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.

Typically it's been of my opinion that FW units are typically well below the GW power curve with a few exceptions that were obnoxiously good.

The main problem with FW for me is that they have a tendency to write very... "unique" rules that are easy to play wrong. I still use it and don't have an issue with others using it, of course, but I expect the rules to be easily accessible by both players so that FW's wackier stuff doesn't end up more powerful than written.

FW in general has been fine historically. The current batch of stuff has issues and was very poorly developed, reading through the 8E FW books you get the feel that FW found out about 8E the same way the rest of us did and had the new shop intern write the rules for everything at the last minute as rules details were leaked, with predictable outcomes. There are things that dont work right or at all, things that are either plainly stupidly overcapable or over stat'd (e.g. SM superheavy tanks vs IG superheavy tanks..why is a Fellblade easily twice as resilient as a Baneblade?) and plainly underpowered/pointless units. It is the way of Games Workshop as a whole. It is very clear zero playtesting, proof reading, or extended effort went into these FW releases, though it doesnt appear there was much done with the core GW stuff either.

That said, everything we have for 8E is temporary and placeholder. We'll get new rules for everything over time here, lets hope they improve.

 Brutallica wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 FirePainter wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:
The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.

Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...

Let go of that anger. What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?

I'd say 2 point brims and storm ravens are worse than most FW personally.

"most"? I mean, no one is saying that everything FW is OP.

But he did awnser your question.

Well not really. If the most unbalanced GW is only more unbalanced than "most" FW, then that means there is something from FW that is more unbalanced than the most unbalanced from GW.

No one is claiming that FW is unbalanced in every unit, it's only the edge cases that we're looking at, so we're not comparing it to "most" FW.

So why are the edge cases of GW getting a pass? If most GW and most FW is fine and dandy why distinguish between the two?

brims and storm ravens and y'varha and malenthropes and etc etc should have their points adjusted and that should be the issue not the source IMO.

Forgeworld is illegal ©

 FirePainter wrote:
So why are the edge cases of GW getting a pass? If most GW and most FW is fine and dandy why distinguish between the two?

brims and storm ravens and y'varha and malenthropes and etc etc should have their points adjusted and that should be the issue not the source IMO.

No one is giving them a pass. Those things are most probably OP. The case here was that the GW stuff was MORE op than the FW stuff. You have to keep reminding yourself what the actual discussion is.

 Purifier wrote:

 FirePainter wrote:
So why are the edge cases of GW getting a pass? If most GW and most FW is fine and dandy why distinguish between the two?

brims and storm ravens and y'varha and malenthropes and etc etc should have their points adjusted and that should be the issue not the source IMO.

No one is giving them a pass. Those things are most probably OP. The case here was that the GW stuff was MORE op than the FW stuff. You have to keep reminding yourself what the actual discussion is.

I can't speak for the original poster, but other than maybe the Gauss Pylon I haven't seen anything as busted as brimstones or stormravens in the FW indices. On the contrary, most of the extreme outliers are on the other end of the scale (I'm talking to you Renegades and Heretics).

First of all, as a tzeentch player I'mma say his right now, brimstones are properly costed. You can't make them cost more cause than you compare then to guard and gaunts. I will admit the 4++ invul makes them very resilient, s1 makes them very weak though. I have literally dished out three non smite wounds from them.

Now, most people complain about them because they shoot them expecting them to die, they are literally there to do nothing but get shot instead of characters. If they had any sort of offensive ability they would need to cost more. But right now they have on avg 2 smites a game if people happen to be in range of it. Their entire job is to take bullets as a screen for the heralds/characters. If you make them cost more it becomes way too much to field them for this job. The best thing for them I think is to just lose ephereal form(+1 invul) they'd still have an invul and try and stay alive a bit. But you could spam them to make up for this. Don't forget they have ZERO morale mitigation and you don't actually have to kill an entire squad, just half.

