Anti Forge World Climate?

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.

**blaktoof**

Games Workshop Group PLC

Games Workshop has expanded into several divisions/companies producing products related to the Warhammer universe.

Games Workshop now produces the tabletop wargames, Citadel miniatures, and the Specialist Games range.

Forge World makes complementary specialist resin miniatures and conversion kits. Forge World is also responsible for the Warhammer Historical line of historical wargames rules, including Warhammer Ancient Battles, all of which were previously published by as a component of Black Library.

BL Publishing is the fiction, board game and roleplaying game publishing arm of Games Workshop. They comprise several separate imprints; The Black Library, Black Flame and Solaris Books. Warp Artefacts used to produce merchandise based on Games Workshop's intellectual property; they are now folded into BLP as BL Merchandise.[26]

my guess is that I got the idea because they are two separate companies held by the same PLC.

And that FW products do not list "citadel miniatures" anywhere on them

and if you collect citadel models, and follow the sites like:

http://www.solegends.com/citadel/index.htm

which lists citadel models, obviously FW is not there because they are not citadel models.

**ClockworkZion**

FW isn't a separate company, it's a separate department from the main studio, that's all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Solegends isn't a GW based site. You can't use it as proof of really anything in this situation.

**blaktoof**

its a separate division/company from citadel.

they are not citadel models, that's all.

http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

yeah its a separate site, but its a site that lists collection of citadel models, no FW things are on there because fw=/=citadel.

when you buy a blisterpack, or box set from GW it will say citadel model or citadel miniatures on it, does it say that on FW kits? the answer is no, because FW is not citadel, they are different.

**Vaktathi**

FW is not a distinct company, they're just a different sales channel (like Black Library). All their employees are GW employees at GW HQ, their books have big GW stamps on them with GW copyrights, etc.

GW didn't set this group up just for people not to buy and use the stuff...

Ultimately, if we're having to get into corporate structure to determine who's little plastic army men can be used, the argument has done too far.

**blaktoof**

I agree, but then why would they put into the rulebook "armies are made up of citadel models"

when they could have said

"armies are made up of games workshop models"

fairly certain no one can prove that FW models are citadel models, since they are not.

FW has been doing well for a long time, and their models were never official although most reasonable people are okay with a large part of the range. So obviously the mere fact they are sold is not proof they are citadel models, or do not require permission from opponent. Given the current climate of 40k the basic rules seem to require permission from your opponent these days with unbound, LoW, unlimited detachments, etc being issues for some players.

**TheSilo**

Orock wrote:
People will argue to the death that not only is it legal to play forgeworld, but that you have to accept that. You don't. Just like if someone brings a transcendent ctan, you can say you don't want to play against it.

There are many problems with forgeworld.

Their rules are spread out, multiple copies of them exist, and if you don't know, someone can bring an earlier more advantageous set to the game, like the old contemptor rules. Yes the armies have rulebooks, but anyone who plays the actual game knows what basic army books are on what edition and how updated they are/what is next to be released. They are also discussed like units are on this board constantly, so even without a physical copy you know the jist of it. The only forgeworld units you are likely to know about are the ones someone brings regularly. Which brings you to point number 2.

Cheeze. Oh forgeworld makes balanced units you say, or even underpowered? Lets take a look across the boards and see how many of them are on there. Oh look, all of none. Forgeworld is statted and point priced to sell. If you want someone to pay 60,000 dollars for a luxury car, it damn well better be superior to the 20,000 dollar model next to it. As much as forgefriends like to defend it as being as balanced as the rest of the game, you will never, ever, ever, ever see thses units. Instead you will see superior land raider variants, experimental rules riptides who were CLEARLY bait and switched to move plastic, cheap options for armies who should not have them for balance reasons such as saber platforms. If someone just wanted death korps of kreig models because they look far superior to the other guard, more power to them. Stand in models like that for regular ones make the game more interesting. But people are straight faced lying to you if they tell you because GW decided to be lazy and just break what little of their game remained, that forgeworld units have no balance issues whatsoever.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the game is on the way out, 7th being able to use anything, and thus having to buy more and more powerful units to compete with your friends elder army supplemented with an imperial knight lance is just the company pulling the string on its golden parachute, trying to artificially inflate the value of the company so some sucker like Hasbro buys it before it fails.

