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.

Hoodwink wrote:

 Klowny wrote:

Audustum wrote:
I'm glad to see there's nothing worth discussing about NOVA than Forgeworld.

Anyway, from the view in the trenches, there was a really nice amount of diversity present. While Imperium armies were a plurality, I saw multiples of Dark Eldar, Ynnari, Tau, Necrons, Chaos, CSM and even 3 Adeptus Custodes. The top cut down diversity a bit so balancing work isn't done, but people seem to be having fun and bringing out a full range of armies even to a GT.

13 xenos armies in the top 50 is not diverse, with the other 37 armies being either chaos or imperium....

Are you implying that Index armies should be able to beat Codex armies?

I mean... one did. Astra Militarum won the tournament.

 Klowny wrote:

Audustum wrote:
I'm glad to see there's nothing worth discussing about NOVA than Forgeworld.

Anyway, from the view in the trenches, there was a really nice amount of diversity present. While Imperium armies were a plurality, I saw multiples of Dark Eldar, Ynnari, Tau, Necrons, Chaos, CSM and even 3 Adeptus Custodes. The top cut down diversity a bit so balancing work isn't done, but people seem to be having fun and bringing out a full range of armies even to a GT.

13 xenos armies in the top 50 is not diverse, with the other 37 armies being either chaos or imperium....

Dude, I was obviously talking about the tournament as a whole. There were 212 players.

Mchaagen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So I'm waiting for your writeup. Or one from someone else.

A lack of a comprehensive 'writeup' of all the imbalance between FW and GW in the last decade doesn't prove your point. The reason why you keep suggesting this in the first place and why no one has cared to do it is because it would be just a ridiculously large undertaking to comb through all the broken/unbalanced units in Imperial Armor books for the last ten years. Not to mention how many people have the full collection of books or that are willing to pour countless hours into just navigating through their poorly organized material.

Ah yes, all...13 Imperial Armor books. How many Codices we had since then?

Also the burden of proof is on you. If you want to make the baseless claim, feel free. Without facts, though, it will REMAIN baseless.
I'm willing to write up the last 10 years of feth ups on GW's end. I can't simply imagine why you aren't willing to do the same for 13 books...

SilverAlien wrote:
The complaint was they aren't responsive to imperial armies. If they were responsive, guard would be nerfed and they wouldn't have nerfed flyers as a whole to avoid nerf into space marines directly. Basically, imperial armies get to keep their broken toys cause GW doesn't want to make any meaningful nerfs to their precious babies. The worst they've done is the command squad guard thing, which was a fart in a hurricane.

The complaint was that the 'responsiveness,' or what you think are purely nerfs, only apply to non-imperial armies. Which is obviously not the case.

The general nerf to flyers was the easy option, not necessarily the best. It was easy for one specific reason--the marine codex was already done and printed, so making a change to the points cost of specific units (storm raven and Guilliman for another argument) so close to its release looks pretty bad on their part and diminishes sales of the book.

There are certainly other Space Marine/imperial flyers that weren't considered op that were also affected just as much as non-imperial flyers by the 'boots on the ground' rule, so I'm not sure how your argument is valid.

I'm curious to see if they've had time to incorporate any changes within the upcoming Astra Militarum book or whether they include any significant changes to codex books in the Chapter Approved released at the end of the year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So I'm waiting for your writeup. Or one from someone else.

A lack of a comprehensive 'writeup' of all the imbalance between FW and GW in the last decade doesn't prove your point. The reason why you keep suggesting this in the first place and why no one has cared to do it is because it would be just a ridiculously large undertaking to comb through all the broken/unbalanced units in Imperial Armor books for the last ten years. Not to mention how many people have the full collection of books or that are willing to pour countless hours into just navigating through their poorly organized material.

Ah yes, all...13 Imperial Armor books. How many Codices we had since then?

Also the burden of proof is on you. If you want to make the baseless claim, feel free. Without facts, though, it will REMAIN baseless.
I'm willing to write up the last 10 years of feth ups on GW's end. I can't simply imagine why you aren't willing to do the same for 13 books...

Because I don't have them all and if I did (which would be shocking because they're poorly done and overcost) I don't have the desire to burn countless hours recording all the badly designed units in each book and defending them against your claims of being baseless.

