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.
2017/07/12 17:24:44
Subject: Re:[40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
I'm pretty sure that card seasons would be more analogous to editions than to the GW/FW split. Not playing old seasons in the current season would be like not bringing 3rd edition rules to an 8th edition game. Well what do you know, we've got that covered: 8th ed GW and 8th ed FW are both 8th edition.
I understand FW used to actually be an independent company that did their own thing, but GW assimilated them a long time ago. Units have been hopping back and forth over the GW/FW divide for the past three editions, and it has really just lost its meaning. At this point, the split between the two just feels like a charade so they can sell you your codex twice.
2017/07/12 17:27:05
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Y'know, sometimes something being mathematically proven in a theoretical environment doesn't pan out in practice. I think there's a term for that...
2017/07/12 17:32:58
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
GAdvance wrote: What are we acxtually looking at that is GENUINELY op, i've only got the Space marines FW Index and i'm not seeing much. Unless we're talking about people bringing 800 pt models to 1000pt games but we all know that is a core rules issue not a FW issue.
Hell the most expensive thing space marines get is a Mastodon and i wouldn't take that for anything other than a narrative game because it's mediocre as all hell
A specific example would be the tau Yvara (SP) it is obnoxiously good. One of the more OP units I've looked at. Fellblade with volcano cannon...Also - consider this - FW in genernal means allowing 800 point models in 2000 point games - even 1500 point models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: I'm pretty sure that card seasons would be more analogous to editions than to the GW/FW split. Not playing old seasons in the current season would be like not bringing 3rd edition rules to an 8th edition game. Well what do you know, we've got that covered: 8th ed GW and 8th ed FW are both 8th edition.
I understand FW used to actually be an independent company that did their own thing, but GW assimilated them a long time ago. Units have been hopping back and forth over the GW/FW divide for the past three editions, and it has really just lost its meaning. At this point, the split between the two just feels like a charade so they can sell you your codex twice.
They are an independent company - they have different websites for buying products - FW doesn't even sell product in GW stores. They profit from each others success - that's about where it ends for them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/12 17:35:45
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/07/12 17:35:09
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
GAdvance wrote: What are we acxtually looking at that is GENUINELY op, i've only got the Space marines FW Index and i'm not seeing much. Unless we're talking about people bringing 800 pt models to 1000pt games but we all know that is a core rules issue not a FW issue.
Hell the most expensive thing space marines get is a Mastodon and i wouldn't take that for anything other than a narrative game because it's mediocre as all hell
A specific example would be the tau Yvara (SP) it is obnoxiously good. One of the more OP units I've looked at. Fellblade with volcano cannon...Also - consider this - FW in gernal means allowing 800 point models in 2000 point games - even 1500 point models.
I haven't seen anything wrong with the Falchion ('Fellblade with the volcano cannon'), particularly. The Yhvara or whatever I've not looked at, because T'au are getting so creamed right now that having one good unit for them isn't hurting the game. But the Falchion... could you elaborate on your issue with it?
2017/07/12 17:40:15
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Also nothing I said in this discussion could be labeled ad hominem. I try to refrain from logical fallacy because it weaken any arguments position.
I could have said something like...."I'm sure you have 20 of the most OP forge world units from 7th edition so your opinion is invalid" but I didn't. If you're going to attack someones arguments - at least use a valid attack.
Where did I say you had used an ad-hominem attack? I implied the poster responding to you was using one. And this is not out of context, you noted that it was not worthwhile identifying an OPFW unit to support your argument. Thus making an assertion without evidence.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Also nothing I said in this discussion could be labeled ad hominem. I try to refrain from logical fallacy because it weaken any arguments position.
I could have said something like...."I'm sure you have 20 of the most OP forge world units from 7th edition so your opinion is invalid" but I didn't. If you're going to attack someones arguments - at least use a valid attack.
Where did I say you had used an ad-hominem attack? I implied the poster responding to you was using one. And this is not out of context, you noted that it was not worthwhile identifying an OPFW unit to support your argument. Thus making an assertion without evidence.
The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
2017/07/12 17:44:54
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
In my area, we've been mostly against Forgeworld, untill now that is.