+1. When I ask for guidance on ways to use underpowered codex units, a good portion of the responses is always "check out the Forge World alternative."

- Riders of Krieg versus Rough Riders
- Saber Platforms versus Heavy Weapons Squads
- Talons versus Valkyries

Forge World is like DLC in a multiplayer video game. A percentage of the hardcore gamers will buy it and wreck house. These models and sets are made to sell well above the base 40k prices, which are already high. It is an extra level of investment above and beyond the already high cost of entry and participation for this hobby. It is hard enough just keeping all of the core rules and codices straight, adding in the plethora of Forge World rules makes it impossible to keep up.

It's ok when people bring these things to casual games, annoying when they bring them to pick-up games, and I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.

**Orock**

I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.

You cant. But forgefriends will tell you that the house is already burning, whats a few more gallons of gas on the flame.

**Bronzefists42**

Wow.

This thread turned from a logical discussion to a venomous snake pit of misanthropy. I understand not liking FW but some of you people seem to have a burning vendetta against FW and anyone who uses it.

**ClockworkZion**

blaktoof wrote:
fairly certain no one can prove that FW models are citadel models, since they are not.

Just grabbing a few books off my shelf for this:
From the Citadel Warhammer 40,000 Escalation book there are the following Lords of War that only have models from FW: Thunderhawk, Revenant Titan,Tiger Shark.
From the Citadel Warhammer 40,000 Pandorax Apoc Expansion: Great Brass Scorpion of Khorne, Marauder Bomber, Warhound Titan.
From the Citadel Warhammer 40,000 Damocles Apoc Expansion: Thunderhawk (again).
From the Citadel Warhammer 40,000 Damos Apoc Expansion: Deathstorm Drop Pod, Necron Pylon.

These are Forge World models in Citadel marked books. I think it's safe to say that they mean to include FW under the "Citadel" umbrella there even if they don't explicitly state it. And even if you want to argue that they're still not, we still have books that are up to date and actively being released that support their use in 40k. So yeah, legit, even if you don't like it.

**Bronzefists42**

Also we shouldn't be policing the exact wording of vague policies. If BL and other GW books are anything to go by GW has horrible grammar.

**Tiger9gamer**

Bronzefists42 wrote:
Wow.

This thread turned from a logical discussion to a venomous snake pit of misanthropy. I understand not liking FW but some of you people seem to have a burning vendetta for FW and anyone who uses it.

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought this.

Seriously, it's a game to have fun. People like forge world and think it's fun! Maybe, If someone brings out a list with a lot of cheese just ask for a different list to play against. If they say no find a different opponent! Maybe, just maybe, enjoy the hobby? Between this and other threads I'm thinking that 40k isn't the only thing filled with eternal hate and suffering

**Bronzefists42**

Seriously. The kind of people who treat this game as some kind of battle for honor are the same kind that spend whole games berating children.

**Peregrine**

blaktoof wrote:
I agree, but then why would they put into the rulebook "armies are made up of citadel models"

Because GW wants to take every opportunity possible to use their brand names and present the gaming hobby as the GW Hobby™. Saying "GW models" could be interpreted as "game models that happen to be made by GW", while "Citadel™ Miniatures™" makes it clear that there's something special about these models that you can't get anywhere else. Remember, this statement is written by the same company that has openly claimed that the thing their customers love most about the hobby is getting more opportunities to buy GW products.

Orock wrote:
I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.

You do it the same way you work codex rules into a competitive scene. If you can handle all the stupid broken codex stuff you can handle FW rules.

TheSilo wrote:
+1. When I ask for guidance on ways to use underpowered codex units, a good portion of the responses is always "check out the Forge World alternative."