Mchaagen wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
The complaint was they aren't responsive to imperial armies. If they were responsive, guard would be nerfed and they wouldn't have nerfed flyers as a whole to avoid nerf into space marines directly. Basically, imperial armies get to keep their broken toys cause GW doesn't want to make any meaningful nerfs to their precious babies. The worst they've done is the command squad guard thing, which was a fart in a hurricane.

The complaint was that the 'responsiveness,' or what you think are purely nerfs, only apply to non-imperial armies. Which is obviously not the case.

The general nerf to flyers was the easy option, not necessarily the best. It was easy for one specific reason--the marine codex was already done and printed, so making a change to the points cost of specific units (storm raven and Guilliman for another argument) so close to its release looks pretty bad on their part and diminishes sales of the book.

There are certainly other Space Marine/imperial flyers that weren't considered op that were also affected just as much as non-imperial flyers by the 'boots on the ground' rule, so I'm not sure how your argument is valid.

I'm curious to see if they've had time to incorporate any changes within the upcoming Astra Militarum book or whether they include any significant changes to codex books in the Chapter Approved released at the end of the year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So I'm waiting for your writeup. Or one from someone else.

A lack of a comprehensive 'writeup' of all the imbalance between FW and GW in the last decade doesn't prove your point. The reason why you keep suggesting this in the first place and why no one has cared to do it is because it would be just a ridiculously large undertaking to comb through all the broken/unbalanced units in Imperial Armor books for the last ten years. Not to mention how many people have the full collection of books or that are willing to pour countless hours into just navigating through their poorly organized material.

Ah yes, all...13 Imperial Armor books. How many Codices we had since then?

Also the burden of proof is on you. If you want to make the baseless claim, feel free. Without facts, though, it will REMAIN baseless.
I'm willing to write up the last 10 years of feth ups on GW's end. I can't simply imagine why you aren't willing to do the same for 13 books...

Because I don't have them all and if I did (which would be shocking because they're poorly done and overcost) I don't have the desire to burn countless hours recording all the badly designed units in each book and defending them against your claims of being baseless.

It wouldn't take countless hours to do that with Mainstream GW, so it wouldn't take that much time with FW. You're making it up as an excuse not to do it at this point because you're that afraid of being proven wrong.

So I await for the great ginormous number of FW units. Please. Do it. Every time I tell you naysayers to do it, you've just blatantly ignored it because you can't. Maybe you'll be the chosen one though to prove me, Perigrine, and countless others wrong on our assessment of FW being completely fair barring super rare exceptions. I doubt it with your attitude though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It wouldn't take countless hours to do that with Mainstream GW, so it wouldn't take that much time with FW. You're making it up as an excuse not to do it at this point because you're that afraid of being proven wrong.

So I await for the great ginormous number of FW units. Please. Do it. Every time I tell you naysayers to do it, you've just blatantly ignored it because you can't. Maybe you'll be the chosen one though to prove me, Perigrine, and countless others wrong on our assessment of FW being completely fair barring super rare exceptions. I doubt it with your attitude though.

How long would it take, since you've obviously done this before? But I'll give you a hint, part of the reason it would be a lot of work is because of the explanations and cross-comparisons of why units are unbalanced.

You seem to be missing the point as to why I said I won't do it, and why I can't do it. Beyond the time investment, I literally do not have access to all the FW books from the last decade. So saying 'I've blatantly ignored it' is somewhat ironic.

Mchaagen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It wouldn't take countless hours to do that with Mainstream GW, so it wouldn't take that much time with FW. You're making it up as an excuse not to do it at this point because you're that afraid of being proven wrong.

So I await for the great ginormous number of FW units. Please. Do it. Every time I tell you naysayers to do it, you've just blatantly ignored it because you can't. Maybe you'll be the chosen one though to prove me, Perigrine, and countless others wrong on our assessment of FW being completely fair barring super rare exceptions. I doubt it with your attitude though.

How long would it take, since you've obviously done this before? But I'll give you a hint, part of the reason it would be a lot of work is because of the explanations and cross-comparisons of why units are unbalanced.

You seem to be missing the point as to why I said I won't do it, and why I can't do it. Beyond the time investment, I literally do not have access to all the FW books from the last decade. So saying 'I've blatantly ignored it' is somewhat ironic.

