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.

The point is-maybe indeed he could-had he cared.
GW does not care for competitive play, and say it aloud. in fact they said it from the very beginning.
I also lost my fair share of games due to not even trying to win (demonstration games mostly. i tend not to use my entire arsenal on these)


On the second note, the "you" was a general "you", not a specific "you". it was aimed at the anti-forgeworld camp as a whole.
Though I must say it was quite an impressive turnaround, I'm almost sorry I didn't aim that specifically at you seeing your well-crafted response.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The point is-maybe indeed he could-had he cared.
GW does not care for competitive play, and say it aloud. in fact they said it from the very beginning.

Well if that's your only point I'm not going to bother refuting it because we have no idea how much they "tried" to make it good (saying you aren't trying to make a balanced game is a good excuse when you fail at making a balanced game ). But we do know they do make rules, they release those rules and charge a large amount for those rules. Given we're paying for a premium product I don't think it's too much to ask that they put some effort in to it.

But at the end of day, it is not a balanced game and I don't take issue with people trying to make it more competitive. That's why I find "well X is just as broken" as a bad argument


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
On the second note, the "you" was a general "you", not a specific "you". it was aimed at the anti-forgeworld camp as a whole.
Though I must say it was quite an impressive turnaround, I'm almost sorry I didn't aim that specifically at you seeing your well-crafted response.

Umm, thanks I guess?

Forge World is as "legal" as anything else. Per the rules now, players must agree to whichever army building restrictions they want.

All this posturing and bullying is pathetic.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Antario wrote:
I don't really like FW as I feel everything about it is bothersome. Rules spread over multiple books which are not all up to date and buying the stuff is a hassle.

How is this different than codex books?

I can find anything I want to know about basic IG in the AM codex. A random FW IG vehicle might be found in a number of IA books or updates. Would it be so fricking hard for GW to put the rules for these units also in the normal codexes? Add in one or two pages with FW model range rules.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Antario wrote:
If GW won't sell it at their stores, won't let you ship it there, and you're officially not allowed to use it in store either. I'm not sure why I should be anymore accommodating...

GW stores don't sell it on the shelf because it's a specialist product. They also don't sell Sisters of Battle without special orders either but nobody seems to begrudge them for that reason. When Battle Bunkers were still a thing they certainly carried FW stuff.

Unlike FW I can order SoB models instore and have it sent to my local GW and without extra cost. I've not yet encountered players who ask if it was alright to use their Battle Fleet Gothic list in a game of 40k. Unlike specialist games FW's IA and Apocalypse units are now an integral part of normal GW game formats, and these models now lack proper support. Store staff don't fully know the rules for these units nor can they look them up quickly or clarify them because they don't have a copy of the books. GW should simply fold FW in to GW and treat their stuff like 40k website exclusives.

 Vaktathi wrote:
If your GW store manager isn't allowing it, report them to their regional manager, they're basically just not wanting to advertise sales that don't apply to their metrics.

Hoenstly, GW didn't create FW and hire people to staff it just for players not to use the stuff....

Seems like the retail side of the company treats it like some under the counter stuff they don't really want to be associated with...I can't get my head around the concept of a company where three departments (stores, webstore and FW) are competing and/or sabotaging each other for sales.

nor is there a digital version by BL.

Since when did that become a requirement? How did people play this game before midway through 6E?

Ever since formations and datasheets became an integral part of the game. In the past I had a small rulebook and all the soft cover codexes that easily fitted in a bag. It was quite convenient at the time. I wouldn't recommend carrying around all the hard copy rules now.

The basic game has already enough rules bloat with formations and supplements to add on a another range of books.

FW has been around much longer than most of that other stuff...

True, but FW was far less accepted before 6th. You certainly didn't have to consider any FW units while building lists for pick up games or events. There was time when even special characters were not considered part of the standard game.

 Antario wrote:

I can find anything I want to know about basic IG in the AM codex. A random FW IG vehicle might be found in a number of IA books or updates. Would it be so fricking hard for GW to put the rules for these units also in the normal codexes? Add in one or two pages with FW model range rules.

It'd be nice...but who knows why GW decides that the main codex books just can't reference FW for some reason aside from occasionally putting in an FW model in a picture.

