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.

**BoomWolf**

Or engaging anything with a 2+ save.
Multiwound T4's, FNP T4's (some units have both)

I'd say its not one sided.

**MWHistorian**

Oh my word, people. "Apologist" isn't an insult. It's a technical term for "someone defending something that is being criticized." That's all it is. There's nothing derogatory or insulting about it.

**ClockworkZion**

MWHistorian wrote:
Oh my word, people. "Apologist" isn't an insult. It's a technical term for "someone defending something that is being criticized." That's all it is. There's nothing derogatory or insulting about it.

"Blonde" isn't an insult either, it's a technical term to describe a certain range of hair colors, but it can still be used as one to imply someone is air-headed and ditzy.

Just because a word has specific definition doesn't take away from the way people use it as a means to belittle other people.

**Furyou Miko**

Apologist carries the implication that the thing they're defending has done something wrong.

**Big Blind Bill**

Some of the FW stuff can be on the powerful side. I believe this was more prevalent in the early days, but the reputation has remained. Certainly, anything they put out today is no more game breaking than other powerful units you find in regular codices.

I think we need forgeworld in 40k, as it help to add more variety and versatility to the xenos races, who do not have the vast allies table of the imperium forces.

**A Town Called Malus**

Big Blind Bill wrote:
Some of the FW stuff can be on the powerful side. I believe this was more prevalent in the early days, but the reputation has remained. Certainly, anything they put out today is no more game breaking than other powerful units you find in regular codices.

I think we need forgeworld in 40k, as it help to add more variety and versatility to the xenos races, who do not have the vast allies table of the imperium forces.

They also have a lot less toys from Forge World compared the the Imperium, so whatever nice stuff xenos get from Forge World, the imperium gets more and can use any of it without hindrances from the allies matrix.

**Grey Templar**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Big Blind Bill wrote:
Some of the FW stuff can be on the powerful side. I believe this was more prevalent in the early days, but the reputation has remained. Certainly, anything they put out today is no more game breaking than other powerful units you find in regular codices.

I think we need forgeworld in 40k, as it help to add more variety and versatility to the xenos races, who do not have the vast allies table of the imperium forces.

They also have a lot less toys from Forge World compared the the Imperium, so whatever nice stuff xenos get from Forge World, the imperium gets more and can use any of it without hindrances from the allies matrix.

I think thats more a problem with GW than Forge World. Forge World makes what appears in the fluff and frankly there is more variety in the Imperial lineup.

**ZebioLizard2**

Grey Templar wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Big Blind Bill wrote:
Some of the FW stuff can be on the powerful side. I believe this was more prevalent in the early days, but the reputation has remained. Certainly, anything they put out today is no more game breaking than other powerful units you find in regular codices.

I think we need forgeworld in 40k, as it help to add more variety and versatility to the xenos races, who do not have the vast allies table of the imperium forces.

They also have a lot less toys from Forge World compared the the Imperium, so whatever nice stuff xenos get from Forge World, the imperium gets more and can use any of it without hindrances from the allies matrix.

I think thats more a problem with GW than Forge World. Forge World makes what appears in the fluff and frankly there is more variety in the Imperial lineup.

Actually not really, considering all you could consider from Chaos and Tyranids and others like DE.

They just like making treads honestly, they admitted as such before.

**Co'tor Shas**

30k stuff also majorly contributed to that. It also helps that the imperium is multiple armies.

**Big Blind Bill**

They also have a lot less toys from Forge World compared the the Imperium, so whatever nice stuff xenos get from Forge World, the imperium gets more and can use any of it without hindrances from the allies matrix.

This is of course true, but at least it does still present new tactics and units to the xenos. To the tyrannids for example the introduction of the malanthrope was of far greater importance than anything in the IA: v2 for space marines, in a large part due to the small number of existing options available to tyrannids. (Also because of course is is a pretty decent unit).

FW has also helped out in my games where my armies did not have an updated codex for 6th ed, (or got left out like DA), and had no anti air options in their codex. In my experience FW has actually increased balance in my gaming group rather than the opposite.

**Bobthehero**

Also, the FW only options hit a new high with the latest IG codex.

**Vetril**

Murenius wrote:
There's no hate in my gaming group and people accept FW. Id sum up the general attitude as follows: "Guys, these days I looked at the FW models at their website and so wanted to buy a <insert any army's big stuff here>. But I stopped when I had 450 Euro in the shopping cart. Ah well, some day..."