- Riders of Krieg versus Rough Riders
- Saber Platforms versus Heavy Weapons Squads
- Talons versus Valkyries

You know why? Because those units suck. This isn't a case of FW releasing something overpowered, those codex units are utter trash that nobody ever uses unless they're deliberately crippling their own lists to go easy on a newbie. That advice isn't pointing you in the direction of an overpowered auto-win unit, it's just saying "if you really want to use that kind of unit here's something that's at least marginally playable instead of an easy way to lose the game". Taking away the FW units doesn't make the codex units more appealing, it just changes the advice you get from "here's a decent alternative that keeps the same theme" to "don't even bother trying".

(Also, nobody is arguing that Valkyrie Sky Talons are better than Valkyries, they're two completely different units.)

Forge World is like DLC in a multiplayer video game. A percentage of the hardcore gamers will buy it and wreck house.

Just like a percentage of the hardcore gamers will buy codex rules and wreck house. In fact the WAAC players are the ones who benefit the least from including FW rules since they're already crushing everyone effortlessly and have no incentive to allow anything that might change the game and force them to adapt.

**ausYenLoWang**

blaktoof wrote:
its a separate division/company from citadel.

they are not citadel models, that's all.

http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

yeah its a separate site, but its a site that lists collection of citadel models, no FW things are on there because fw=/=citadel.

when you buy a blisterpack, or box set from GW it will say citadel model or citadel miniatures on it, does it say that on FW kits? the answer is no, because FW is not citadel, they are different.

the rule book also states that i can take models that have rules in ANY games workshop publication. be it codex, white dwarf or any other. how do you explain that?

**Co'tor Shas**

Are we seriously having the "Is Forgeworld Legal?" argument again?

This is quite entertaining.

**ausYenLoWang**

i know i thought that it had been buried with 7th edition... but hey apparently its "still" a thing to say NO FW its not legal, but run 30 single oblits if you want is, cos the BRB says it explicitly...

stupidity

**Orock**

Bronzefists42 wrote:
Wow.

This thread turned from a logical discussion to a venomous snake pit of misanthropy. I understand not liking FW but some of you people seem to have a burning vendetta against FW and anyone who uses it.

So with posts from your history, visible to all, like forgeworld-come see the brighter side, you had no clue that your thread would pretty much be flamebait?

Sure buddy. This wasent a troll thread from the start, Im sure you have never seen this thread in your time here, multiple times even.

**ClockworkZion**

ausYenLoWang wrote:
i know i thought that it had been buried with 7th edition... but hey apparently its "still" a thing to say NO FW its not legal, but run 30 single oblits if you want is, cos the BRB says it explicitly...

I thought the "FW isn't legal" arguement died when they put FW units in Escalation and then said it was part of the normal game (and again when they then said those Lords of War were legal in normal armies in the LoW slot in 7th).

But once again I'm proven wrong and this dead horse rises from the grave once more to gallop forth into the night.

**Swastakowey**

I dont see why people dont just say its as legal as your opponent says. Thats all it comes down to.

If that doesnt suit your tastes find someone who calls it legal and game.

Its really that simple. Its clear to see why people are against and for it.

Who cares. Really. Besides the person you are playing with.

**AllSeeingSkink**

There's increasingly a disconnect between what GW says is legal and what the community actually does.

**ausYenLoWang**

ClockworkZion wrote:
ausYenLoWang wrote:
i know i thought that it had been buried with 7th edition... but hey apparently its "still" a thing to say NO FW its not legal, but run 30 single oblits if you want is, cos the BRB says it explicitly...

I thought the "FW isn't legal" arguement died when they put FW units in Escalation and then said it was part of the normal game (and again when they then said those Lords of War were legal in normal armies in the LoW slot in 7th).

