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.

Can someone find me something in FW worse than a scatterbike? If so, I'll reconsider. But even a single unit is not ban-worthy. It would have to be rampant. I've played against enough FW and enough Eldar to know that C:Eldar has better units on average than FW.

Martel732 wrote:
Can someone find me something in FW worse than a scatterbike? If so, I'll reconsider. But even a single unit is not ban-worthy. It would have to be rampant. I've played against enough FW and enough Eldar to know that C:Eldar has better units on average than FW.

People are arguing the Ta'unar but I dunno.

Fire Raptors, Contemptors and the like are very cool units, but nowhere as strong as Wraithknights or scatterbikes, so I don't see a reason to exclude them.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Can someone find me something in FW worse than a scatterbike? If so, I'll reconsider. But even a single unit is not ban-worthy. It would have to be rampant. I've played against enough FW and enough Eldar to know that C:Eldar has better units on average than FW.

People are arguing the Ta'unar but I dunno.

Fire Raptors, Contemptors and the like are very cool units, but nowhere as strong as Wraithknights or scatterbikes, so I don't see a reason to exclude them.

Well for less than the price of the Tau'nar, you can can have enough Scatterbikes to throw out 80 S6 shots I think.

And of course we should compare the Tau'nar to the Warhound and Revenant titans, both of which are "main GW" units. Or the pure-codex Stompa full of repair units that is effectively unkillable unless you get a 6 on the D-weapon table. It's not a bad unit, but it's far from the only LoW at its power level.

I still shake my head everytime I see 80 S6 shots in type.Especially in a game with hull points.

Martel732 wrote:
I still shake my head everytime I see 80 S6 shots in type.Especially in a game with hull points.

for only 540 points.

Martel732 wrote:
Can someone find me something in FW worse than a scatterbike? If so, I'll reconsider. But even a single unit is not ban-worthy. It would have to be rampant. I've played against enough FW and enough Eldar to know that C:Eldar has better units on average than FW.

Krieg Grenadiers, duh.

 Bobthehero wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Can someone find me something in FW worse than a scatterbike? If so, I'll reconsider. But even a single unit is not ban-worthy. It would have to be rampant. I've played against enough FW and enough Eldar to know that C:Eldar has better units on average than FW.

Krieg Grenadiers, duh.

Krieg Rough Riders broke my local meta.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


Ok, here's how I'm going to lay out my response to this.

I get that it's not your only objection, but you still maintiain it as one.

So, it's not a non -issue, you still claim power is an issue.

Yet, when people respond to that objection, you go off on this rant about how " You're STILL trying to argue power levels".

Yes, we are, because you continue making it an issue. Nobody has ever said it was the only one, but when they challenge you to provide examples, you deflect and misdirect instead of actually answering them.

If you CARE to understand the issue, understand it by re-reading the posts. If you want me to repeat myself 100 times, Im just no longer willing. So you can "decide" whether that "means" theres a leg to stand on for your own thinking but anyone who isnt getting the point should hardly be judging the "legs" upon which this is standing. Lol.

I didn, and I have responded to your posts. You claim game balance problems, then don't respond or simply deflect when you are challenged on them. You've written a lot but not actually answered the question.

As for the "economic balance" argument you've made, I've addressed that too, and you've largely chosen simply not to respond to it at all.

I think you want to get into an argument over which ONES are too powerful or not and thats not going to help. so no. Im not going to ENGAGE you on that level other than the couple examples I did give (Lynx and Dreadclaw for reference).

*snort* the Dreadclaw?



You're reaching with that one.

Nobody will mind you restricting things like D-toting superheavies however. Most people really don't have a problem with that, however, when your examples of things outside of that realm are things like Dreadclaws, it's hard to take the claim seriously.

But Im not stamping my feet about them as my BIG REASON. Becaue while those two are good examples, what purpoe will it serve to get into a "nuh uh"... "Uh Huh" about which ones *I* think are kinda over the top? ESPECIALLY if that REALLY isn't the main reason!