Actually it's not that I couldn't free the money for it now that I work fully since years. It's more about realizing you will pay 500 Euro for a heap of resin, of which the sheer worth of materials is at 30 Euro maximum.

To be fair, it's not 500 euros for a block of resin - there's added value in the form of art. Still, probably not worth 500 euros

**Sigvatr**

MWHistorian wrote:
Oh my word, people. "Apologist" isn't an insult. It's a technical term for "someone defending something that is being criticized." That's all it is. There's nothing derogatory or insulting about it.

An "apologist" is someone who defends something no matter what. It implies a refusal to listen to reason / act reasonable.

**Big Blind Bill**

Sigvatr wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Oh my word, people. "Apologist" isn't an insult. It's a technical term for "someone defending something that is being criticized." That's all it is. There's nothing derogatory or insulting about it.

An "apologist" is someone who defends something no matter what. It implies a refusal to listen to reason / act reasonable.

Sorry, but no..

apol·o·gist
a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people

That's all the dictionary says. In certain contexts it might have a derogatory meaning, but at its heart it is a neutral word with neither positive nor negative connotations.

**AllSeeingSkink**

"FW apologist" just means "FW defender". I'm not sure where the negative connotation comes from, I've heard people use the term to refer to themselves when defending what they think is right.

**MeanGreenStompa**

The problem stems from people saying 'Forge World' like that's some blanket statement.

Forge World produces several things. 30k, which is designed to fight other 30k stuff, there's nothing stopping you agreeing to fight them against a 40k army, but they weren't designed to be. Apocalypse, which is designed for Apocalypse games (or potential LoW slots if you use those). 40k Approved... which is approved for use in 40k and should require no more or less acceptance on the table than a GW formation or minidex.

If it has '40k approved' on it, then it's approved to be used in regular games of 40k. You don't tell some gamer who's spent their inheritance building an elysian drop army that they can't field it 'because forgeworld'.

They don't make these lists in a void. They are playtested against standard GW codices regularly. If anything they are overcosted and underwhelming compared to them. Again, people muddying the waters by not understanding the classification are not helping the situation.

'40k approved' is 40k approved. If you don't personally approve it, that's your personal decision, but it's the same as saying 'I won't play the Ghaz ork codex' or 'I won't play the black legion'. There should be no 'Anti Forge World 40k approved units and lists climate'.

**Sigvatr**

Big Blind Bill wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Oh my word, people. "Apologist" isn't an insult. It's a technical term for "someone defending something that is being criticized." That's all it is. There's nothing derogatory or insulting about it.

An "apologist" is someone who defends something no matter what. It implies a refusal to listen to reason / act reasonable.

Sorry, but no..

Descriptive vs. prescriptive.

**ClockworkZion**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
30k, which is designed to fight other 30k stuff, there's nothing stopping you agreeing to fight them against a 40k army, but they weren't designed to be.

Actually....

The Horus Heresy Volume 1: Betrayal Errata & Addenda – Version 1.1, Amended 8th May 2013

Q: Are the armies and units in the Horus Heresy books by Forge World meant to be used in
games against regular Codex armies, such as say Grey Knights or Orks?
A: While Forge World’s on-going range of Horus Heresy books and their game content are all
designed to use and be compatible with the Warhammer 40,000 rules, they have been fine-tuned and
focused on playing battles in the milieu of the Horus Heresy rather than in conjunction with the
Codexes representing warfare in the 41st Millennium, and this will remain the case.
Designer’s Note: This means that while you are, of course, free to have fun and play games against
your friends using any forces you like, and Horus Heresy forces will be broadly ‘a fair fight’ with
Codex forces of the same scale, certain rules anomalies and inconsistencies may be thrown up that
you have to deal with, although these should not seriously affect the game in most cases. (For
example, certain units, such as those with the Stubborn special rule are at a premium costing in
Horus Heresy armies over their regular Codex counterparts, owing to the results of play testing
within their own sphere.)
In terms of using Lords of War and the Primarchs, however, these are definitely not intended to be
used in standard Warhammer 40,000 games, but only in games where both sides use the Age of
Darkness Force Organisation chart, and the specific provisions within, and in games of 2,000 points
or greater.
Designer’s Note: So if, for example, you wanted to play a battle representing a narrative where the
Sons of Horus Legion fought Orks or Eldar during the Great Crusade, you could quite easily use
those xenos forces’ Warhammer 40,000 Codexes (possibly house-ruled to accommodate larger
squads) to proxy for their Heresy-era counterparts. In this case, however, both sides should be using
the Age of Darkness Force Organisation chart, with the army’s own Apocalypse level units and flyers
available as Lords of War entries following the guidelines found on page 184 of Betrayal.