Without being able to even read the rules and units in question, how can you claim they are OP? That's like saying "Paris is ugly but I have never been there!"

So, couple of thoughts on the last few pages of discussion -

Until all the codices are released, I don't think we will see much in terms of "faction representation balance" in the top tables of events. Without doubt, Chaos had a strong turnout simply because of the new codex which also happens to be a vast improvement/provides options compared to previous editions. People are genuinely excited to be playing them again – though it helps that some options are currently considered to be top tier. I expect the same thing to happen once Death Guard are released, and then again with Ad Mech etc etc.
Once all the books have been released options will hopefully exist for all the armies to varying degrees. In addition, once they are all released, we might see new rules come into play which highly incentivise “non-soup” armies.

In regards to the top Guard armies, where any of them actually pure guard, or were they soup lists? The dynamic may change with the codex, but, I’m not sure how many changes we will see due to the publishing lee time. What I do think, however, is that FW need to get a move on in regards to ensuring their “chapter tactics” are released in line with the GW releases. Once conscripts are “re-balanced” a lot of the current lists will probably have to change fundamentally, either that, or people will need to seriously look at their own army compositions, to begin to focus around compositions that can easily remove 50-100 t3 models a turn. Too many people compare things in isolation, rather than as a whole, in my view, currently.

The whole FW “OP” issue I think is greatly exaggerated. Currently you see a lot of Malefic Lords because they are cheap in Chaos soup armies, but, beyond that what other FW do you see spammed for Chaos? On the flip side, how many Imperial armies contain RG or Magnus? Sure, Elysians are “slightly better” Scions, but, I’ve not seen a pure Elysian list win anything yet. The top players will ALWAYS pick and choose the most efficient units they can, they are there to win after all, so the figures will always be skewed. The same way so many people use Cyber Wolves, because they are super cheap filler units (but no one complains about them? They are, essentially in lists for the same reason as Malefic Lords – Command Points) Just because a FW unit appears in a lot of lists doesn’t mean the unit itself if OP, it is what the unit can provide overall that is the issue. A simple solution is, for the price of 2 Lords, you can get a Culxeus Assassin which basically completely counters the smite spam. The only advantage GW has over FW, is that -most- of its OP units are 1 unit allowed only, whereas certain FW models can be spammed. But then, would you rather build a list around RB/Magnus/Celestine or around 15 Malefic Lords?

I think, rather than “crying” over what was in the top lists, why don’t we, between us all, come up with lists that can beat them?
For example – An Ork list I thought up, could essentially have a first turn charge of 30 boyz, 45 (or 30) kommandos, 15 stormboyz and a Meka Dread, whilst having another 60 boyzs, kill kans, dakka jets and other units following up after. Sure, it all hinges on first turn and making 3 9” charges, but, it’s certainly possible due to the re-rolls. After that, then things like conscript spam armies will just melt.

My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."

The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.

1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.

GhostRecon wrote:


GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...

... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.

So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.

Breng77 wrote:
My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."

The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.

1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.

I used to think FW was just fine, but that was while nothing was even attempting balance anyway. Now I get the feeling that while GW are actually trying FW is like "ah ffs, guys, make some rules for 40k so we can get back to our own project, 30k."

FW being controversial for tournaments is not new. Let's see:

LVO 2017 was won by an Ordnance Tyrant army with Screamer and Fateweaver support. That's a lot of boom, and warp charge.

Pretty much every notable Eldar tournament army in 7e had a Skatach Wraithknight. Not the other versions, despite them being cheaper, but having double Hellstorm Templates really gave Eldar a tool their army otherwise had to go to extremes to field (close-range trench-sweeping).

Almost every Eldar army that needed a fast support skimmer chose a Hornet over a Vyper.

Of course, power is in the eye of the beholder. Whether FW items are OP, or the GW analogies are UP varies from player to player.

 Runic wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:


GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...

... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.

So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.

Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?

Breng77 wrote:

 Runic wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:


GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...

... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.

So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.

Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?

Razorback Spam, sure. Tau Commander Spam, sure I guess regular Crisis Suits are 'Counts As.' The other three though, players would have had to go out of the way to field, as prior to 6th, one couldn't legally field more than 3 Stormravens anyway, and 6th added the "instalose" clause. The Razorwing Flock was a proxy army, and Brimstones were a relatively recent model (the LVO list for 2017 had 30 Brimstones by comparison).