But it is a reason, and a reason you use, but one you refuse to engage on.

Forums are like this. If you get troll'd down that path, you never get back to whats important or relevant. While I can CERTAINLY point to things I don't want newer or returning players (for whom I champion) to have to deal with those specific examples, the issue is larger than that and I cant make that any plainer than repeating it over and over.

So if you want to get me to list a whole bunch, you'll fail because Im not going down that path with you. Thats its own thread. Start one.

Really what I'm looking for is if there's something other than a couple of outliers that a majority of people can get behind, and that do so on a level that's consistently as bad as things like the Eldar codex and the like, that would really merit a blanket ban. Some sort of consistent trend of overpoweredness rather than a couple of cherry-picked examples, particularly from the non-suerpheavy crowd.

But you want to deflect again, so we'll assume you really don't have an argument.

DISTRACTION from the overall experience of the gamers is what this leads to. the thread was focused on why people like me just dont want it and my position is CRYSTAL clear: I dont care if you play it. I will play in tournaments that allow it. Im not like SOME of you who draw some silly line in the sand and say "my willingness to compete is limited by what toys I get to bring". I'm not that guy. But insofar s my ability extends, I lobby to disallow it on the many grounds Ive shared.

and that you dont agree is fine with me. I'm just shedding the REQUESTED light on how some of us view it.

TL; DR your arguments have boiled down to "it's expensive", "it's unbalanced", and "I don't know the rules" or that there's some sort of "core game" concept, and when challenged you have simply deflected.

When people counter that FW and GW pricing is nearing parity, and in many cases has matched parity, you don't respond. When the balance issue comes up, you deflect. When people say you can find out the rules the way anyone finds out the rules for new units, you don't respond.

When people challenge you to show where this concept of yours about what the "core game" is comes from and what basis it has in the rules, you don't respond.


You're basically spinning everything off to fight straw-men (most particularly with your Wraithknight example above...which you amusingly did not respond to) rather than actually straight up answering anything.


For a guy who's apparently all about "unorthodoxy", your unwillingness to allow FW seems oddly inflexible.

It seriously becomes harder and harder for me to read a Vaktathi post without totally agreeing with everything he says. Well said man, you're certainly articulating everything way better than I would.

To the topic at hand though, for those of who you, like me, shunned Forge World throughout 5th edition, when would you say was the turning point in your attitude towards Forge World? I myself was still pretty staunchly against it throughout 6th edition, but by 7th there seems little point in resisting anymore with so much of what was exclusively FW amalgamated into the core rules.

I changed my mind about forgeworld when I saw cool looking vehicles such as the Sicaran Battle Tank, and when I found out I could take them in my 40k Marine army my opinion was then firmly set in support of forgeworld

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Except in this case the room full of people yelling that the moon is square is just full of you.

To respond to the topic at hand, I had a lot of trepidation about Forge World back in 5th edition but in the current meta of the game it seems to make less and less sense to ban those units. When the base game is basically apocalypse, it just feels kind of absurd to point a finger and say no I don't want to play against that, it's Forge World, but your GC wraithknight or storm surge are totally kosher.

You seem to be missing context. he's suggesting that a "bunch of people disagree" s some form of argument. Yet...e know...it isn't one. So...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Did you actually say the Dreadclaw was an overpowered unit?

You see what I mean. this guy is going to cling to THAt instead of focusing on the issue. It isnt whether I THINK that unit is stupid or not. But you, in your mind, want to narrow it to that? Meh. Exactly why I dont bother getting into a whole list of why's and wherefores on different Forge World units. this guy is why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:

The same goes for you. You could have a room full of people yelling that FW is overpowered, too complex, too expensive or what have you and shouldn't be in the (as you put it) "core" game but it doesn't make them right, just louder.

Except... Im not the one who made this ABOUT "how many people agree". You se. So I therefore dont have to DEFEND that position... because that was never MY position. Keep up.