Unlike FW I can order SoB models instore and have it sent to my local GW and without extra cost.

weird, my local GW (now that one exists) can order FW, not sure where the disconnect is. Mine might just wait until they have a big enough order to do free shipping or something, I dunno. I do know they don't count towards their sales metrics.

Unlike specialist games FW's IA and Apocalypse units are now an integral part of normal GW game formats, and these models now lack proper support.

Rules support for 40k in general is lacking. There is still no rulebook FAQ/Errata and the codex FAQ's are abysmal and short.

Store staff don't fully know the rules for these units nor can they look them up quickly or clarify them because they don't have a copy of the books.

Since when have store staff ever been considered a particularly knowledgable "rules" source? I mean, most actual GW stores are just one guy that usually turns over every year or two now and independent stores certainly aren't going to take up that role as 40k is just one of many products anyway.

GW should simply fold FW in to GW and treat their stuff like 40k website exclusives.

That'd be nice.

Seems like the retail side of the company treats it like some under the counter stuff they don't really want to be associated with...I can't get my head around the concept of a company where three departments (stores, webstore and FW) are competing and/or sabotaging each other for sales.

Who knows. It would be nice if they worked better together certainly.

Ever since formations and datasheets became an integral part of the game. In the past I had a small rulebook and all the soft cover codexes that easily fitted in a bag. It was quite convenient at the time. I wouldn't recommend carrying around all the hard copy rules now.

Not everything has an ebook however even in the main range. IIRC the Militarum Tempestus book has no ebook for example.

True, but FW was far less accepted before 6th. You certainly didn't have to consider any FW units while building lists for pick up games or events. There was time when even special characters were not considered part of the standard game.

What's amusing is that literally nothing about FW changed with 6th, people just finally decided that they'd stop fighting it largely.

 Antario wrote:


I can find anything I want to know about basic IG in the AM codex. A random FW IG vehicle might be found in a number of IA books or updates. Would it be so fricking hard for GW to put the rules for these units also in the normal codexes? Add in one or two pages with FW model range rules.

Yet, with this current book much like with the 3.5/4E version, GW actually cut vehicle choices and punted the ball back to Forgeworld with this one being the Medusa and the Griffon (with the Colossus being a Bombard profile change) all gone. If it hadn't have been for the fact that they gave the Leman Russ and Hellhound actual turret options, I would have bet those would have been cut too. Emperor knows, they could have done the same thing with the Basilisk kit when they re-did that one as well, but GW seemed more wanting to just cut the amount of sprues and charge us the same or higher price it would seem.

I would hope one of the largest and most diverse military organziations in the galaxy would warrant some extra attention in showing the entire armory off, but oh wells.

Really my problem with FW is that it's so expensive for everything, like more than normal GW, and that's not even getting into the superheavies I mean things like if I wanted Death Guard torsos to make good Plague Marines, it'd be like $60 per unit (plus S&H) which is nonsense.

RE: FW's lack of FAQs. That's the same issue we have with the main studio who has FAR more employees available to update them. It's hardly a fair criticism of the much smaller FW department when the bigger one can't manage it.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Really my problem with FW is that it's so expensive for everything, like more than normal GW, and that's not even getting into the superheavies I mean things like if I wanted Death Guard torsos to make good Plague Marines, it'd be like $60 per unit (plus S&H) which is nonsense.

Look at normal GW prices and they're matching FW very quickly. As noted before, many units are now no different from FW equivalents in price. The new Tempestus Scions are the same cost as Death Korps Grenadiers and FW's Phoenix Lord is only like $1 more than GW Phoenix Lords.

To the argument that "Citadel" only encompasses Games Workshop itself (meaning the GW website and LGS'), and that, therefore, Forge World rules and miniatures are illegal in the game, does that mean that every single dataslate and "Digital Editions" is not part of 40k, because it is sold by Black Library (who are, like Forge World, a division of the company and not the company proper and therefore not "Citadel" by this logic)? If not, then you're just making an exception for Black Library for no actual reason.