This was mostly due to the fact that the rules they gave to units where all over the place (even more so than GW), but also because alot of units where simply "GW's version but better" for more or less the same pricetag, which resulted in a pay-to-win situation.
FW also tended to focus mainly on superheavy/gargantuans, and we mostly play 1500-2000 pts, where that kind of units didn't really get you many friends.
Lastly, alot of people also felt that they weren't "official".
Now though, in 8th where everything kan kill everything, it's not so bad, and even "titanic" units are manageable in a normal game. FW even has the "official stamp" now, eventhough their rules still are all over the place.
5500 pts 6500 pts 7000 pts 9000 pts 13.000 pts
2017/07/12 17:48:03
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Y'know, sometimes something being mathematically proven in a theoretical environment doesn't pan out in practice. I think there's a term for that...
Theres nothing theoretical about a dice game. We roll dice to kill things - if one averages less damage than the other and costs more it is objectively worse - there are other factors - mobility, survivability - all can be accounted for. As often is the case with truely OP units from forge world though - they are just better in every conceivable way.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/07/12 17:49:25
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
2017/07/12 17:50:57
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
GAdvance wrote: What are we acxtually looking at that is GENUINELY op, i've only got the Space marines FW Index and i'm not seeing much. Unless we're talking about people bringing 800 pt models to 1000pt games but we all know that is a core rules issue not a FW issue.
Hell the most expensive thing space marines get is a Mastodon and i wouldn't take that for anything other than a narrative game because it's mediocre as all hell
A specific example would be the tau Yvara (SP) it is obnoxiously good. One of the more OP units I've looked at. Fellblade with volcano cannon...Also - consider this - FW in gernal means allowing 800 point models in 2000 point games - even 1500 point models.
I haven't seen anything wrong with the Falchion ('Fellblade with the volcano cannon'), particularly. The Yhvara or whatever I've not looked at, because T'au are getting so creamed right now that having one good unit for them isn't hurting the game. But the Falchion... could you elaborate on your issue with it?
It destroys any GW model in a single shot with it's main gun and has 8 las cannons remaining to destroy something else? uhhh - yeah I have a problem with that.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/07/12 17:51:22
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Y'know, sometimes something being mathematically proven in a theoretical environment doesn't pan out in practice. I think there's a term for that...
Theres nothing theoretical about a dice game. We roll dice to kill things - if one averages less damage than the other and costs more it is objectively worse - there are other factors - mobility, survivability - all can be accounted for. As often is the case with truely OP units from forge world though - they are just better in every conceivable way.
I am still waiting for you to explain to me why the Falchion is so good.
And we play a dice game. With models. On a board. With terrain. Controlled tactically by flawed human beings, using imprecise measuring devices (literally just estimation, in cases of seeing if something has 50% obscured or not, for example).
GAdvance wrote: What are we acxtually looking at that is GENUINELY op, i've only got the Space marines FW Index and i'm not seeing much. Unless we're talking about people bringing 800 pt models to 1000pt games but we all know that is a core rules issue not a FW issue.
Hell the most expensive thing space marines get is a Mastodon and i wouldn't take that for anything other than a narrative game because it's mediocre as all hell
A specific example would be the tau Yvara (SP) it is obnoxiously good. One of the more OP units I've looked at. Fellblade with volcano cannon...Also - consider this - FW in gernal means allowing 800 point models in 2000 point games - even 1500 point models.
I haven't seen anything wrong with the Falchion ('Fellblade with the volcano cannon'), particularly. The Yhvara or whatever I've not looked at, because T'au are getting so creamed right now that having one good unit for them isn't hurting the game. But the Falchion... could you elaborate on your issue with it?
It destroys any GW model in a single shot with it's main gun and has 8 las cannons remaining to destroy something else? uhhh - yeah I have a problem with that.
Boy you must hate the Shadowsword too then, since for the price of the Fellblade you get 2. Which makes literally the same gun. And double the number of lascannons that can be targeted (remember, the Fellblade's lascannons can only hit two other targets). Oh, and some heavy bolters also.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/12 17:52:53
2017/07/12 17:54:14
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
Why would I shoot tactical marines with this thing? Why wouldn't I shoot your swarmlord/ or or daemonlord/ or wraithknight/ or stormsurge/ or baneblade?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/07/12 17:55:21
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
Why would I shoot tactical marines with this thing? Why wouldn't I shoot your swarmlord/ or or daemonlord/ or wraithknight/ or stormsurge/ or baneblade?
