were changed to be in league with everything else, you can then run forgeworld all day. Until then, keep believing it's fair.

Can I ask you a question? I play Tau. Would you rather play against a Riptide & Broadsides or would rather play against Hazard Suits with Phased Ion Guns and a couple of Remora Drones? The reason why I ask is because I consider the former to be way more powerful than the latter.