Totally designed to be 40k compatible, just best balanced against itself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also with 7th's LoW additions I think mixing in 30k's isn't really a problem anymore.

**Big Blind Bill**

Sigvatr wrote:
Big Blind Bill wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Oh my word, people. "Apologist" isn't an insult. It's a technical term for "someone defending something that is being criticized." That's all it is. There's nothing derogatory or insulting about it.

An "apologist" is someone who defends something no matter what. It implies a refusal to listen to reason / act reasonable.

Sorry, but no..

Descriptive vs. prescriptive.

Find a source that proves it. Psychology might use it as you are saying, to describe a mental state perhaps(?), but in usual conversation, outside of context, it is a neutral word meaning someone who defends a person, case, point etc.

Back on topic, are FW models really much more expensive than standard GW models these days? I can understand people in the past having a dislike of FW due to the price difference but today the gap is getting closer.

**ClockworkZion**

If you live in Australia or New Zealand FW is actually cheaper than GW.

**Frozen Ocean**

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...

Nobody said that it is bad. Meltaguns are far more powerful than flamers. Does that mean that flamers are bad and nobody ever uses them?

EDIT: What I mean is that you seem to have no concept of things being effective based on being different but not directly better. A meltagun is better in some situations, a flamer in others, and a plasmagun in others still. The same applies with the Knight variants.

**Kangodo**

Big Blind Bill wrote:
Find a source that proves it. Psychology might use it as you are saying, to describe a mental state perhaps(?), but in usual conversation, outside of context, it is a neutral word meaning someone who defends a person, case, point etc.

That depends on what you call a 'normal conversation'.
Because most of the time I've read the word in a discussion, it was used as an attack just like "fanboy" or "white knight".

**Frozen Ocean**

I think the stigma comes from detractors using it as an insult based on the root word, "apologise". When you apologise for something, you are responding to something negative that the something has done. In this case it would be "apologising" for Forge World being in the wrong. Apologising, rather than defending, implies that Forge World is actually in the wrong, and that "apologists" are essentially making excuses for existing faults, rather than refuting that the faults exist at all (which is what us "forgefriends" are doing).

You're right, Big Blind Bill, but unfortunately a lot of terms in the English language carry connotations that make their actual meaning quite different.

**Big Blind Bill**

Kangodo wrote:
Big Blind Bill wrote:
Find a source that proves it. Psychology might use it as you are saying, to describe a mental state perhaps(?), but in usual conversation, outside of context, it is a neutral word meaning someone who defends a person, case, point etc.
That depends on what you call a 'normal conversation'.
Because most of the time I've read the word in a discussion, it was used as an attack just like "fanboy" or "white knight".

This is just using the word with a certain context.

To give you a comparison; Many people in the English speaking world might use the word 'gay' derogatorily, for example:
"my tv is being gay and doesn't pick up channel 8"
Does gay mean bad by its standard definition? No. In this context the speaker has some prejudice against gay people, and therefore uses the word in a negative manner which is abstract from its standard definition.

Similarly, if someone feels that the apologists of a certain debate are of a certain negative character, then the opposing side may use the word in a negative manner. For example:
"you are such a nazi apologist!", or taken with this context "you are such an apologist!"
In this case "apologist" and its meaning has been skewed to a negative due to the context.

So, the word itself is neutral. With context it can be used in a negative manner, but even then some people may not understand why what you have said is a bad thing.
The statement: "You are such a FW apologist!" can simple be answered with "Yes I am. What is your point?"

Back on topic: I do wonder if we would have all these problems with FW and 'legality' today, if those FW books in the distant past didn't include that asking for permission rubbish at the start of them.
They could have just stuck a "40K approved" stamp on them there and then and solved a lot of the issues.

**Frozen Ocean**

If only the 7th Edition book had included a line about the legality of Forge World content. Then again, GW don't communicate with their customers, so how would they know that this is even an issue?