 Jancoran wrote:
You see what I mean. this guy is going to cling to THAt instead of focusing on the issue. It isnt whether I THINK that unit is stupid or not. But you, in your mind, want to narrow it to that? Meh. Exactly why I dont bother getting into a whole list of why's and wherefores on different Forge World units. this guy is why.
.

IOW:

I keep telling you how overpowered FW units are but I'm not going to name any because every time I do someone explains why I'm wrong. But I'm still right even though I can't support my claim at all.

I think we can safely call this your concession of defeat on the issue of whether or not introducing FW units creates a significant balance problem compared to your personal no-FW version of 40k.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Also I'm glad someone else called you out on your battle reports before I could.
If you actually had something to prove with CSM's, you'd have actually done those high end tournaments.

Here again: the voice of ignorance speaking. Im not going to spend a thousand bucks to go to some tournament just to convince you of SQUAT. You even SUGGESTING That I'd have "Actually done those high end tournaments" is absurd. YOU pay for it and I will. Otherwise, live with it. I attended the Seattle GT a couple times, I attend some larger tournaments but I dont owe it to you to do that as PROOF. In case you didnt recognize it, PLENTY of good generals didn't win Adepticon. MANY did not! GOOD ones. So give it a REST.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here. I just want to know what can possibly top what GW has already put in the main codices for Eldar and Necrons. Or the Skyhammer formation.

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Also I'm glad someone else called you out on your battle reports before I could.
If you actually had something to prove with CSM's, you'd have actually done those high end tournaments.

Here again: the voice of ignorance speaking. Im not going to spend a thousand bucks to go to some tournament just to convince you of SQUAT. You even SUGGESTING That I'd have "Actually done those high end tournaments" is absurd. YOU pay for it and I will. Otherwise, live with it. I attended the Seattle GT a couple times, I attend some larger tournaments but I dont owe it to you to do that as PROOF. In case you didnt recognize it, PLENTY of good generals didn't win Adepticon. MANY did not! GOOD ones. So give it a REST.

IOW, "Yeah, but those tournaments don't count cause I said so".

Martel732 wrote:
Can someone find me something in FW worse than a scatterbike? If so, I'll reconsider. But even a single unit is not ban-worthy. It would have to be rampant. I've played against enough FW and enough Eldar to know that C:Eldar has better units on average than FW.

Even if you were right, it doesnt actually change the equation. So now because one codex is broken that is a reason to put ever more tools in that factions arsenal? Wait... What? How does it help your {fill in the blank} by giving the "broken codex" yet more things to play with?

the equation stays the same. You'll STILL have "the broken codex" if such a thing exists, only it will be now bigger. So... that clearly is a disconnect. giving more toys out means giving more toys out to Eldar also. Lol. what have you accomplished? You've deleted NOTHING from the Eldar codex and added to it. And this is your question?

And once you do that, you've instead created MORE potential synergistic imbalnces in other codex's instead of limiting it. In casual play, who cares. Its a fantasy game where you play the "what if Mothra fought Godzilla, who would win" type of thing and play it out. Fun maybe? But in competitive play you're just contiuing the list of abusables people can become disenfranchised with.

Do it if that's what you want to do. But I can't find virtue in it if all its doing is engorging what you are identifying as a "broken thing" to begin with. that math does not compute.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Also I'm glad someone else called you out on your battle reports before I could.
If you actually had something to prove with CSM's, you'd have actually done those high end tournaments.

Here again: the voice of ignorance speaking. Im not going to spend a thousand bucks to go to some tournament just to convince you of SQUAT. You even SUGGESTING That I'd have "Actually done those high end tournaments" is absurd. YOU pay for it and I will. Otherwise, live with it. I attended the Seattle GT a couple times, I attend some larger tournaments but I dont owe it to you to do that as PROOF. In case you didnt recognize it, PLENTY of good generals didn't win Adepticon. MANY did not! GOOD ones. So give it a REST.

IOW, "Yeah, but those tournaments don't count cause I said so".