That being said, as far as fw goes, look at the chaos book and tell me if you think 40 s8 ap-1 d2 shots that also give -2 ld to things they hit, and 108 heavy boltor shots behind 70 bodies is broken? Having played with and against cheese well over two dozen games so far with both smite spam tzeentch, and full chaos shooty (opponents being am, sm, nids, Orks, sob, necrons, sw, and Tau) and I can confidently say that there is so much "op" running around it straight comes down to player skill. Gw and fw be damned, gone are the days people won with a power list before even showing up. Use real skill or lose! Muahaha

Arachnofiend wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 FirePainter wrote:
So why are the edge cases of GW getting a pass? If most GW and most FW is fine and dandy why distinguish between the two?

brims and storm ravens and y'varha and malenthropes and etc etc should have their points adjusted and that should be the issue not the source IMO.

No one is giving them a pass. Those things are most probably OP. The case here was that the GW stuff was MORE op than the FW stuff. You have to keep reminding yourself what the actual discussion is.

I can't speak for the original poster, but other than maybe the Gauss Pylon I haven't seen anything as busted as brimstones or stormravens in the FW indices. On the contrary, most of the extreme outliers are on the other end of the scale (I'm talking to you Renegades and Heretics).

I think there are more than you think as far as NPE go, the Greater Daemon models especially Tzeentch, the pylon, Brayarth is pretty stupid. Just because GW makes some stupid units (Ravens and Brims need fixing too) doesn't mean adding more things that are busted helps. There is also the issue that FW stuff leads very much to skew lists (it is powerful and expensive) meaning if you can handle it, great, but the game is probably over fast and is boring, if you cannot, great the game is probably over fast and is boring. I would argue that on a unit to unit basis, the FW stuff is more broken (ravens are broken because you can field an entire army of them, if you stop that they are not as good, but you could also fix their points, but I think the Air Wing Detachment being a thing is bad for the game, but then I think the super heavy detachment is bad for the game.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ecdain wrote:
First of all, as a tzeentch player I'mma say his right now, brimstones are properly costed. You can't make them cost more cause than you compare then to guard and gaunts. I will admit the 4++ invul makes them very resilient, s1 makes them very weak though. I have literally dished out three non smite wounds from them.

Now, most people complain about them because they shoot them expecting them to die, they are literally there to do nothing but get shot instead of characters. If they had any sort of offensive ability they would need to cost more. But right now they have on avg 2 smites a game if people happen to be in range of it. Their entire job is to take bullets as a screen for the heralds/characters. If you make them cost more it becomes way too much to field them for this job. The best thing for them I think is to just lose ephereal form(+1 invul) they'd still have an invul and try and stay alive a bit. But you could spam them to make up for this. Don't forget they have ZERO morale mitigation and you don't actually have to kill an entire squad, just half.

That being said, as far as fw goes, look at the chaos book and tell me if you think 40 s8 ap-1 d2 shots that also give -2 ld to things they hit, and 108 heavy boltor shots behind 70 bodies is broken? Having played with and against cheese well over two dozen games so far with both smite spam tzeentch, and full chaos shooty (opponents being am, sm, nids, Orks, sob, necrons, sw, and Tau) and I can confidently say that there is so much "op" running around it straight comes down to player skill. Gw and fw be damned, gone are the days people won with a power list before even showing up. Use real skill or lose! Muahaha

Maybe if they couldn't take smite, but with it they are more effective than guard or gaunts for cheaper. They also let you easily fill up detachments for high CP.

Smite for horrors is on 1d6, literally your going to see 2 go off for at max 6 wounds. That's if they survive the whole game. Gaunts have so much more threat potential it's crazy. If I had to single out one op mother trucker in the book, it's the changeling. That guy easily needs to be double his pts. -1 to hit my whole army? Only 100 pts? Yeah okay. It's this guy that makes horror spam broken giving them all -1 to hit against them.

Distinguishing between Forge World and GW is silly.

If you don't like OP units, banning Forge World's indexes and keeping GW's won't make them go away any more than banning Games Workshop indexes and keeping Forge World's will.

Premise 1:
Competitive players will spam the most OP unit.
Premise 2:
The most OP unit will exist whether it's from Forge World or not.
Conclusion: Banning Forge World does nothing to inhibit spamming the most OP unit.