Breng77 wrote:
My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."

The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.

1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.

Hrm, i'm not at home and don't have the xenos, marine or chaos IA books, but, outside of titan's i can only remember 1 or 2 units having t9 in the Astra Militarum book. I'd argue that there are more Str 10 weapons available in GW than T9 units in total.

There are some units that do 2d6 dmg - the shadowsword is one of them, the Stompa another. There are also lots of weapon options that do either D6 or fixed 3-6 dmg. I'd also argue, that you've prob got more mortal wound options in standard GW than FW. What units in FW do D6+4 outside of titans? How many of those can be taken in an ITC event? I.E 35 or less Power level.

Macro pretty much only exists on things that are so so so expensive in points and power, you'll never see them in a 2k point army because they can't fit, aka titans.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
FW being controversial for tournaments is not new. Let's see:

LVO 2017 was won by an Ordnance Tyrant army with Screamer and Fateweaver support. That's a lot of boom, and warp charge.

Pretty much every notable Eldar tournament army in 7e had a Skatach Wraithknight. Not the other versions, despite them being cheaper, but having double Hellstorm Templates really gave Eldar a tool their army otherwise had to go to extremes to field (close-range trench-sweeping).

Almost every Eldar army that needed a fast support skimmer chose a Hornet over a Vyper.

Of course, power is in the eye of the beholder. Whether FW items are OP, or the GW analogies are UP varies from player to player.

While I completely agree with your examples, I feel now that 7th has to be looked at differently. This is simply because most of the armies in 7th were not in a good position, which has “technically” changed with the release of all the indexes. Tau on the other hand could generally win whatever event they wanted with just standard riptide spam and a few markerlights.

FW is and has always been GW +1. The thing is - the price you pay in points is completely random. You might pay too much or too little. The problem with this is specifically when you are getting a better unit for the same or less points. Which happens frequently with forge world units.

Elysians are a great example. Gardsmen that get free deep strike ability for no additional point cost....wow - real surprise that these units get spammed. It's also worth noting that gardsmen are already exceptional units for their points.

You see how this works? They take a GW unit - give it special rules "SEE GW +1" and don't charge you for them. It happens - it happens a lot - it will always happen - the drive to sell models for 2-3x GW price will always cause this to happen.

Breng77 wrote:

 Runic wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:


GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...

... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.

So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.

Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?

Yes, FW need to get their act together and update their faqs I agree (along with releasing chapter tactics for their space marine chapters etc), however, I’d also argue that GW seems more active on the “issue resolution” front, simply because they’ve got a lot more issues to resolve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
FW is and has always been GW +1. The thing is - the price you pay in points is completely random. You might pay too much or too little. The problem with this is specifically when you are getting a better unit for the same or less points. Which happens frequently with forge world units.

Elysians are a great example. Gardsmen that get free deep strike ability for no additional point cost....wow - real surprise that these units get spammed. It's also worth noting that gardsmen are already exceptional units for their points.

You see how this works? They take a GW unit - give it special rules "SEE GW +1" and don't charge you for them. It happens - it happens a lot - it will always happen - the drive to sell models for 2-3x GW price will always cause this to happen.

Elysian's cost 1 point more than the standard guardsman. Not much for deep-strike, i agree - but 75% of the time you'll be starting your standard unit on the board anyway due to the 50% deployment rule. Command squads cost 4 points less than a Scion Command squad for 4 plasma, but, the offset is that the hotshot lasguns are so so so much better. (but then, you're only taking these units for plasma spam unless you are preparing for the whole "regiment tactics" thing). On the flip side, a Scion commander is 5 points CHEAPER than an Elysian Commander, so, in effect the Scions are cheaper on a 1 for 1 basis (which is required due to 1 command squad = 1 commander). I'd argue that the re-roll morale buff is useless on a 4 man Elysian unit as well. (commanders are the same price if you don't take a plasma pistol on the Eylsian commander)

Kdash wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."

The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.

1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.

Hrm, i'm not at home and don't have the xenos, marine or chaos IA books, but, outside of titan's i can only remember 1 or 2 units having t9 in the Astra Militarum book. I'd argue that there are more Str 10 weapons available in GW than T9 units in total.

