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.

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
They are a model-making company that was picked up by GW.

No they aren't. Forge World is a brand name used by GW for some of their product lines. At no point has FW ever been an independent company.

And sure, FW didn't playtest for 8th. The rest of GW didn't either, as demonstrated by the extensive day-one FAQs on things that were spotted by the community within minutes of getting the rules.

Forgeworld is not a brand-name. It is different people sitting in different buildings while clearly never communicating with each other.

And yes, 8th edition has been playtested extensively, but only with GWs units. None of Forgeworlds stuff has been playtested or even proofread by either company. The bizarre vulture win-button is a great testament to both ForgeWorlds skill at model-making as well as their careless attitude when it comes to their rules. In a better world the responsibility for making rules for ForgeWorlds stuff would reside at GW proper, but sadly this is not the case.

pismakron wrote:
Forgeworld is not a brand-name. It is different people sitting in different buildings while clearly never communicating with each other.

So is everything else at GW. That's how large companies work, products get broken up and allocated to various teams. The FW writers are a separate team, the WD writers are a separate team, the model designers are a separate team, the marketing department is a separate team, etc. And yes, there is communication between those teams, FW included. This should be obvious from the fact that the FW index books were released so soon after the rest of 8th edition. The lead time required for print books is far longer than the week or so between release dates, so FW indisputably had the 8th edition rules and was working on 8th edition products long before they were public.

And yes, 8th edition has been playtested extensively, but only with GWs units. None of Forgeworlds stuff has been playtested or even proofread by either company. The bizarre vulture win-button is a great testament to both ForgeWorlds skill at model-making as well as their careless attitude when it comes to their rules. In a better world the responsibility for making rules for ForgeWorlds stuff would reside at GW proper, but sadly this is not the case.

FORGE WORLD IS NOT A SEPARATE COMPANY.

Stop saying things like "either company" that have nothing to do with reality. Forge World is a brand name used by GW. The products are sold by GW, the copyrights on all of the books are owned by GW, the employees working on the FW product line are all paid directly by GW, etc.

And no, 8th was not extensively playtested. Extensive playtesting doesn't give you balance problems and day-one FAQs like 8th has, and that's on top of the fact that the rules are a dumpster fire of over-homogenization and clumsy game design. The Vulture is a "win button", IG conscripts are a "win button", Eldar scatter laser jetbikes and invisible death stars in 7th were "win buttons", etc. Nothing GW produces is adequately playtested, and it's absurd to pick out single unbalanced units as a sign that some GW writers are the only problem.

The current FW is essentially a charade maintained by GW. Its primary purpose is to allow them to split codices into multiple books. Its secondary purpose is as a sort of "beta testing" area, where they can put models that are either a WIP or considered not "mainstream" enough for the main codex, but they're not terribly consistent about which models get put there.

For example the Vendetta was FW in 5th, GW in 6th, GW in 7th, and is back to FW in 8th.

The Baneblade was FW in 5th, but has been GW since 6th. Same with Tank Commanders.

Most of the Space Marine and Ork flyers started in FW, then moved to GW.

Look at the Chaos fireraptor. You can pay more for reaper autocannons... and never do more damage or even as much until you fire at something T10, but after T13 that goes away (all the T10-13 out there). Every other scenario the Quad HB are better... and cheaper. Things aren't even thought out. I didn't have to do any math at all to know the wild imbalance there (I have since). But S7 6 shots vs S5 12 shots isn't tough to figure out at all.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:
A Predator is 102 points for the hull, and is T7 W11. The Grinding Advance rule is compensated for (and then some) with a better ballistic skill. So you're paying 30 points for one additional wound and toughness. I think the Leman Russ should be reduced a little.

Think of it different way... You're paying 8 points for the additional wound and 1.8 points per wound to bring them up to T8. Or something like that.

Take plasma -- it loses 33% effectiveness at S7 and 25% at S8. Yes, it means nothing to S6 and down or S9 and up, but there are quite a few weapons in the S7/8 space. Yet T8 is also immune to being wounded on 2s by all but the very strongest models.

A contemptor in melee can average 7 versus a rhino and 5.5 versus a LRBT for example.

A Whirlwind with the same statline as Predator costs 90, a Vindicator 160, a Rhino, Razorback, Stormhawk has T7 W10 and costs 70/65/85, a Hunter or Stalker has T8 W11 and both cost 90. Now, most of those are auxiliary vehicles and not battle tanks in their own way. But the Vindicator costs 160 compared to 172 for a Leman Russ Demolisher without heavy bolter, so in this case I pay 12 points for the same wound. A Razorback can do some of the same duties, with a little less efficiency per weapon, but it costs 67 points less and loses 2 wounds and 1 toughness. I would pay a lot for those extra stats in this case. Or if we look at the Manticore, it costs 125 with its main weapon. If we consider Storm Eagle rockets to be worth about a Demolisher cannon, it costs 85 base and loses 1W 1T. The Deathstrike is instead 155 with its gun, and I don't consider that missile worth 70 pts if we establish 85 as the base for the Manticore.

A Leman Russ wound is worth 11 points, compared to ~9.2 for a Predator. T8 is better than T7 as S8 is 33% more efficient, S7 is 50% more efficient and S4 is twice as efficient (although I probably wouldn't be worried in this case). I guess I would be worried about Plasma, Melta and some Xenos weapons, which a less than 20% points cost could be good against.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that the price per wound and toughness is not exactly clear and if we go by the Predator as a baseline, I would agree with you. But right now, I see a unit I can replace with more efficient options from the Index itself, not even counting the FW options (of course, I would take Earthshaker Carriages with crew anyway now that they're weaker but cheaper Basilisks). Even then, I would right now gladly pay Predator price for a Leman Russ with T7 and W11....