But once again I'm proven wrong and this dead horse rises from the grave once more to gallop forth into the night.

no no did you see, its the MODELS arent legal, the rules might be though but you cant use the model cos its not made my "citadel"

**ClockworkZion**

Swastakowey wrote:
I dont see why people dont just say its as legal as your opponent says. Thats all it comes down to.

that's what every game of 40k comes down to. The fact that people feel they need to dictate some kind of community wide rule about legality, based on what they don't want to play with, is just silly and I wish it'd stop. Play whatever you and your opponent agree on and that's it. Problem solved.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ausYenLoWang wrote:
no no did you see, its the MODELS arent legal, the rules might be though but you cant use the model cos its not made my "citadel"

That's the kind of rules lawyering that kets people bricked in the head with a Warhound.

**Swastakowey**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:
I dont see why people dont just say its as legal as your opponent says. Thats all it comes down to.

that's what every game of 40k comes down to. The fact that people feel they need to dictate some kind of community wide rule about legality, based on what they don't want to play with, is just silly and I wish it'd stop. Play whatever you and your opponent agree on and that's it. Problem solved.

Im a bit offended that my profile picture is not correct in your quote

Not really.

But yea I agree, it solves everything related to whats allowed. Should be standard to simply ask before you play, but of course only if you and your opponent agree.

**Bronzefists42**

Orock wrote:
Bronzefists42 wrote:
Wow.

This thread turned from a logical discussion to a venomous snake pit of misanthropy. I understand not liking FW but some of you people seem to have a burning vendetta against FW and anyone who uses it.

So with posts from your history, visible to all, like forgeworld-come see the brighter side, you had no clue that your thread would pretty much be flamebait?

Sure buddy. This wasent a troll thread from the start, Im sure you have never seen this thread in your time here, multiple times even.

The whole purpose of this thread was to see of their was an anti forge world climate in the 40k community. I now see that this is a redundant thread, as the mere mention of the word "Forge World" sends people into blood thirsty rages that abandon all sense of human decency. I have seen people loudly complain about FW but never a thread addressing the FW hate climate. I don't mind people who dislike FW. That is easily understandable. What I mind is donkey caves running around loudly insulting people for a choice they made.

**ausYenLoWang**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:
I dont see why people dont just say its as legal as your opponent says. Thats all it comes down to.

that's what every game of 40k comes down to. The fact that people feel they need to dictate some kind of community wide rule about legality, based on what they don't want to play with, is just silly and I wish it'd stop. Play whatever you and your opponent agree on and that's it. Problem solved.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ausYenLoWang wrote:
no no did you see, its the MODELS arent legal, the rules might be though but you cant use the model cos its not made my "citadel"

That's the kind of rules lawyering that kets people bricked in the head with a Warhound.

haha not using my warhound for that, i might grab a cinderblock though.

and yeah every game is what your opponent will/wont allow.

**Bobthehero**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Are we seriously having the "Is Forgeworld Legal?" argument again?
This is quite entertaining.

Oooooh you have no idea...

TheSilo wrote:

- Riders of Krieg versus Rough Riders

Entirely irrelevant, since you can't field Death Riders in a standard IG list.

Also, my FLGS is cool, I've brought my FW list since day one, never had issues or complains.

**Vaktathi**

TheSilo wrote:

+1. When I ask for guidance on ways to use underpowered codex units, a good portion of the responses is always "check out the Forge World alternative."

- Riders of Krieg versus Rough Riders

Is that a case of FW being broken...or of normal RR's just being awful and FW just making them useable? (they're also only available for use within DKoK army lists, you can't just use them in a normal IG army as their own choice)

- Saber Platforms versus Heavy Weapons Squads

See above again. Normal heavy weapons squads are both absurdly easy to remove from the board and curiously overcosted, and most competitive IG armies don't bother with them in the first place. Keep in mind Sabres were originally AV10 "glance-it-once-it-dies", then GW changes to core artillery rules in 6E, and now in 7E they can only engage ground targets with snapshots.

- Talons versus Valkyries

Sky Talons? This thing? Really?