Because not everyone has those things? I have a buddy that plays a Marine foot battle company with 0 tanks, 3 Devastator squads, 3 Assault squads, 6 Tactical squads, and some stuff (scouts and whatnot).
The Falchion in that matchup is an 800 point Predator with an Autocannon, in some respects, lol.
Heck, I mean, the two Shadowswords you get for the price of the 1 Falchion will be way better against that army. And still have the same firepower against Superheavies. And are GW models in the GW index.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 17:56:21
2017/07/12 17:57:12
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Also nothing I said in this discussion could be labeled ad hominem. I try to refrain from logical fallacy because it weaken any arguments position.
I could have said something like...."I'm sure you have 20 of the most OP forge world units from 7th edition so your opinion is invalid" but I didn't. If you're going to attack someones arguments - at least use a valid attack.
Where did I say you had used an ad-hominem attack? I implied the poster responding to you was using one. And this is not out of context, you noted that it was not worthwhile identifying an OPFW unit to support your argument. Thus making an assertion without evidence.
Xenomancers wrote: I don't need to provide evidence to back up my assertion, because I am right.
Basic ad-hominem attack.
Quality Dakka discussion
So what do you call taking someones words out of context putting them into your own words completely changing the meaning. This is basically the king of logical fallacy here - false quotation? Lies? This is pretty hilarious. I'm statings facts. There are numerous FW units that can mathematically be proven to be better than their codex equivalents in 7th and 8th. So many that I am not going to list them all. Feel free to dispute this - though it's not disputable. I will prove you wrong on a point by point basis if necessary.
Also nothing I said in this discussion could be labeled ad hominem. I try to refrain from logical fallacy because it weaken any arguments position.
I could have said something like...."I'm sure you have 20 of the most OP forge world units from 7th edition so your opinion is invalid" but I didn't. If you're going to attack someones arguments - at least use a valid attack.
Where did I say you had used an ad-hominem attack? I implied the poster responding to you was using one. And this is not out of context, you noted that it was not worthwhile identifying an OPFW unit to support your argument. Thus making an assertion without evidence.
Oh look, quote-ception and an argument about arguing. Quality Dakka Discussion.
You literally just changed my words again...I'm pretty sure they call this trolling - correct me if I am wrong please.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/07/12 17:59:15
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
Why would I shoot tactical marines with this thing? Why wouldn't I shoot your swarmlord/ or or daemonlord/ or wraithknight/ or stormsurge/ or baneblade?
Because not everyone has those things? I have a buddy that plays a Marine foot battle company with 0 tanks, 3 Devastator squads, 3 Assault squads, 6 Tactical squads, and some stuff (scouts and whatnot).
The Falchion in that matchup is an 800 point Predator with an Autocannon, in some respects, lol.
Heck, I mean, the two Shadowswords you get for the price of the 1 Falchion will be way better against that army. And still have the same firepower against Superheavies. And are GW models in the GW index.
A shawdowsword with 4 las and 4 heavy flamer is almost the price of a fellbalde with 8 las cannons. Basically double the firepower and it's BS3+. This is a perfect example. How much does the fellblade cost? My friend and I worked it out yesterday but my battlescribe isnt working? It's in the 750 range right - compared to the shadowsword which is 650?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth mentioning that /I/ play a superheavy tank regiment. I bring 3 baneblades/stormswords to each game.
I'm literally the target the Falchion is going to LOVE to shoot at, and I'm totally okay with the Falchion right now.
Good for you man. IMO this is pretty silly as well. Too bad he's probably going first though because hes going to have a 2 model army compared to your 3 model army.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 18:09:04
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/07/12 18:12:25
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
The SM superheavies are all pretty ridiculous next to their IG counterparts, the higher T and most importantly the 2+sv, on top of rules that allow them to move and fire without penalty (unlike the IG tanks) making them clearly superior, both in absolute and point for point comparisons.