I can understand rejecting 30k on the basis of it being a different game (not that I would, personally), but the majority of Forge World products are made exclusively for games of 40k, and most of the 30k models have additional rules to fit them into 40k (the Fire Raptor and Storm Eagle are good examples).

To the OP: you shouldn't concern yourself with what people think of you. Bring what you want to bring. Ultimately you play the game for your own enjoyment, and that should take precedence over that of other people, especially given the money involved. What does it matter if people "judge" you or not? That's their problem.

I find it quite curious as to how people can assert the game-breaking dominance of Forge World rules when every single overpowered deathstar or netlist I have ever seen has been based entirely on Codex units. Those infamous examples of 2++ rerollables and whatnot.

I do agree that their rules are all over the place and this can be annoying, although I don't see why this is a reason for not playing them. Would it really hurt to add a simple "The latest rules for this model can be found here" to the blurb of each model, with a link to the relevant book, or even just its name?

someone wrote:forgefriends

That is absolutely brilliant. At first, I thought you were referring to Forgefiends for some strange reason. I am now calling my Forgefiend a Forgefriend (Maulerfriend doesn't have the alliteration).

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
I do agree that their rules are all over the place and this can be annoying, although I don't see why this is a reason for not playing them. Would it really hurt to add a simple "The latest rules for this model can be found here" to the blurb of each model, with a link to the relevant book, or even just its name?

This is my major annoyance with FW stuff. I can't really bring myself to buy any of their books, since I never really know if they are the most up to date. I put my faith in Battlescribe (which is not perfect, I have found a handful of errors in it) to get the rules right, but all it would take is a little spot on each model's page that would tell you where to find relevant rules information.

As for whether or not FW stuff should be legal in play, that is up to the individual players, store, and tournament organizer. Personal opinion, they are just as legal as any other officially produced GW product designed for 40K. If the player I am facing says I can't use my FW stuff, then I will find someone else to play. That is their loss. Fixating on one aspect of a person's army, whether standard Citadel or FW, and refusing to play someone makes you a jerk. There are broken combos in standard codex armies just like in FW (possibly more so). The game is about having fun playing an army, not about winning every time.

I just get PDFs. I've never actually bought a rulebook (more money for miniatures, plus I don't even play that often).

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

You saying it like the Knights FW has put out are really OP, but I fail to see how they are. Plus that's the experimantal rules, so they will probably change when they make it into an actual book (hint: they almost always get nerfed).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

You saying it like the Knights FW has put out are really OP, but I fail to see how they are. Plus that's the experimantal rules, so they will probably change when they make it into an actual book (hint: they almost always get nerfed).

check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now. And yes, not only is the ranged gun superior, but the chance to move 30 inches turn one, along with the auto 4+ shield, and a wrecker of a d weapon in meelee, for 5 points? At least if I charge a regular knight with a warboss and nobz, I strike at the same time, and have a good chance of trading. Here his weapon is I2, meaning he can literally cut down everyone in meelee before that. Anything that has a chance to hurt it that is.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
RE: FW's lack of FAQs. That's the same issue we have with the main studio who has FAR more employees available to update them. It's hardly a fair criticism of the much smaller FW department when the bigger one can't manage it.

Codex: Necrons has a FAQ for a few months now. Guess what Fall of Orpheus has? Nothing. A smaller team leads to slower updates. Refusing to update is shoddy work.

 Orock wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

You saying it like the Knights FW has put out are really OP, but I fail to see how they are. Plus that's the experimantal rules, so they will probably change when they make it into an actual book (hint: they almost always get nerfed).

check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now. And yes, not only is the ranged gun superior, but the chance to move 30 inches turn one, along with the auto 4+ shield, and a wrecker of a d weapon in meelee, for 5 points? At least if I charge a regular knight with a warboss and nobz, I strike at the same time, and have a good chance of trading. Here his weapon is I2, meaning he can literally cut down everyone in meelee before that. Anything that has a chance to hurt it that is.

And yet the general consensus of knight players is that it is NOT any better than a "basic" knight.

That you failed to notice that is gun is a wash (2 S8AP3 large blasts compared to 8 S7AP3 shots, the 8 shots are only better against single-model targets, and inferior against multiwound T4 or hordes), and that while he has better anti-horde CC with the sweep and deflargate, his anti-SH cc is WEAKER because he is S10 and not SD (big difference!), and even with his special rules for extra hits and armorbane, he still puts out LESS damage than a knight against heavy targets.