More poor form I see. I never said any tournament didnt count. So...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not trying to be confrontational here. I just want to know what can possibly top what GW has already put in the main codices for Eldar and Necrons. Or the Skyhammer formation.

Lets assume the answer is nothing. Lets assume, just for the sake of it, that I told you there are ZERO things that Forge World makes that are more powerful (for the points obviously) than the Wraith Knight (or scatterbike). Lets pretend for a second that i said that.

The answer then is not to ADD a whole bunch more things to the Eldar codex that it can synergize with! That is the LAST thing you should want! It does not weaken the Eldar to have access to a Lynx! it does not weaken them to have access to Corsairs! you're just adding to both sides of the equation and ending in the same place. So it solves nothing.

 Jancoran wrote:
Even if you were right, it doesnt actually change the equation. So now because one codex is broken that is a reason to put ever more tools in that factions arsenal? Wait... What? How does it help your {fill in the blank} by giving the "broken codex" yet more things to play with?

It doesn't necessarily help the weaker codex, but it does make a joke out of your balance arguments. If FW units are no better (and often worse) than the non-FW units then it's simply absurd to attempt to justify excluding them based on balance reasons.

You've deleted NOTHING from the Eldar codex and added to it. And this is your reasoning?

Why assume that we delete nothing? Remove scatter lasers from bikes, allow FW units. Your problem only exists in the bizarre world where everything with the magic "codex" title on it is sacred and can't be modified, while everything with the FW title on it must be banned.

And once you do that, you've instead created MORE potential synergistic imbalnces in other codex's instead of limiting it.

{citation needed}

Could you provide some examples of these new lists that are so terrifying that you have to have a blanket ban on FW rules to keep them out of the game? I know you're not going to, because you never back up your claims, but I'm going to ask you anyway so that your refusal to provide evidence is clear to everyone.

The extra things from FW will never be taken by Eldar as long as scatbikes, WKs, and warp spiders are available in the main book. So why would I care if they choose to use something from FW? It only increases my chances against them.

FW at least gives BA a real tank, even if I'm not willing to pay for it myself at this point. It's meaningless because of ranged D, but at least it's there. Even BA FW goodies are rendered meaningless by base Eldar stuff! The more I think about this, the more upset I'm getting.

 Jancoran wrote:
The answer then is not to ADD a whole bunch more things to the Eldar codex that it can synergize with! That is the LAST thing you should want! It does not weaken the Eldar to have access to a Lynx! it does not weaken them to have access to Corsairs! you're just adding to both sides of the equation and ending in the same place. So it solves nothing.

No, but this is a blatant straw man argument. Nobody is claiming that giving Eldar access to FW units makes the Eldar army weaker. The actual point, which you keep ignoring, is that when existing units are so poorly balanced already there's no longer any justification for excluding the stuff that everyone else wants to use. You're turning paranoia about the Eldar getting slightly better because of "synergy" into an excuse to ban a whole category of units used by other armies.

FW does not make Eldar better. Don't even go there. Base Eldar units go toe to toe with lists made from 4 IoM codices. Giving them extra inferior units means nothing.

Of course, as I pointed out, the increases BA get from FW don't even matter against Eldar, so FW is changing exactly nothing in that match up.

Corsairs aren't giving Eldar access to any more power than they already have. If you have an issue with the Lynx then deal with it the same way you deal with Titans or the way the ITC deal with any superheavies they have a problem with.

Martel732 wrote:
The extra things from FW will never be taken by Eldar as long as scatbikes, WKs, and warp spiders are available in the main book. So why would I care if they choose to use something from FW? It only increases my chances against them.

FW at least gives BA a real tank, even if I'm not willing to pay for it myself at this point. It's meaningless because of ranged D, but at least it's there.

Sure they will. Armies arent made exclusively from them (I suppose one could, havent seen one played yet).

And I cant speak to what all the factions MIGHT do nor can you. I'm just addressing the simple math of the situation which is that you're not changing the equation by adding to the eldar Codex! You might be right about it giving some faction a "real tank" but then... What difference does that "real tank" make if its already "so hopeless" against Eldar as i sense you think it is.