FW however seemed to largely just copy GW on that count, with Russ tanks and Land Raiders having pretty much identical issues.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/07/12 18:12:51
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
Except the FW variants for the Wraithknight and Riptide weren't anymore broken than the regular versions, hence why they didn't appear very often in lists.
So go ahead and start name dropping everything that was broken from FW in 6th/7th So we can all see how ridiculous youre being. I'll wait. I don't have work today.
I can name you countless FW models that are better than there GW counterparts - it's not even worth my time to do so. There was maybe about a 6 month period where GW stuff became competitive because they started handing out free transports and free stats - in formations just to complete with the FW nonsense. Interestingly the FW nonsense wasn't allowed to use the formation rules. I WONDER WHY. I'm sure you are familiar with the WK that had 2 apoc flamers with str 7 rending - that moved faster than a standard WK - and could leave combat double flame something with apoc templates and recharge again right? That's not better than your standard WK? Give me a break. Oh and the Yvara riptide? With 2 str 6 ap2 flamers and other weapons - that were also really good for no reason....that could just skyleap away and come back in the next turn if it was in trouble? You actually want to defend eldar hornets? The librarian that could pick his spells and has a 2++ save? Come on man - not even worth going into 8th edition FW because it's about twice as bad as it used to be.
1. Says there's COUNTLESS models and can name only a few that aren't even close to broken.
2. The flamers weren't Rending on that Wraithknight. Also people rather had the extra D Strength shots or melee capabilities from their Wraithknights, hence why it didn't get used. It was on par with the other Wraithknights, which makes it as bad as any other Wraithknight outside the Suncannon one nobody used?
2. Large Blast being given Ignore Cover with Markerlights is better than a Template.
3. Nobody used them in 6th/7th. Pretty darn good in the past but no more broken than other Eldar options. This is an Eldar theme, not a FW theme.
4. The Librarian that spent a Warp Charge on that for his paltry 2 Wounds and sticks you with a specific Chapter Tactic that couldn't be abused? Picking powers is great, except you were buying a bunch of Librarians anyway for the Warp Charges and were rolling on Telepathy anyway for Shriek or Biomancy.
You're overreacting and proving you haven't actually PLAYED the game.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2017/07/12 18:13:11
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
Why would I shoot tactical marines with this thing? Why wouldn't I shoot your swarmlord/ or or daemonlord/ or wraithknight/ or stormsurge/ or baneblade?
Because not everyone has those things? I have a buddy that plays a Marine foot battle company with 0 tanks, 3 Devastator squads, 3 Assault squads, 6 Tactical squads, and some stuff (scouts and whatnot).
The Falchion in that matchup is an 800 point Predator with an Autocannon, in some respects, lol.
Heck, I mean, the two Shadowswords you get for the price of the 1 Falchion will be way better against that army. And still have the same firepower against Superheavies. And are GW models in the GW index.
You bring 3 baneblades vs 6 tactical squads? First - thats no't very nice. Second - you would never see that at a competitive level. It's very possible you will see 500 conscripts - but that is a separate issue.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/07/12 18:15:34
Subject: Re:[40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
Vaktathi wrote: The SM superheavies are all pretty ridiculous next to their IG counterparts, the higher T and most importantly the 2+sv, on top of rules that allow them to move and fire without penalty (unlike the IG tanks) making them clearly superior, both in absolute and point for point comparisons.
FW however seemed to largely just copy GW on that count, with Russ tanks and Land Raiders having pretty much identical issues.
Well, a Land Raider costs quite a bit more points than a Russ.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 18:16:17
GAdvance wrote: The Falchion is Incredibly powerful gun wise sure.
But it's also a 700+ point model that hit's on 3+, for that cost you could have around 20 Long Fangs with Lascannons that would in a single turn blast over half it's health away.
Quite so. I am still waiting for Xenomancer to explain to me what is so bad about it.
It's primary armament also isn't actually that powerful except against other superheavies; against, say, a Tactical Marine squad, it will kill 5 on average. That's 30 across the whole game, or less than 400 points.
Tactical marines must have amazing durability or something.
Why would I shoot tactical marines with this thing? Why wouldn't I shoot your swarmlord/ or or daemonlord/ or wraithknight/ or stormsurge/ or baneblade?