In fact at a direct fight against other knights, the castigator LOSES.

Yet another disadvantage of the castigator-he has no secondary guns, so he has to charge what he shoots, as he cant ping another unit with a stubber to make it a viable target, and the shorter range makes him unable to influence both sides of the table like "basic" knights can.

Your chose a bad example for your point, as it proves the opposite. he's a sidegrade, not an upgrade.
And honestly, I'd rather fight him than a "basic" knight.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
RE: FW's lack of FAQs. That's the same issue we have with the main studio who has FAR more employees available to update them. It's hardly a fair criticism of the much smaller FW department when the bigger one can't manage it.

Codex: Necrons has a FAQ for a few months now. Guess what Fall of Orpheus has? Nothing. A smaller team leads to slower updates. Refusing to update is shoddy work.

What FAQs does IA12 need exactly? Have you tried emailing them the questions? Have you asked them if they're FAQing? Or are you just bitching on the internet without actually doing anything?

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Orock wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

You saying it like the Knights FW has put out are really OP, but I fail to see how they are. Plus that's the experimantal rules, so they will probably change when they make it into an actual book (hint: they almost always get nerfed).

check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now. And yes, not only is the ranged gun superior, but the chance to move 30 inches turn one, along with the auto 4+ shield, and a wrecker of a d weapon in meelee, for 5 points? At least if I charge a regular knight with a warboss and nobz, I strike at the same time, and have a good chance of trading. Here his weapon is I2, meaning he can literally cut down everyone in meelee before that. Anything that has a chance to hurt it that is.

And yet the general consensus of knight players is that it is NOT any better than a "basic" knight.

That you failed to notice that is gun is a wash (2 S8AP3 large blasts compared to 8 S7AP3 shots, the 8 shots are only better against single-model targets, and inferior against multiwound T4 or hordes), and that while he has better anti-horde CC with the sweep and deflargate, his anti-SH cc is WEAKER because he is S10 and not SD (big difference!), and even with his special rules for extra hits and armorbane, he still puts out LESS damage than a knight against heavy targets.

In fact at a direct fight against other knights, the castigator LOSES.

Yet another disadvantage of the castigator-he has no secondary guns, so he has to charge what he shoots, as he cant ping another unit with a stubber to make it a viable target, and the shorter range makes him unable to influence both sides of the table like "basic" knights can.

Your chose a bad example for your point, as it proves the opposite. he's a sidegrade, not an upgrade.
And honestly, I'd rather fight him than a "basic" knight.

8 S7 AP3 shots that are capable of shooting at fliers. So that allows it to target some of the units which serve as a counter to the standard knight by way of being untargetable except by its weaker weapons.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
8 S7 AP3 shots that are capable of shooting at fliers. So that allows it to target some of the units which serve as a counter to the standard knight.

Snapfire at Fliers.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
8 S7 AP3 shots that are capable of shooting at fliers. So that allows it to target some of the units which serve as a counter to the standard knight.

Snapfire at Fliers.

Still sending some shots their way as opposed to not being able to shoot at them at all.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
RE: FW's lack of FAQs. That's the same issue we have with the main studio who has FAR more employees available to update them. It's hardly a fair criticism of the much smaller FW department when the bigger one can't manage it.

Codex: Necrons has a FAQ for a few months now. Guess what Fall of Orpheus has? Nothing. A smaller team leads to slower updates. Refusing to update is shoddy work.

What FAQs does IA12 need exactly? Have you tried emailing them the questions? Have you asked them if they're FAQing? Or are you just bitching on the internet without actually doing anything?

E-Mail with no response months ago, 2 actually, one asking if there will be FAQ for 7th just as there were with 6th; a second one as well, asking specific questions in regards to how Kulakh interacts now, if SP get reworked and asking for a re-writing of the FDR.

6th had upfront FAQ. 7th did not. Make a guess.

Orock wrote:

forgefriends

Cute.