Eldar are not a reason to do anything on their own. I can kill most of the bikes in an Eldar army in turn one with my Adepta Sororitas. Most Dark Eldar can do it in turn two if they are willing to try. The same BASIC ideas that work against a Tau gunline work against the Jetbikes because while they certainly are fast, the board isn't infinite in size. So once you have them where escape isnt possible, you kill them, if all he has afterwards is his Wraith Knight, you might be in good shape. So buck up. Eldar haven't ended the world. they're just really damn good and your A game will be required. Forge World isn't going to solve that. its just going tot empty yet more toys into all the toy boxes, including theirs and I know for a fact there are those who make a giant stink over not getting to use their Lynx in tournaments. Lol. theres several threads of indignation on that point by different folks.

If half the people who rally to the Forge World banner were being honest with themselves they'd just come right out and say it: I want to play with my toys. It's that simple for them. Finding some rationale for it is human but ultimately, thats where it comes from. The others are the super competitive types who wouldnt touch a subpar unit with a ten foot pole. They just want to win some stuff and are willing to spend whatever money it takes to do so. Okay fine. Their motivation isnt invalid but lets not make it some rational construct because the realiy is, they just want access to broken stuff. Call the kettle black.

I find the best way to deal with it all is just to say Whatever might be a little akilter, we adjust for (i.i. 0-1 Super heavies, etc...) and don't make the problem a lot worse for people. Not worth disenfranchising MORE people just to satisfy the cynics who say "Its already broken, so who cares if we break it more or make it that much less accessible to new and returning players". I mean, come on...

 Jancoran wrote:
And I cant speak to what all the factions MIGHT do nor can you. I'm just addressing the simple math of the situation which is that you're not changing the equation by adding to the eldar Codex! You might be right about it giving some faction a "real tank" but then... What difference does that "real tank" make if its already "so hopeless" against Eldar as i sense you think it is.

So you can't provide any examples of what could happen if you allow FW units, but you're still absolutely certain that something bad could happen and FW rules need to be banned. How can you seriously be so confident in your beliefs with so little evidence to support them?

I find the best way to deal with it all is just to say Whatever might be a little akilter, we adjust for (i.i. 0-1 Super heavies, etc...) and don't make the problem a lot worse for people.

So why can't you adjust for the problem lists, if any, that result from including FW rules? You're simultaneously admitting that you have the ability to deal with these problems and claiming that adding FW inevitably ruins the game. Do you not see the contradiction here?

Not worth disenfranchising MORE people just to satisfy the cynics who say "Its already broken, so who cares if we break it more or make it that much less accessible to new and returning players". I mean, come on...

I see, but it's fine to disenfranchise the people (50% of FW players by your own numbers) who just want to use their cool toys? It's ok to say "spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a new army to comply with my house rules or you're not welcome" because those people don't matter?

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Did you actually say the Dreadclaw was an overpowered unit?

You see what I mean. this guy is going to cling to THAt instead of focusing on the issue. It isnt whether I THINK that unit is stupid or not. But you, in your mind, want to narrow it to that? Meh. Exactly why I dont bother getting into a whole list of why's and wherefores on different Forge World units. this guy is why.

This is one of the most ignorant things that you have written in your entire rant. The basic debate structure is one person makes a claim backed up by evidence. To refute the claim, the opposition provides evidence on the contrary or rebuts the evidence provided. Here, we have you making a claim (Forgeworld is bad), in order to back up this claim you finally provided several pieces of evidence (Lynx and Dreadclaw are overpowered). The opposition is now refuting you original claim by questioning the veracity of your evidence (Dreadclaw is no more powerful than a drop pod for its cost). The proper move is to either provide more evidence that shows that your evidence was correct or rebuttal your oppositions evidence (Provide evidence of Dreadclaw being game breaking). If you don't want to back up your claims with evidence, then we might as well be debating Aneristic Principle or Invisible Pink Unicorns.