There are some units that do 2d6 dmg - the shadowsword is one of them, the Stompa another. There are also lots of weapon options that do either D6 or fixed 3-6 dmg. I'd also argue, that you've prob got more mortal wound options in standard GW than FW. What units in FW do D6+4 outside of titans? How many of those can be taken in an ITC event? I.E 35 or less Power level.

Macro pretty much only exists on things that are so so so expensive in points and power, you'll never see them in a 2k point army because they can't fit, aka titans.

The stompa does not do 2D6 damage with any attacks, the shadow sword is 1 unit and 2D6 damage is worse than D6+4 damage. Almost every large FW unit has static damage + D3 or D6 The static extra damage + bonus D6 is huge.

S10 is not very plentiful, especially at range, if we count close combat, there is a decent amount of S10. The point still remains not a single GW unit has toughness above 8, a non 0 number of titans have T9. T( units I can find quickly (Brayarth Ashmantle (t9 dread, character), Cerberus heavy destroyer, Falchion, Felblade, Mastadon, Typhon, Stormbird, Thunderhawk assault gunship, ) Some of these are quite expensive, but all under 1k points. Some are less than 500 points. But the point remains, no GW unit has T9 even those that cost as much as these options. All of these could fit pretty easily given that there is still 1500-1000 point left to spend.

Gauss pylon has macro, at 475 points

I'm not even saying these auto win, but they show a difference in design philosophy. FW is looking at playing large scale games with titans, GW is not. This makes for what I consider to be a poor meshing of units in the game. Most FW heavies wipe out vehicles with ease and make them not worth taking.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Runic wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:


GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...

... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.

So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.

Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?

Razorback Spam, sure. Tau Commander Spam, sure I guess regular Crisis Suits are 'Counts As.' The other three though, players would have had to go out of the way to field, as prior to 6th, one couldn't legally field more than 3 Stormravens anyway, and 6th added the "instalose" clause. The Razorwing Flock was a proxy army, and Brimstones were a relatively recent model (the LVO list for 2017 had 30 Brimstones by comparison).

Right but if I own 3 Storm ravens adding more is trivial by comparison to adding a bunch of FW stuff. As all I need to do is go to my LGS and pick them up. Further the reasoning still follows that more people had access (and earlier access) to the rules for GW models. RW flock spam is dead now anyway. Brims are easy to build and proxy.

Tau falling down the ranks heavily as people learn to deal with them as usual. I bet we're going to be one of the last codices this time. :(

Chapter approved can't get here fast enough. Honestly I don't see why GW is taking so long in nerfing some armies. Starcraft 2 gets super frequent patches that make tiny small changes frequently until it gets the balance just right and then their frequency levelled off until it was clear more minor tweaks would be needed.



Edit
Also if FW never had any good units then it would be pointless buying them since no one would ever have any incentive to buy them to play. The vast majority of their units are actually on the weak side with a few every edition that are strong and occasionally genuinely OP. Still no worse than what GW can do sometimes. Looking at you Gulliman.

Kdash wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Runic wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:


GW's responsible for Conscripts, Girlyman, Magnus, Scions...

... and Stormraven spam, Tau Commander spam, Razorback spam (ties with Guilliman), Razorwing flock spam, Drone spam, Brimstone spam.

So, GW creates more broken units than FW does. End of fact based discussion, unrealistic opinions possibly follow.

Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?

Yes, FW need to get their act together and update their faqs I agree (along with releasing chapter tactics for their space marine chapters etc), however, I’d also argue that GW seems more active on the “issue resolution” front, simply because they’ve got a lot more issues to resolve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
FW is and has always been GW +1. The thing is - the price you pay in points is completely random. You might pay too much or too little. The problem with this is specifically when you are getting a better unit for the same or less points. Which happens frequently with forge world units.

Elysians are a great example. Gardsmen that get free deep strike ability for no additional point cost....wow - real surprise that these units get spammed. It's also worth noting that gardsmen are already exceptional units for their points.

You see how this works? They take a GW unit - give it special rules "SEE GW +1" and don't charge you for them. It happens - it happens a lot - it will always happen - the drive to sell models for 2-3x GW price will always cause this to happen.