Also I don't even know why I wrote this. I'm getting tired. Anyway, I agree and disgaree with you.

 ross-128 wrote:
For example the Vendetta was FW in 5th, GW in 6th, GW in 7th, and is back to FW in 8th.

Not true. The conversion kit to build the Vendetta model was always sold by FW, but the rules were first created in the GW 5th edition IG codex and were published in a FW book for the first time in 8th (likely due to the "no units in the codex without a plastic kit" policy). The Vendetta's history of being an overpowered unit is entirely on "main GW".

The Baneblade was FW in 5th, but has been GW since 6th. Same with Tank Commanders.

Correct in sequence, but wrong in editions. The Baneblade was a FW unit way back in 3rd edition (where it was much weaker, none of the 10" blast templates existed back then) and was turned into its current form in the 4th edition GW Apocalypse book to go with the new plastic kit. It was put into "normal" 40k in the 6th edition Escalation book, and then into the 7th edition IG codex. Since 4th edition the Baneblade rules that have appeared in FW books have just been a copy/paste of the GW rules.

Most of the Space Marine and Ork flyers started in FW, then moved to GW.

Nope. None of those units were ever FW models, they are entirely new plastic kits (and, in the case of the marine flyers, suffer badly from not using the far superior FW designs).

 Aenarian wrote:


A Whirlwind with the same statline as Predator costs 90, a Vindicator 160, a Rhino, Razorback, Stormhawk has T7 W10 and costs 70/65/85, a Hunter or Stalker has T8 W11 and both cost 90. Now, most of those are auxiliary vehicles and not battle tanks in their own way. But the Vindicator costs 160 compared to 172 for a Leman Russ Demolisher without heavy bolter, so in this case I pay 12 points for the same wound. A Razorback can do some of the same duties, with a little less efficiency per weapon, but it costs 67 points less and loses 2 wounds and 1 toughness. I would pay a lot for those extra stats in this case. Or if we look at the Manticore, it costs 125 with its main weapon. If we consider Storm Eagle rockets to be worth about a Demolisher cannon, it costs 85 base and loses 1W 1T. The Deathstrike is instead 155 with its gun, and I don't consider that missile worth 70 pts if we establish 85 as the base for the Manticore.

Whirlwind had fewer hard points than the predator. Vindicator has cannon baked in unfortunately. I'll peek at Hunter/Stalker in a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, so, Whirlwind is consistent with Predator sans a couple hard points.

Hunter / Stalker are two hard point tanks - maybe one, but we'll assume two. LRBT is a 5 hard point tank. If we assume the same 8 points as before it's 108 vs 90. For 18 points you then have an extra wound and grinding advance (if they point it). It might be "off" depending on the real formula, but it isn't off by a lot.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:


A Whirlwind with the same statline as Predator costs 90, a Vindicator 160, a Rhino, Razorback, Stormhawk has T7 W10 and costs 70/65/85, a Hunter or Stalker has T8 W11 and both cost 90. Now, most of those are auxiliary vehicles and not battle tanks in their own way. But the Vindicator costs 160 compared to 172 for a Leman Russ Demolisher without heavy bolter, so in this case I pay 12 points for the same wound. A Razorback can do some of the same duties, with a little less efficiency per weapon, but it costs 67 points less and loses 2 wounds and 1 toughness. I would pay a lot for those extra stats in this case. Or if we look at the Manticore, it costs 125 with its main weapon. If we consider Storm Eagle rockets to be worth about a Demolisher cannon, it costs 85 base and loses 1W 1T. The Deathstrike is instead 155 with its gun, and I don't consider that missile worth 70 pts if we establish 85 as the base for the Manticore.

Whirlwind had fewer hard points than the predator. Vindicator has cannon baked in unfortunately. I'll peek at Hunter/Stalker in a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, so, Whirlwind is consistent with Predator sans a couple hard points.

Hunter / Stalker are two hard point tanks - maybe one, but we'll assume two. LRBT is a 5 hard point tank. If we assume the same 8 points as before it's 108 vs 90. For 18 points you then have an extra wound and grinding advance (if they point it). It might be "off" depending on the real formula, but it isn't off by a lot.

Grinding Advance is worse than BS3+ in every way, so I guess we can assume that they at worst equal eachother. But yes, based on that particular assumption, I guess it works.

Nevertheless, the general consensus seems to be that Leman Russes are an unattractive option, but it might just be because of unfamiliarity with other factions and their costs. I guess actually playing with it will determine if it's good or not.

 Peregrine wrote:

FORGE WORLD IS NOT A SEPARATE COMPANY.

It doesn't matter. Forgeworld is illegal.

 koooaei wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

FORGE WORLD IS NOT A SEPARATE COMPANY.

It doesn't matter. Forgeworld is illegal.

Watch out, the resin police might come get you.

 koooaei wrote:
It doesn't matter. Forgeworld is illegal.

That's a nice house rule you have. Under my house rules you are illegal, so you should probably turn yourself in to GW for conversion into a gun servitor to be a meatshield for my DKoK tanks.

 Peregrine wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
It doesn't matter. Forgeworld is illegal.

That's a nice house rule you have. Under my house rules you are illegal, so you should probably turn yourself in to GW for conversion into a gun servitor to be a meatshield for my DKoK tanks.

NO let me have him, ill turn him into terrain!