**Thud**

Jesus. There's something wrong with you people.

Dear OP. With regards to your original question, FW has several issues.

- It's not mainstream. Most people don't know what the hell any of those weird things do and often aren't in the mood of going through a FW101 lecture ahead of a game that's already bloated.

- The rules are a convoluted mess. Figuring out which publication has the current rules for any given unit is a massive pain. And unlike mainstream units, which may suddenly suck or become awesome with the change of an edition, some FW units simply stop functioning. And clarifications are spotty at best. If your mate got an email response from FW that his Thanatar Siege Automata actually does have that big gun, or that the Wraithseer can take a D-cannon, not a Wraithcannon, it's not an issue. But if some dude at the store says that "even though the rules for this thing says Wraithcannon, it totally means D-cannon, cross my heart" it does sound kinda shifty doesn't it?

- The rules are inaccessible. You can't just pop down to the shop to buy/check out the latest book, and you won't see tons of people discussing them online down to the smallest detail. So, for most people FW rules are more or less completely unknown. If you don't play Eldar, chances are you know what a Scatter Laser does, but if you don't play 30k, you probably haven't even heard of a Volkite Charger.

- Confirmation bias. FW rules are, or are seemingly, OP. People don't talk about Powerlifters; they talk about Thudd Guns and R'Varnas MCs as Troop choices.

- IRL Peregrines. Some people are above average insistent on their way being the right way and, goddamnit, you're gonna play against these units whether you want to or not! Now, shut up and take it!

That said, I like FW and I think it adds a lot of cool flair to the game and I have my fair share of FW stuff that I enjoy using.

**Kangodo**

But are those issues with FW or with the players?
1) I don't know what any non-Marine/Necron units do, that doesn't stop me from 'banning' Eldar.
In most games I just look at a weapon and try to 'guess' what it does. Works fine!

2) So? I play FW and I see it as my own responsibility to make sure I can present my opponent with the latest rules, just as it's my duty to have the latest Codex and FAQ in my possession.
And if FW mailed an answer to a question, I will print it out and show it to my opponent if he has any doubt about it.

3) Torrents.. And if you want to go the legal route, you can always order them online or lend them from the guy that plays it.
Most of my GW-buys are done online, so for me there is no difference between the two.
But please, tell me what a Scatter Laser does as I have no idea!

4) Yes, some of those are OP. But most stuff if 'okay' at best; by banning them all you mostly hurt the 'okay' stuff because powergamers will just flock to the insane stuff from the Codex.
For example: Would you rather play against two Tomb Stalkers or four Night Scythes when you face Necrons?
The only reason people make an issue about FW is because they believe they have some legit reason to ban those and limit the opponent in his choices.

5) "Well, duuuh". Can you blame people for wanting to play something they spend hundreds on?
You'd react the same if people suddenly said you couldn't play with 25% of your collection.

**Frozen Ocean**

While your points are valid (except perhaps the example of a Volkite Charger, which I don't think exists outside of 30k at all) in terms of being reasons for anti-FW sentiment, Thud, my experience with people has exclusively been the misconception that everything FW touches automatically becomes obscenely broken.

Speaking of 30k/40k crossover, however; am I mistaken in thinking that the Legiones Astartes List is a FW-designed "30k in 40k"? In which case, it is just as valid as any other 40k army. I respect people rejecting 30k units in 40k on the basis that they are, in essence, from a different game, albeit one that the designers have said can be played with a high degree of compatibility, but rejecting something specifically made for 40k based on "it's Forge World" is silliness.

EDIT: People reject a lot in 40k. It isn't about whether or not they can (because it is of course always their right to reject anything they want, including the use of Guardsmen and purple Vespids), but whether or not they are justified. It would be justifiable to reject a Transcendent C'tan (something almost universally regarded as massively broken), but not to reject all superheavies/gargantuans. "It's Forge World" is not a valid reason to reject things, and the association with Forge World and broken units is hypocritical at best, considering the things that GW-main put out. As for rules, one player should always share rules with the other. This applies to Codexes as well, because it is rare that a person will know every single army down to every statline, point cost, and special rule.

**Bronzefists42**

Thud, you brought up some really good points.

However saying "there is something wrong with you people" about people who just want to run FW seems to be pushing the envelope.

**Frozen Ocean**

I think "you people" refers to the anti-FW side, given how Thudd personally supports their use.