Premise 1:
Forge World adds extra options for non-competitive players to bring.
Premise 2:
Removing options for non-competitive players is only a bad thing.
Conclusion:
Banning Forge World is a bad thing.

From these two arguments, you can see that banning Forge World does not help the competitive scene and only hurts the casual scene.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Distinguishing between Forge World and GW is silly.

If you don't like OP units, banning Forge World's indexes and keeping GW's won't make them go away any more than banning Games Workshop indexes and keeping Forge World's will.

Premise 1:
Competitive players will spam the most OP unit.
Premise 2:
The most OP unit will exist whether it's from Forge World or not.
Conclusion: Banning Forge World does nothing to inhibit spamming the most OP unit.

Premise 1:
Forge World adds extra options for non-competitive players to bring.
Premise 2:
Removing options for non-competitive players is only a bad thing.
Conclusion:
Banning Forge World is a bad thing.

From these two arguments, you can see that banning Forge World does not help the competitive scene and only hurts the casual scene.

Premise 1- FW adds more Skew lists to the game
Premise 2- Skew lists make for NPE
Conclusion- Banning FW leads to fewer NPEs.

Premise 1 - not all OP units are equal

conclusion - the addition of FW may lead to OP units that are less fun to play against than the OP units in the standard game.

Premise 1- Tournament Bans don't necessarily effect the casual scene
conclusion: banning Forge world does not hurt the casual scene, unless that scene chooses it to, similarly allowing FW in tournament in no way forces the casual scene to accept them.

Premise 1- people were generally unhappy with needing multiple books to know what armies did in 7th
Premise 2- FW leads to situations where armies need multiple books to function

conclusion: FW's inclusion will make a not insignificant people unhappy.

There is thinking among FW proponents that because GW produces OP units adding more to the game doesn't matter. This is a flawed premise. Lets accept that Brimstone Horrors are broken, allowing that player to add a giant flying chicken of destruction (I cannot spell his name) to them doesn't make the game better.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ecdain wrote:
Smite for horrors is on 1d6, literally your going to see 2 go off for at max 6 wounds. That's if they survive the whole game. Gaunts have so much more threat potential it's crazy. If I had to single out one op mother trucker in the book, it's the changeling. That guy easily needs to be double his pts. -1 to hit my whole army? Only 100 pts? Yeah okay. It's this guy that makes horror spam broken giving them all -1 to hit against them.

11 Termagants w fleshborers = 44 points
2x9 Brims w/blues = 46 points

Termagants have 11 T 3 wounds with 6+ saves average 0.9 wounds per turn in shooting against marines, or assault, have max 12" range. If they survive all game for a 6 turn game They will average 6 wounds in the entire game. This goes down if any models die. So their damage reduces with every wound, it also goes down if the unit has a better save, or higher toughness than 4 and they are significantly less durable than the Brims. They put out slightly more damage against GEQ (14.67 wounds) than Brims, but not by much.

The Brim squads have 20 T3 wounds with a 4++, They average 2.333 wounds per turn against marines, at 18" range, a bit more in combat. If they survive all game for 6 turns that is 14 wounds. These wound against any toughness value Their offensive output does not significantly decrease until the whole unit dies. Tell me again how gaunts have so much more threat potential.

Seems like from this they should cost 3 points each, then it would be 9 + blue for 32. Still be more durable than the Gaunts, and put out the same threat as the Gaunts.

Well, we could ban all non-Codex: Space Marine lists as well to reduce the number of possible options. Or maybe everything but basic Marines? That way everything will be happy following the premise that adding skew makes people unhappy I guess....

Banning options has never been a good strategy in my opinion, and a blanket ban on some publications because "some of the units are OP" is frankly stupid. If we have a hundred units, ten of which are OP, ban those ten and let the other ninety be used. However, this will almost never reflect reality. In stores, the owner will decide what is legal or not. In friendly games, you will hopefully be able to discuss what you're allowed to bring. In tournament's, it's up to the organiser and from what I've seen, they frequently make some changes to the broken units or ban just them.