Elysian's cost 1 point more than the standard guardsman. Not much for deep-strike, i agree - but 75% of the time you'll be starting your standard unit on the board anyway due to the 50% deployment rule. Command squads cost 4 points less than a Scion Command squad for 4 plasma, but, the offset is that the hotshot lasguns are so so so much better. (but then, you're only taking these units for plasma spam unless you are preparing for the whole "regiment tactics" thing). On the flip side, a Scion commander is 5 points CHEAPER than an Elysian Commander, so, in effect the Scions are cheaper on a 1 for 1 basis (which is required due to 1 command squad = 1 commander). I'd argue that the re-roll morale buff is useless on a 4 man Elysian unit as well. (commanders are the same price if you don't take a plasma pistol on the Eylsian commander)

I don't think GW has more issues to resolve given that they have many more units. Further FW (to my knowledge) is not updating anything, would it be hard for them to plug the issues they do have if they are as small as you claim.

The issues you site for Elysians are trivial, because they are taken as part of a larger AM detachment so the conscripts start on the table, not the deepstriking guardsman. Your regular elysian squads are cheaper than scion squads so there is a net gain for the elysians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamgee wrote:
Tau falling down the ranks heavily as people learn to deal with them as usual. I bet we're going to be one of the last codices this time. :(

Chapter approved can't get here fast enough. Honestly I don't see why GW is taking so long in nerfing some armies. Starcraft 2 gets super frequent patches that make tiny small changes frequently until it gets the balance just right and then their frequency levelled off until it was clear more minor tweaks would be needed.

Spoiler:

Edit
Also if FW never had any good units then it would be pointless buying them since no one would ever have any incentive to buy them to play. The vast majority of their units are actually on the weak side with a few every edition that are strong and occasionally genuinely OP. Still no worse than what GW can do sometimes. Looking at you Gulliman.

Because they don't want to tweak a ton, and are waiting for codex releases to change units (for the most part). It seems to me that their logic is: If we have a codex coming soon we'll wait until then. If not, we will issue an FAQ.

Breng77 wrote:My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."

The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.

1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.

I actually perceive the opposite problem: I feel like Forge World is trying too hard to conform to 8th's design philosophy.

Based on what I've seen, I feel like GW has been upping the lethality of weapons (it's why first turn matters so much, both for CC and shooting - many things are super lethal). This makes things like Conscripts OP, because they aren't "durable" in the traditional sense but are "durable" in this ridiculous-lethality environment where units with only 20 wounds can get obliterated in a heartbeat (I was tabled before turn 4 in at least 2 of my games at NOVA and had 78 T8 wounds, 20 T7 wounds, 23 T3 wounds).

So along comes Forge World with units that, in the fluff, are supposed to be able to endure tons and tons of enemy firepower (Titans, Thunderhawks) - so they make them super tough (T10-16, T9, there are more). But then, they've deviated from 8th Edition's "lethality" gimmick, and so they quickly have to shoehorn in a rule that makes those 'super-tough' units not so super-tough. The only fluffy way to do this is have Titan-killing guns gain the Macro rule, and voila - you end up with a super weird dichotomy where Macro weapons overpay against non-superheavies, underpay against superheavies, and superheavies who are very expensive against eachother but very cheap against non-macro/non-superheavy foes.

I think if FW just doubled down on the "These units aren't supposed to be one-shotted ever in a single phase by the same points of enemy gear" metric, then Macro weapons wouldn't exist, but they'd also have deviated from GW's push to increase lethality.

Breng77 wrote:
Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?

In the context of which manufacturer creates more broken units both "is something being done about it" and "who has access to them" are completely irrelevant, as that is not the subject being discussed. What was being discussed is which makes more broken units, and only that matters in the context of said discussion. It also doesn't matter is something has already been nerfed; the broken unit was created still. I'm talking about which manufacturer has created the most broken units, nothing else. Sidetracking is pointless. If GW made 2 units that are overpowered, and FW made 1, then GW made more broken units than FW no matter what the accessibility is.

The fact of the matter is that currently, and in the past, GW has been responsible for most of the broken units and other combinations (such as formations) numerically. There is simply no way around this.

For 8th edition:

GW:

Guilliman
Stormraven spam
Razorback spam
Conscripts
Commander spam
Drone spam
Razorwing Flock spam
Scion spam
Brimstone spam

FW:

Malefic lord spam
Elysians
???