Forge World is like DLC in a multiplayer video game. A percentage of the hardcore gamers will buy it and wreck house. These models and sets are made to sell well above the base 40k prices, which are already high.

Have you seen modern GW prices? In many instances FW isn't at all any more expensive anymore. GW prices the Tempestus Scions at the same price as Death Korps Grenadiers, and many Characters are now practically identical in cost to FW characters. Those new plastic Ork Mek Guns? They're on par with DKoK Heavy Mortar and Thudd Guns units with crews.

It is an extra level of investment above and beyond the already high cost of entry and participation for this hobby. It is hard enough just keeping all of the core rules and codices straight, adding in the plethora of Forge World rules makes it impossible to keep up.

And how many people keep up with every codex, formation, dataslate, supplement, or WD release? Singling out FW here on its own feels rather disingenuous.

It's ok when people bring these things to casual games, annoying when they bring them to pick-up games, and I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.

Nothing about 40k, in any way, shape, or form, is intended, designed, or built around competitive gaming. GW has openly said as much. If you're trying to do competitive with 40k, you're hamfisting a paradigm onto a system that it was never intended for, and have to accept that. It's not like the basic codex books don't have their own share of vast internal and external balance issues.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Vaktathi wrote:
It's ok when people bring these things to casual games, annoying when they bring them to pick-up games, and I can't fathom how you could work these things into a competitive scene.
Nothing about 40k, in any way, shape, or form, is intended, designed, or built around competitive gaming. GW has openly said as much. If you're trying to do competitive with 40k, you're hamfisting a paradigm onto a system that it was never intended for, and have to accept that. It's not like the basic codex books don't have their own share of vast internal and external balance issues.

Just because GW suck at making a balanced and competitive game doesn't mean it's wrong when players want to try and make it more balanced and competitive... just sometimes they tend to do it out of ignorance of the units rather than a good understanding of them. But the desire to make the game balanced and competitive isn't wrong even if GW completely fail to do it.

**BoomWolf**

A-they don't "suck" at making a competitive game-they are not even trying. just take a look at all the random tables, they are obviously not made with anything competitive in mind.

B-even if you WERE right that the game needs to be competitive (not every game has to be), it does not change to fact that forgeworld models are by no method superior to "core GW" models, and are in fact usually inferior to them rule-wise, and at best they are sidegrades, with a select few notable exceptions when you compare them to utterly unplayable models, or in cases of old rules interacting with new edition and creating an unexpected-something that happens in codecies all the time, be definition, and cannot be avoided unless you stop making new editions.

C-the vast majority of "overpowered FW" complaints are usually referring to either experimental rules, aka "beta test-we have no idea if this is fine, and thins should not be taken seriously" rules or to rules that are no longer even applicable as they got updated, and in odd cases rules that never existed at all and someone made up/got totally wrong.

D-its not even logical to call it "pay to win" even if it WAS stronger, considering FW prices are hardly any higher than "GW site" prices, and some all-FW armies can be built cheaper than all-"GW site" ones.

So to sum things up, your point, if it even exists, is not rational and merely the result of a compulsive desire to find issues where there aren't any.

**AllSeeingSkink**

BoomWolf wrote:
A-they don't "suck" at making a competitive game-they are not even trying. just take a look at all the random tables, they are obviously not made with anything competitive in mind.

Random tables are bad for everything

But either way who cares if they were trying or not, the fact is it's not. They failed to create balanced rules, "they weren't trying" does not change the fact they failed. It sounds like some kid on the school yard "well I wasn't trying, I could have beaten you if I was trying".

So to sum things up, your point, if it even exists, is not rational and merely the result of a compulsive desire to find issues where there aren't any.

You must be referring to someone other than me with the rest of your rant because at no point did I say FW should be banned, FW is superior, or FW is pay to win. I also never said that every game has to be competitive. So I'm gonna assume you're talking to someone else, otherwise your rant is just the result of a compulsive desire to find issues where there aren't any.