I think everyone should get a single model, and then the game should be immediately determined by whoever rolls higher on a single d6. You can't balance a game better than that.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Distinguishing between Forge World and GW is silly.

If you don't like OP units, banning Forge World's indexes and keeping GW's won't make them go away any more than banning Games Workshop indexes and keeping Forge World's will.

Premise 1:
Competitive players will spam the most OP unit.
Premise 2:
The most OP unit will exist whether it's from Forge World or not.
Conclusion: Banning Forge World does nothing to inhibit spamming the most OP unit.

Premise 1:
Forge World adds extra options for non-competitive players to bring.
Premise 2:
Removing options for non-competitive players is only a bad thing.
Conclusion:
Banning Forge World is a bad thing.

From these two arguments, you can see that banning Forge World does not help the competitive scene and only hurts the casual scene.

Premise 1- FW adds more Skew lists to the game
Premise 2- Skew lists make for NPE
Conclusion- Banning FW leads to fewer NPEs.

I have no idea what an NPE is so I guess you win!

Breng77 wrote:

Premise 1 - not all OP units are equal

conclusion - the addition of FW may lead to OP units that are less fun to play against than the OP units in the standard game.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise: You're missing quite a few premises. In fact, I can't even follow your logic at all right now - are you saying that FW may make a unit that is unfun to play against and should be banned? Because GW, also, could make an unfun unit to play against worse than Forge World's, so utilizing the same logic one could say we should keep the FW rules and ban the GW ones. This is not a strike against Forge World, it is a strike against making unfun units from either publisher, since we're treating them as equals. Remember what I said: Treating the two as separate is silly. If you consider banning one for a reason, consider that you may have to ban the other for the same reason.

Breng77 wrote:

Premise 1- Tournament Bans don't necessarily effect the casual scene
conclusion: banning Forge world does not hurt the casual scene, unless that scene chooses it to, similarly allowing FW in tournament in no way forces the casual scene to accept them.

Premise 1: Competitive players need to practice for tournaments.
Premise 2: For a tournament practice to be useful, it must follow those tournament rules.
Premise 3: Competitive players use their home clubs to practice for tournaments.

Conclusion: home clubs end up with the same rules as tournaments, at least for some games.

Breng77 wrote:

Premise 1- people were generally unhappy with needing multiple books to know what armies did in 7th
Premise 2- FW leads to situations where armies need multiple books to function

conclusion: FW's inclusion will make a not insignificant people unhappy.

Premise 1: It is bad to put some people's happiness over the happiness of more people.
Premise 2: More people would be upset by banning Forge World than would be upset by allowing it.
Conclusion: Banning Forge World is bad.

Breng77 wrote:

There is thinking among FW proponents that because GW produces OP units adding more to the game doesn't matter. This is a flawed premise. Lets accept that Brimstone Horrors are broken, allowing that player to add a giant flying chicken of destruction (I cannot spell his name) to them doesn't make the game better.

You are correct, but the discussion is not about whether we should ban the 'giant flying chicken of destruction' - it is about whether we should ban a whole category of models and units. Allowing people to add fluffy options like Leman Russ Annihilators or Malanthropes to their army is objectively better than disallowing them.

Feel free to ban the OP models if you don't just categorically ban an entire collection.

NPE = negative play experience

My premise is FW may lead to more OP units in the game, this is not debatable, and those they have tend to be more extreme than those put out by GW as far as skew.

Tournament Practice =/= Casual play, so you cannot say that tournaments banning effects casual scene, if that scene is not casual. It may effect some clubs that are on the less casual end.

I disagree- with your premise that more people would be upset by banning FW, than would be by including it. I think those crowds are at best equal.

Premise- most players don't own any FW models and as such would be unaffected by a ban.

In my area for example such a ban would impact maybe 1 or 2 people, and not one person has an entire FW army. SO by your own premise in my area if more than 2 people are upset by FW I should ban them if I were to run an event.