Because not everyone has those things? I have a buddy that plays a Marine foot battle company with 0 tanks, 3 Devastator squads, 3 Assault squads, 6 Tactical squads, and some stuff (scouts and whatnot).
The Falchion in that matchup is an 800 point Predator with an Autocannon, in some respects, lol.
Heck, I mean, the two Shadowswords you get for the price of the 1 Falchion will be way better against that army. And still have the same firepower against Superheavies. And are GW models in the GW index.
A shawdowsword with 4 las and 4 heavy flamer is almost the price of a fellbalde with 8 las cannons. Basically double the firepower and it's BS3+. This is a perfect example. How much does the fellblade cost? My friend and I worked it out yesterday but my battlescribe isnt working? It's in the 750 range right - compared to the shadowsword which is 650?
Not knowing your rules will hurt.
A shadowsword's base cost is 446 points. The Falchion's base cost is 817 points with the quad lascannons.
Additionally, 4 lascannons on the Shadowsword cannot be compared to 8 lascannons on the Falchion, because the Falchion's are really 2 quad lascannons, meaning they can only shoot two targets, whereas the shadowsword can engage 4. Furthermore, The Shadowsword has 8 heavy flamers and 2 heavy bolters that can be fired while it is in close combat, while the Falchion cannot say the same.
Even more additionally, there can never be more than 1 Falchion per army due to the construction rules, whereas there can be 3 Shadowswords, and for only 50% more points.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/07/12 18:22:59
2017/07/12 18:23:01
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
They are an independent company - they have different websites for buying products - FW doesn't even sell product in GW stores. They profit from each others success - that's about where it ends for them.
How are they an independent company when they're a division of GW? I can understand that they seem somewhat independent because they have limited interaction with eachother, different websites and because Games Workshop do not sell Forge World products in its stores (which I believe would be due to both difficulty in making enough products, limited space in the store as well as a general business decision), but they are not an independent company whatsoever.
~5000 points of IG and DKoK
I'm awful at reading private messages, so just reply to the threads I'm visiting.
2017/07/12 18:26:03
Subject: Re:[40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
They also both have 26 wounds (though the Shadowsword is T8/3+ and the Falchion is T9/2+), so they have very similar durability but the Falchion is paying through the nose for that extra volcano cannon.
Does a Falchion alpha-strike enemy superheavies slightly more efficiently than a pair of Shadowswords? Yes, but it's highly specialized to do that and nothing else. Compared to a pair of Shadowswords it's a glass cannon (in fact a pair of Shadowswords would handily win a shootout against it), and the Shadowswords have 20 heavy bolters between them to ensure they're not entirely dead weight against infantry.
2017/07/12 18:27:47
Subject: Re:[40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
ross-128 wrote: They also both have 26 wounds (though the Shadowsword is T8/3+ and the Falchion is T9/2+), so they have very similar durability but the Falchion is paying through the nose for that extra volcano cannon.
Does a Falchion alpha-strike enemy superheavies slightly more efficiently than a pair of Shadowswords? Yes, but it's highly specialized to do that and nothing else. Compared to a pair of Shadowswords it's a glass cannon (in fact a pair of Shadowswords would handily win a shootout against it), and the Shadowswords have 20 heavy bolters between them to ensure they're not entirely dead weight against infantry.
I'm glad someone understands.
2017/07/12 18:28:11
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
I'm going to make an analogy comparing warhammer to magic the gathering.
Consider the current indexes your legal cards to play in the core block. Combinations are limited - some things just can not be done. Then lets say we go to a tpye 2 format and the last 3-4 blocks are now legal (basically like allowing forge world into tournaments) Current competitive decks are now trash - their combos are outdone by synergies with other blocks being better - stupid things start happening - like hands that are drawn that can't possibly lose. Not because any particular card is overpowered anymore than the current block - only because their synergies are more powerful. Magic players would laugh at anyone trying to play cards out of the current core block - they say - that's stupid. It's not like they don't have other cards ether - they just know it will become unbalanced.
5x the options = broken OP combos
Then lets also factor in the fact that when FW models are OP...they are clearly OP. This is basically indisputable.
look at 7th edition with eldar hornets. Eldar FW WK (taking already brokenly OPGW WK and turning it up to 11 for the same cost). Tau riptides turned up to 11 (oh but experimental rules are legal now) It's a load of gak and it's not competitive.