You can have the opinion that you do not want to play forgeworld. We can't touch you if you were to just say you don't want to play against forgeworld units because you just feel that way because we can't disprove or refute your feelings. It is when you put forth your opinions as if they had a logical backing and impose them on others that people start to argue with you.

Finally, please learn when to capitalise your words. Capitalisation exists for reasons other than to emphasise random words. Reading your posts is hard.

" I can kill most of the bikes in an Eldar army in turn one with my Adepta Sororitas"

Not if the Eldar player is good.

 the Signless wrote:


Here, we have you making a claim (Forgeworld is bad), in order to back up this claim you finally provided several pieces of evidence (Lynx and Dreadclaw are overpowered). The opposition is now refuting you original claim by questioning the veracity of your evidence (Dreadclaw is no more powerful than a drop pod for its cost). The proper move is to either provide more evidence that shows that your evidence was correct or rebuttal your oppositions evidence (Provide evidence of Dreadclaw being game breaking). If you don't want to back up your claims with evidence, then we might as well be debating Aneristic Principle or Invisible Pink Unicorns.

You can have the opinion that you do not want to play forgeworld. We can't touch you if you were to just say you don't want to play against forgeworld units because you just feel that way because we can't disprove or refute your feelings. It is when you put forth your opinions as if they had a logical backing and impose them on others that people start to argue with you.

Finally, please learn when to capitalise your words. Capitalisation exists for reasons other than to emphasise random words. Reading your posts is hard.

Actually you are..again... misrepresenting my point. because I didn't say all of Forge World was bad. So those are actually YOUR words and NOT mine sir.

And his "evidence", Counselor, is not evidence. its the equivalent of saying "nuh uh". There's no response to that. Which is why I'm not going to engage n the merits of his "nuh uh".

So if you're going to post, post about something I DID say. What I DID say is that I am well aware that some Forge World units are bad. I DID say that some were broke. I DID say that this was not the only reason I was opposed to it in tournaments and I DID say that i was fine with it in casual games.

When you claim he offered evidence beyond "Nuh uh", I scroll back and find none. Just him being derisive of whether its true or as you put it, "Questioning the Veracity". So if you want me to waste my time going "uh huh", well... I'm sorry to disappoint you, Counselor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
" I can kill most of the bikes in an Eldar army in turn one with my Adepta Sororitas"

Not if the Eldar player is good.

This is bordering on the surreal.

 Jancoran wrote:
If half the people who rally to the Forge World banner were being honest with themselves they'd just come right out and say it: I want to play with my toys. It's that simple for them. Finding some rationale for it is human but ultimately, thats where it comes from. The others are the super competitive types who wouldnt touch a subpar unit with a ten foot pole. They just want to win some stuff and are willing to spend whatever money it takes to do so. Okay fine. Their motivation isnt invalid but lets not make it some rational construct because the realiy is, they just want access to broken stuff. Call the kettle black.

And if half the people who rally under the anti-FW banner were being honest with themselves they'd just come right out and say it: I am jealous of other people's toys. It's that simple for them. Finding some rationale for it is human but ultimately, that's where it comes from. The others are the super WAAC types who wouldn't want their opponent to touch a decent unit that isn't 100% gak with a 10 foot pole. They just want to win some stuff and are willing to snub every player it takes to do so Okay fine. Their motivation isnt invalid but lets not make it some rational construct because the reality is, they just want access to broken stuff. Call the kettle black.


Also props to calling all FW OP in one paragraph (and labeling 1/2 the FW uses as WAAC TFG donkeycaves), even though that apparently isn't why you hate it...

So you spin my entire point off to the wraith knight, when I was using Eldar as an example of a different power tier, impressive.

Might be missing by a long shot though.



You talk about adding a load more units, but they have always been there.
As a tournament player you should adapt and evolve around changes in armies, FW is simply that.
It causes no more problems than a new codex would.


As to the tournament scene, the one that keeps being mentioned seems pretty damn soft.
Tons of restrictions placed into it make it seem a tad bland to me.