As for banning Individual models, that has rarely gone well, it is (however you may dislike it) more well received to have blanket bans. The BAO is banning all units above 30 PL, which includes more FW models than GW models. Not all of these models are broken, but it is more well received by people to ban them all than to only pick the broken models.

People are more upset when their special snowflake unit is banned and some other persons is not. That is just how humans react to things.

Further if there are a lot of rules issues in the current FW books it is better to have a blanket ban than risk those going unaddressed and leading to bad player experiences.

Like I said I wish FW would stop writing rules, and just make units that GW would release data slates for, written by the GW design studio.

So if the crowds that would love/hate FW being banned are equal...then what would be the point of doing so? Either way, half of the player base is unhappy, so banning FW is senseless.

Breng77 wrote:
NPE = negative play experience

My premise is FW may lead to more OP units in the game, this is not debatable, and those they have tend to be more extreme than those put out by GW as far as skew.

Tournament Practice =/= Casual play, so you cannot say that tournaments banning effects casual scene, if that scene is not casual. It may effect some clubs that are on the less casual end.

I disagree- with your premise that more people would be upset by banning FW, than would be by including it. I think those crowds are at best equal.

Premise- most players don't own any FW models and as such would be unaffected by a ban.

In my area for example such a ban would impact maybe 1 or 2 people, and not one person has an entire FW army. SO by your own premise in my area if more than 2 people are upset by FW I should ban them if I were to run an event.

As for banning Individual models, that has rarely gone well, it is (however you may dislike it) more well received to have blanket bans. The BAO is banning all units above 30 PL, which includes more FW models than GW models. Not all of these models are broken, but it is more well received by people to ban them all than to only pick the broken models.

People are more upset when their special snowflake unit is banned and some other persons is not. That is just how humans react to things.

Further if there are a lot of rules issues in the current FW books it is better to have a blanket ban than risk those going unaddressed and leading to bad player experiences.

Like I said I wish FW would stop writing rules, and just make units that GW would release data slates for, written by the GW design studio.

Whew there is a lot to go over in this post.

I disagree that skew lists cause NPEs. In fact, I rather enjoy playing against skew lists, as it is very challenging to preserve what inadequate antitank I have in a TAC army against a wall of tanks. It's challenging and fun! I rarely win, but that's not the point.

Tournament practice absolutely affects casual play. I can't even count the number of times I've gone to a wargaming night and the club says "We use the ITC (or whatever tournament) rules because they're the major tournament rules", and I've been to at least 10 different clubs in 6 different cities in four countries on two continents. In fact, I think to suggest that clubs are unaffected by what tournaments rule is either incredibly disingenuous at worst or inexperienced at best.

In my experience, most people like having Forge World in the game. I've played a Forge-World only army (Armoured Battlegroup) since it dropped in 5e, and have never had a game turned down 'because it was forge world.' This means the number of people that actively dislike Forge World is either very small, or I am incredibly lucky - and my playmates will tell you I am not lucky!

Simply because a player does not own a Forge World model does not mean they will be unaffected. My friends often requested to play my Armoured Battlegroup because it was nicely painted and they wanted to take photos of the game, or they wanted to see what my latest purchase could do and if they could counter it. If Forge World didn't exist, those games wouldn't be played.

There aren't that many rules issues in the current FW Books that can't be addressed without common-sense - though yes, if you only run the rules like a computer programme there are quite a few issues. I would note that those issues absolutely exist in the Games Workshop rules as well.

If GW's design team wrote the rules for the models there is no guarantee it would be any better, so I fail to see why this is important, but sure that'd be fine with me. Heck, I'd be even happier if I got to write the rules for them! >

Its interesting to note that every time GW has taken over rules for an FW model, those rules have been dramatically more powerful than the FW incarnation.

Additionally, we have units that were GW, but that are now FW, and some that have swapped back and forth multiple times. The Griffon being an excellent example (codex unit in 2E and early 3E, FW from late 3E through 4E, GW in 5E and back to FW with 6E).