I mean... we could start letting major league baseball use aluminum bats - however I think things would probably start getting boring once every other at bat becomes a home run.
FW clearly better than the GW option = exceptionally dumb and shouldn't be allowed.
Except the FW variants for the Wraithknight and Riptide weren't anymore broken than the regular versions, hence why they didn't appear very often in lists.
So go ahead and start name dropping everything that was broken from FW in 6th/7th So we can all see how ridiculous youre being. I'll wait. I don't have work today.
I can name you countless FW models that are better than there GW counterparts - it's not even worth my time to do so. There was maybe about a 6 month period where GW stuff became competitive because they started handing out free transports and free stats - in formations just to complete with the FW nonsense. Interestingly the FW nonsense wasn't allowed to use the formation rules. I WONDER WHY. I'm sure you are familiar with the WK that had 2 apoc flamers with str 7 rending - that moved faster than a standard WK - and could leave combat double flame something with apoc templates and recharge again right? That's not better than your standard WK? Give me a break. Oh and the Yvara riptide? With 2 str 6 ap2 flamers and other weapons - that were also really good for no reason....that could just skyleap away and come back in the next turn if it was in trouble? You actually want to defend eldar hornets? The librarian that could pick his spells and has a 2++ save? Come on man - not even worth going into 8th edition FW because it's about twice as bad as it used to be.
1. Says there's COUNTLESS models and can name only a few that aren't even close to broken.
2. The flamers weren't Rending on that Wraithknight. Also people rather had the extra D Strength shots or melee capabilities from their Wraithknights, hence why it didn't get used. It was on par with the other Wraithknights, which makes it as bad as any other Wraithknight outside the Suncannon one nobody used?
2. Large Blast being given Ignore Cover with Markerlights is better than a Template.
3. Nobody used them in 6th/7th. Pretty darn good in the past but no more broken than other Eldar options. This is an Eldar theme, not a FW theme.
4. The Librarian that spent a Warp Charge on that for his paltry 2 Wounds and sticks you with a specific Chapter Tactic that couldn't be abused? Picking powers is great, except you were buying a bunch of Librarians anyway for the Warp Charges and were rolling on Telepathy anyway for Shriek or Biomancy.
You're overreacting and proving you haven't actually PLAYED the game.
1. Countless unbroken models does not excuse allowing the MOST OP units.
2. The Deathshroud cannons on the WK were shred, monofiliament (this is basically rending), They were heavily prefered over GW wraithkngihts (quite possibly the most broken unit ever made by GW and FW had to top even that) do you actually dispute this (I can provide NOVA/ITC army lists if you desire)
3. Hornet were literally auto include for any eldar list because they were 2-3 times better than any model minus a WK(which FW also topped) coming out of the best codex ever released by GW in 7th. This is a FW making GW+1 rules all over the place.
4. Chapter tactics couldn't be abused once GW made a ruling - not that that matters - auto invis on a deathstar unit was an I win button in 7th.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/07/12 18:35:28
Subject: Re:[40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
ross-128 wrote: They also both have 26 wounds (though the Shadowsword is T8/3+ and the Falchion is T9/2+), so they have very similar durability but the Falchion is paying through the nose for that extra volcano cannon.
Does a Falchion alpha-strike enemy superheavies slightly more efficiently than a pair of Shadowswords? Yes, but it's highly specialized to do that and nothing else. Compared to a pair of Shadowswords it's a glass cannon (in fact a pair of Shadowswords would handily win a shootout against it), and the Shadowswords have 20 heavy bolters between them to ensure they're not entirely dead weight against infantry.
I'm glad someone understands.
It seems like a very, very, veeeeeeeeeeery common complaint on Dakka is "A specialist unit is better at its specialty than a less specialized unit! That makes it OP!!!!11!1"
Also, regarding FW's status under GW: back when it started in 1998, FW was an independent company that held a license to make GW models. However, a few years ago when the license came up for renewal, GW declined to renew the license and instead bought FW. FW is now a department within GW, which GW uses as a catch-all for models that they don't consider "mainstream" enough to mass-produce in plastic and as an excuse to double-dip on codex sales.
