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 wrote:
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...

It's not bad, it's just not better than a regular Knight. It's strengths in munching infantry and a weapon that can potentially hurt fliers (if you're desperate) is met with other weaknesses (no D weapon and a shorter range weapon than other Knights for example). It's a side-grade that costs more than regular Knights and while can be taken in a Knight army, can't outnumber the other kinds of Knights you have, meaning you could take 2 in a 5 Knight army -tops-.

blaktoof wrote:
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...

???

First off the wording was a bit off. Second off you say "Forge World Apologists" like FW is some kind of malicous society based around punching babies, and those who defend it are similar. Also the point I was trying to make (that you hinted to in a less than subtle manner) was not that "OP units are okay since people just want to run something different" it was "I like running FW to run different options i.e. CCs on tactical marines.

Seriously with each post you people get more vicious and bloodthirsty towards people for using the "wrong" type of toy soldier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'll be frank here anti FW posters, most of you are not helping your argument. Acting like arrogant donkey caves and loudly attacking people for using the wrong type of toy soldiers in the most condescending manner possible, actually just makes people more sympathetic towards people who run FW.

...

On second thought continue using derogatory phrases like "forge friends" and painting FW as an evil OP powerhouse

Dear lord, now we have FW apologists?

 Blacksails wrote:
Dear lord, now we have FW apologists?

I'd rather be a bacon apologist.

Seriously though, the name calling never ends it seems.

 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.

It is hard to read with the font FW uses but it said "EXPERIMENTAL" for a pretty good reason.

 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.

The core rulebook still doesn't have an FAQ, the current Tau book was released about the same time as the Fall of Orpheus book, about a month earlier actually, and its FAQ might as well not exist for what its 104 words is worth.

The Necron book has been out since 5E and they just copy/pasted a lot of previously done FAQ stuff.

It's fine to harangue FW for not doing updates, but lets not pretend they're functionally any worse than GW's main studio either.

blaktoof wrote:
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...

hooray for hyperbole!


Nobody said it was terribad, they said it wasn't broken. It serves a different role than other knights and has different abilities. It's neither spectacular nor craptacular. What it is is not broken (at least not anymoreso than any other Knights). If you've got something to add other than trying to reword other people's statements to fit your narrative, please do so.

Wait a second.

-Lack of logic and/or consistent argument
-Constant use of derogatory phrases
-Putting words in mouhs

Men/Women, We have been trolled!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Dear lord, now we have FW apologists?

I'd rather be a bacon apologist.

Seriously though, the name calling never ends it seems.

Its even more comical when you remember FW is a just a different department in the same company making models for the same game.

I guess its always easier to paint in broad strokes and turn it into an us vs. them, black and white discussion.

 Orock wrote:

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

It may not say experimental in the pdf, but the downloads page from whence you presumably got the direct link for the rules says: "The rules presented here are Experimental rules, still under development, and are not the final version. Experimental rules will change over time before a final version is published."

 Blacksails wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Dear lord, now we have FW apologists?

I'd rather be a bacon apologist.

Seriously though, the name calling never ends it seems.

Its even more comical when you remember FW is a just a different department in the same company making models for the same game.

I guess its always easier to paint in broad strokes and turn it into an us vs. them, black and white discussion.

Well that and demonizing your opponent by putting them into a separate camp makes it easier to ignore any points they bring up.

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 Azreal13 wrote:
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

It's also the lowest form of arguing:

FW Apologists?

Well. They are a subsidiary of Games Workshop.

Next he will blame us that we only claim that so we can take them in our own armies for powergaming reasons, even though some of us don't even play these armies.

I've been in this argument before so many times, it is seriously going back to all the same silly "points" and its not even funny any more.

It feels like I'm arguing with a religious zealot.

 Gashrog wrote:

 Orock wrote:

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

It may not say experimental in the pdf, but the downloads page from whence you presumably got the direct link for the rules says: "The rules presented here are Experimental rules, still under development, and are not the final version. Experimental rules will change over time before a final version is published."

The Imperial Aquila makes it hard to read but I am 100% sure it says experimental.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:


The Imperial Aquila makes it hard to read but I am 100% sure it says experimental.

This link? No, it doesn't say experimental on it, but as was pointed out, the rules there are experimental until published elsewhere...or something.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:


The Imperial Aquila makes it hard to read but I am 100% sure it says experimental.

This link? No, it doesn't say experimental on it, but as was pointed out, the rules there are experimental until published elsewhere...or something.

The actual downloads page http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/fwDownloads


"The rules presented here are Experimental rules, still under development, and are not the final version. Experimental rules will change over time before a final version is published."

Something is written on the aquila and it looks like experimental.

If you could tell me what it says if it isn't "Experimental" I would appreciate it.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Something is written on the aquila and it looks like experimental.

If you could tell me what it says if it isn't "Experimental" I would appreciate it.

It says "Warhammer 40,000" on the Aquila.

Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Something is written on the aquila and it looks like experimental.

If you could tell me what it says if it isn't "Experimental" I would appreciate it.

It says "Warhammer 40,000" on the Aquila.

That makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

I'll say it again GW as a whole needs to get better at writing in general (it is unreadable on my computer)

Forgefiends sounds like a bad name in a bad childrens novel

Rat on yer pa and the forgefiends will get you

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

I expect it'll get nerfed in the future though. That or the Knight will go over 400pts.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

I expect it'll get nerfed in the future though. That or the Knight will go over 400pts.

Bump down its ap to 4 or lessen the range

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

It gets Shred and Rending, but loses a point of strength, 24" of range, ordnance special armor penetration, and only gets one shot instead of two. I'd say the Errant is still ahead on that score.

The secondary weapon is obviously better however

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

It gets Shred and Rending, but loses a point of strength, 24" of range, ordnance special armor penetration, and only gets one shot instead of two. I'd say the Errant is still ahead on that score.

The secondary weapon is obviously better however

It has a 12 inch better range and the same amount of shots just ap 3 instead of ap 1

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

It gets Shred and Rending, but loses a point of strength, 24" of range, ordnance special armor penetration, and only gets one shot instead of two. I'd say the Errant is still ahead on that score.

The secondary weapon is obviously better however

It has a 12 inch better range and the same amount of shots just ap 3 instead of ap 1

AP3 can't blow up vehicles. So it'd have to rely on Rending to 1 hit kill vehicles.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not.
Look at the new Magaera to see the experimental symbol.

In any case, the castigator is a sidegrade at best from the paladin, and the new magaera is a stranger sidegrade, maybe even a slight downgrade. (better shield and practical IWND, but slightly worse guns, lower I and less attacks-not sure if to file the higher explosive death as a plus or minus.)

The bump on the explosion table is a plus if you're in the enemy lines, a minus if you're in you're own.

Its main gun is arguably better than the errant though

It gets Shred and Rending, but loses a point of strength, 24" of range, ordnance special armor penetration, and only gets one shot instead of two. I'd say the Errant is still ahead on that score.

The secondary weapon is obviously better however

It has a 12 inch better range and the same amount of shots just ap 3 instead of ap 1

Oh wait, is the Errant the melta one?

My mistake in that case.

That said, S8 AP1 Melta vs S7 AP3 Shred/Rending are pretty different roles, and the S8 one won't be much worse than the S7 Shred at killling infantry but significantly better at engaging armor.