Ultimately, FW does and always will write rules. They do stuff that either the core studio isnt interested in, wants to test the waters on, or cant do in plastic, but that still exists in the 40k universe or has some sort of demand. Core GW isnt going to take all of thosr over, they dont have the interest.

We're dealing with a haphazard edition change, yet again, and rushed army lists, as is tradition. Yes, FW put out some garbage. So did core GW. We'll have to see if they live up to their promise of a living ruleset and do regulars, meaningful updates. If so, most issues should work out over time. If not, banning FW isnt going to make the problem go away, as 7E illustrated.

It is commonly accepted by most people that playing games where you stand little to no chance to win is an NPE especially in a tournament (the only place a ban actually matters).

Tournaments effect club play, but I would argue that clubs using ITC because those are major tournaments are not casual. They are clubs concerned with playing tournaments. I'm not insinuating that there is no trickle down that may make it tough to find a casual game, I'm arguing that people that insist on playing with a tournament packet are competitive players not casual.

Most people don't care about FW on a casual basis, I don't I've never refused a game do to FW. They care about it in a competitive setting, which is where a ban would matter.

A player that owns no FW will not be affected by tournament rules disallow FW models. Casual games would still happen in this case, no one would stop your friends from facing your armored BG list, it just wouldn't happen in a tournament.

Common sense works well as long as you are playing not in a tournament, as soon as winning is on the line, someone is going to argue that RAW, something is broken. SO it would require at least an event level FAQ to solve the issues, or multiple judge rulings.

My assumption about the design team writing the rules is that the FW rules would then receive the exact same level of testing, and be written with the same design philosophy. That may or may not make them more balanced, but it is obvious to me that those things are lacking in the current FW rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The other issue, is will FW update things. GW has indicated they will be making balance changes, points costs changes etc on a regular basis. Now maybe they won't live up to that, but since FW is a different studio we have no idea if they will do the same.

I will always be against banning FW because my area is highly cojmpetitive and typically only use tournament styled rules in all their games.

I went 15+ years with having to fight tooth and nail to get to use any forgeworld at all. I'm not going back to those days.

So name FW units that are as broken as the GW counterparts. Chances are that list is real fuckin slim, Breng. Because there's almost NO list.

That's the funny part. While arguing about whether or not a ban is even sensible, I have yet to see proof of a FW unit which is as broken as a GW unit.

I do recognize that the current meta is unstable and that such problems may not have presented themselves, but the same is true of Games Workshop's meta as well.

 andysonic1 wrote:
I use a Kharybdis Assault Claw and, while some of my opponents would disagree, it is perfectly balanced. It gets easily blown to bits by concentrated fire while having the ability to dish out a metric feth ton of damage should it be allowed to live.

ITC has decided for the BAO that they won't allow any single model with a PL of 31 and up, which eliminates a lot of the super huge FW units. I expect we will see more tournaments do this and it will start to become the norm in matched play.

See, it's not Forgeworld is imbalanced, it's what you can do with the seemingly balanced models. I agree that the KAC is not imbalanced, but it's awfully good for the points.

Put a Sorcerer and a squad of Noise Marines into the KAC. Deep strike near your opponent's biggest vehicle. Cast Warptime on the KAC to move just an inch away from said vehicle. Shoot it up with the Noise Marines, charge it with the KAC, and hit it with the Melta cutters on a 2+ with 2d6 AP -5 attacks.

At least in my local groups, people have a tendency to cluster vehicles. With thoughtful movement, that KAC will consolidate into combat with another vehicle and keep them tied up for the rest of the game.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
I use a Kharybdis Assault Claw and, while some of my opponents would disagree, it is perfectly balanced. It gets easily blown to bits by concentrated fire while having the ability to dish out a metric feth ton of damage should it be allowed to live.

ITC has decided for the BAO that they won't allow any single model with a PL of 31 and up, which eliminates a lot of the super huge FW units. I expect we will see more tournaments do this and it will start to become the norm in matched play.

See, it's not Forgeworld is imbalanced, it's what you can do with the seemingly balanced models. I agree that the KAC is not imbalanced, but it's awfully good for the points.