2017/07/12 18:35:40
Subject: [40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
Most semblance of genuine quality discussion went out the window when statements to the tune of "The sky is falling twice as hard as it was before, and it can be proven, but I won't prove it" became the repeated talking point. You'll note I tried at some point to be reasonable and then just kinda gave up.
So, yeah, this is a "quality dakka discussion". Yet another /unsubscribe from me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 18:36:45
ross-128 wrote: A base Shadowsword is 446. A Shadowsword with full lascannon and heavy bolter sponsons is 590. The Falchion is 817 points.
I see you did for the weaker HB varient - that's fine - most everyone would run the HF but I'll roll with this even. For plus 227 points you get +1 BS +4 Las cannons +1 Volcano cannon -2 heavy bolters and 2+ save? Also are you charging 80 points for the quad las? I'm pretty sure the Falchion is under 800 points it wont come up on my battlescribe though.
Safe to say the Falchion is more survivable and has over twice the firepower due to +1 BS - even has good close combat stats and can fire on the move for only a 38% increase in points?
Most semblance of genuine quality discussion went out the window when statements to the tune of "The sky is falling twice as hard as it was before, and it can be proven, but I won't prove it" became the repeated talking point. You'll note I tried at some point to be reasonable and then just kinda gave up.
So, yeah, this is a "quality dakka discussion". Yet another /unsubscribe from me.
I'm pretty sure quality discussion ended when this guy starting falsifying quotes from me. To each his own I guess though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/12 18:43:53
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/07/12 18:51:09
Subject: Re:[40k] thoughts on forge world - balanced?
ross-128 wrote: A base Shadowsword is 446. A Shadowsword with full lascannon and heavy bolter sponsons is 590. The Falchion is 817 points.
I see you did for the weaker HB varient - that's fine - most everyone would run the HF but I'll roll with this even. For plus 227 points you get +1 BS +4 Las cannons +1 Volcano cannon -2 heavy bolters and 2+ save? Also are you charging 80 points for the quad las? I'm pretty sure the Falchion is under 800 points it wont come up on my battlescribe though.
Safe to say the Falchion is more survivable and has over twice the firepower due to +1 BS - even has good close combat stats and can fire on the move for only a 38% increase in points?
Yes the quad lascannon is 80 points. Let's go through your points bit by bit (my comments in red):
Xenomancers wrote: I see you did for the weaker HB varient - that's fine - most everyone would run the HF Most everyone? I'm not running heavy flamers on my superheavies, and I've got more superheavies than the rest of my club combined. The vast majority of superheavies here at least are not running heavy flamers. but I'll roll with this even. For plus 227 points you get +1 BS against certain targets; the Shadowsword is 3+ against Titanic units, which is what you want the weapon to shoot at. +4 Las cannons That can only engage half as many targets as the Shadowsword's, so this is disingenuous at worst or exposes horrible inexperience playing superheavies at best. +1 Volcano cannon Yes, you should get something for 227 points. Also, it's a twin volcano cannon - two separate volcano cannons are actually better than a twin volcano cannon, which might be why two Shadowswords is more expensive. -2 heavy bolters It's actually -4 twin heavy bolters, or -8 heavy bolters total. If the Falchion had the same number of heavy bolters as a full Shadowsword it would cost 102 points more, putting it within striking range of 1k. and 2+ save? Yes! For 817 points you'd better be more survivable than a 590 point model, and since it has the same number of wounds... well... Also are you charging 80 points for the quad las? I'm pretty sure the Falchion is under 800 points it wont come up on my battlescribe though.
Safe to say the Falchion is more survivable and has over twice the firepower due to +1 BS Not quite. The Shadowsword is also BS3+ against its preferred targets, and two shadowswords can kill 2 targets no matter how small, while the Falchion can only overkill one. - even has good close combat stats If I recall correctly, though I can look again, it's about the same as the shadowsword. and can fire on the move just like every space marine tank, it's part of their theme now. for only a 38% increase in points? Seems reasonable.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/12 18:53:09
5500 pts 
6500 pts 
7000 pts 
9000 pts 
13.000 pts 