Orock wrote:

Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Why don't you explain your rationale behind why you think its so grievously undercosted/overpowered. Looks within the realms of reasonable to me, and no worse than anything found in the codices.

Because posts like yours above aren't doing anything productive for the discussion.

There are plenty of reasons to be annoyed at FW, but I don't think balance is one of them.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
8 S7 AP3 shots that are capable of shooting at fliers. So that allows it to target some of the units which serve as a counter to the standard knight.

Snapfire at Fliers.

Still sending some shots their way as opposed to not being able to shoot at them anyway effectively at all.

And if it shoots at them it can't assault anything. It only has one lonely gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
E-Mail with no response months ago, 2 actually, one asking if there will be FAQ for 7th just as there were with 6th; a second one as well, asking specific questions in regards to how Kulakh interacts now, if SP get reworked and asking for a re-writing of the FDR.

Odd, I got a response about By This Seal within a week. Have you tried emailing them again, or just that initial email? Sometimes things get lost in the shuffle after all.

 Sigvatr wrote:
6th had upfront FAQ. 7th did not. Make a guess.

That 7th caught them off guard with how fast it came out and with what it did to the game?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
6th had upfront FAQ. 7th did not. Make a guess.

That 7th caught them off guard with how fast it came out and with what it did to the game?

So nobody in GW main told Forge World that 7th was coming?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Still sending some shots their way as opposed to not being able to shoot at them anyway effectively at all.

And if it shoots at them it can't assault anything. It only has one lonely gun.

If it comes down to shooting at the Vendetta which next turn could get onto your side and blast you with lascannons or assaulting a unit of guardsmen, which is the better option?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
6th had upfront FAQ. 7th did not. Make a guess.

That 7th caught them off guard with how fast it came out and with what it did to the game?

So nobody in GW main told Forge World that 7th was coming?

I meant more that they may not have seen the final copy before it went to print.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If it comes down to shooting at the Vendetta which next turn could get onto your side and blast you with lascannons or assaulting a unit of guardsmen, which is the better option?

Assault the Guardsmen, because then you can't be shot while locked in combat with them.

Plus I'd rather use anti-air to take care of flyers, not relying on luck (6s followed by 5+s to deal with the Vendetta) to try and solve my flyer problems.

 Orock wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk//Downloads/Product/PDF/C/Castigator.pdf

5 points more than a basic knight. Forgeworld is totally just as balanced guize!

Every week this argument loses cred with more releases being clear money grabs.

O_o

No D weapon.

No ranged weapon capable of harming heavy armor or penetrating a 2+ armor save.

Ranged weapon is half the range of basic GW AP3 cannon knight.

In exchange it gets an enhanced run move and is a better horde-infantry mulcher in close combat.

At most you'll ever have 2 in a Knight list.

Why is this so hideously broken?

 Orock wrote:


check again, official 40k stamp. No chance for nerfs now.

Except they can and do change things as time goes on even without the Experimental stamp...

And yes, not only is the ranged gun superior

Half the range and lower strength?

but the chance to move 30 inches turn one

If you have absolutely insane dice luck and don't want him to assault/shoot that turn.

along with the auto 4+ shield, and a wrecker of a d weapon in meelee, for 5 points?

Normal Knights get the 4+ invul too, and they get a D weapon, the Castigator does not have a D weapon.

At least if I charge a regular knight with a warboss and nobz, I strike at the same time, and have a good chance of trading. Here his weapon is I2, meaning he can literally cut down everyone in meelee before that. Anything that has a chance to hurt it that is.

Normal Knights are I4 aren't they?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Have you tried emailing them again, or just that initial email?

As above, two e-mails. Right now, I don't care anymore, as I went back to playing 4th.

That 7th caught them off guard with how fast it came out and with what it did to the game?

It's been out for how long now?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Have you tried emailing them again, or just that initial email?

As above, two e-mails. Right now, I don't care anymore, as I went back to playing 4th.

That 7th caught them off guard with how fast it came out and with what it did to the game?

It's been out for how long now?

For how fast FW is on FAQs? Not long.

Since the castigator is.so bad. No one will ever see one in play. Oh.wait, its not bad the FW apologists are just saying that then when it is.taken it will be taken because it is different which somehow doesn't mean better...