Put a Sorcerer and a squad of Noise Marines into the KAC. Deep strike near your opponent's biggest vehicle. Cast Warptime on the KAC to move just an inch away from said vehicle. Shoot it up with the Noise Marines, charge it with the KAC, and hit it with the Melta cutters on a 2+ with 2d6 AP -5 attacks.

At least in my local groups, people have a tendency to cluster vehicles. With thoughtful movement, that KAC will consolidate into combat with another vehicle and keep them tied up for the rest of the game.

To be fair it's a little more than 500 points for that, and it's completely shut down by any list with proper screening troops (the kharybdis is a huge model so it's not hard to place troops where the KAC can't move where it wants to). You should be comparing that trick in effectiveness to a Knight because that's how much it costs, and I'm pretty sure the Knight is more reliable.

Same deal with Aetaos'rau'keres; amazing model, but represents a third of your points in a standard army size. He does a ton, but he better because he has to outpace a Knight by 200 points to be worth his cost.

 Brutallica wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 FirePainter wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:
The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.

Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...

Let go of that anger. What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?

I'd say 2 point brims and storm ravens are worse than most FW personally.

"most"? I mean, no one is saying that everything FW is OP.

But he did awnser your question.

He answered it but not accurately. "What's 1+6?" "Nineteen." Technically that's an answer too.

Storm Ravens are demonstrably not worse than FW. Have you seen Vulture Gunships? You can spam them much more than you can spam ravens, for cheaper, and they're just as durable, with arguably more firepower.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 FirePainter wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:
The worst unbalanced stuff is in the GW indexes. That being said FW allways have som underpowered or overpowered things.

Pretty much this. GW has done much, much worse with balancing their own models than FW ever did - look at 7ed Riptide Wing, Grav weapons, ANYTHING Eldar...

Let go of that anger. What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?

I'd say 2 point brims and storm ravens are worse than most FW personally.

"most"? I mean, no one is saying that everything FW is OP.

But he did awnser your question.

He answered it but not accurately. "What's 1+6?" "Nineteen." Technically that's an answer too.

Storm Ravens are demonstrably not worse than FW. Have you seen Vulture Gunships? You can spam them much more than you can spam ravens, for cheaper, and they're just as durable, with arguably more firepower.

Thats on you on how accurate you want the awnsers to be, if you want percentages and calculations you can just go make them yourself.

Point of me saying "He did awnser your question" was merely just that he in fact awnsered the question "What right now is more unbalanced than the current FW?" and then to have the one asking it try and deflect the awnser given.

 andysonic1 wrote:

ITC has decided for the BAO that they won't allow any single model with a PL of 31 and up, which eliminates a lot of the super huge FW units. I expect we will see more tournaments do this and it will start to become the norm in matched play.

Do you have a source for that? I looked through the BAO post and nothing like that is mentioned at all.

The impact of adding FW to the game cannot be measured simply by the perceived effectiveness of the unit based on its stats and cost. Ignoring whether or not it is 'NPE' for the opponent (it's already been pointed out that some enjoy the additional challenge):

1. You need to see if the stats actually translate into actual better win rates; does Bray'arth actually help you to win more? An 'unkillable' but slow and poorly armed for its cost model may very well not. This is further complicated by:

2. Extra options are almost certainly going to lead to new synergies and combos, increasing army performance even if the individual units are as balanced as is reasonable. The Trojan tank having vehicles with more guns to buff is one example. The Inquisition Land Raider Prometheus is very balanced for its cost, even underpowered, but when you make it Ordo Malleus and put it next to Coteaz, suddenly there are 24 Heavy Bolter, 1 Multi Melta and 1-2 Storm Bolter Overwatch shots waiting for every Scion command squad planning to grav chute into battle, and every unit and character planning to disembark within 36" of the Prometheus, each.

Allowing FW means opening up all these extra possibilities, both to be used and faced. Keeping it out will keep things simpler, but not objectively better. I prefer to have the option for more combinations and greater personalisation of armies, even if some of those personalisations may involve 'spam', in no small part because I don't like to tell people that they can't use their stuff.