8-2 if we account for stuff that has actually fared in tournaments around the world and count Guilliman & Razorback Spam as a single, while not taking into account someones kitchen table subjective views such as; "Necrons are OP lost to them yesterday yo."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."

The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.

1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.

I actually perceive the opposite problem: I feel like Forge World is trying too hard to conform to 8th's design philosophy.

Based on what I've seen, I feel like GW has been upping the lethality of weapons (it's why first turn matters so much, both for CC and shooting - many things are super lethal). This makes things like Conscripts OP, because they aren't "durable" in the traditional sense but are "durable" in this ridiculous-lethality environment where units with only 20 wounds can get obliterated in a heartbeat (I was tabled before turn 4 in at least 2 of my games at NOVA and had 78 T8 wounds, 20 T7 wounds, 23 T3 wounds).

So along comes Forge World with units that, in the fluff, are supposed to be able to endure tons and tons of enemy firepower (Titans, Thunderhawks) - so they make them super tough (T10-16, T9, there are more). But then, they've deviated from 8th Edition's "lethality" gimmick, and so they quickly have to shoehorn in a rule that makes those 'super-tough' units not so super-tough. The only fluffy way to do this is have Titan-killing guns gain the Macro rule, and voila - you end up with a super weird dichotomy where Macro weapons overpay against non-superheavies, underpay against superheavies, and superheavies who are very expensive against eachother but very cheap against non-macro/non-superheavy foes.

I think if FW just doubled down on the "These units aren't supposed to be one-shotted ever in a single phase by the same points of enemy gear" metric, then Macro weapons wouldn't exist, but they'd also have deviated from GW's push to increase lethality.

Except they also made a ton of guns that are more lethal than anything GW put into the game. Which makes units that are GW and supposed to be durable laughably easy to one shot off the table. I agree that conscripts need a fix, but I'd have less issue with FW if they didn't both, go high on durability, and lethality. It makes it so that FW is designed to kill FW, and GW is not as much. I'd also have less issue if they were all titans but they aren't. They also could have added more wounds as part of a solution. But FW units very much (against non-infantry spam) are point and delete target unit. Precisely because they are designed to fight the super tough FW units. For instance I faced the chaos Cerberus, 470 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound. So it might be balanced against things with the FW durability level, but against most standard stuff 2 wounds is enough to wipe out a vehicle.

Earthshaker batteries for guard are also bordering on quite undercosted for their abilities... FW necron Gauss Pylon is broken, just the army that plays it is too bad for it to get attention

My mistake on the stomp - decided to read it as 2d6 dmg not 2d6 shots for some stupid reason.
Which units do static dmg + D3/D6 damage? I've just scanned over some of the space marine and chaos forgeworld units (http://www.3plusplus.net/2017/06/forgeworld-indexes-imperium-chaos/) and i can't see anything that does the damage you are claiming. I believe there are some, but not many - unless they are all xenos weapons?

At range, str 10+ is lacking, i agree, but, you have to take combat into account - especially with the amount of charges that are possible first turn or from deep-strike later on. Of those units you listed, only 2 would be able to fit into a standard ITC event, the dread and the Cerberus, so i don't really think it is something to be concerned with. As for casual games - well you can set your own rules to simply agree to have no T9 units.

Gauss Pylon is the one that can deep-strike, so if it does it cannot fire it's main weapon that turn as it moved. If it doesnt deep-strike then it will only be in range with its main weapon doing D6 shots with a -1bs vs any non fly unit. Sure, it can put out pain, but, it isnt indestructible and can only kill 5-6 units a game.

I agree that a lot of the units you've listed are designed for bigger pointed games, but these represent like 1% of all the FW models. The rest of the model line isnt really that much different to the GW stuff. Simply just different variations, sometimes with slightly different rules. Everything that is 40 power level + should be kept for those large games, but, the other 99% hardly represent a divergence in philosophy.

 Runic wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Right because the fact that more people own those units/books has nothing to do with that being what we see most often. Also GW has been addressing these issues, and FW has been doing what?

In the context of which manufacturer creates more broken units both "is something being done about it" and "who has access to them" are completely irrelevant, as that is not the subject being discussed. What was being discussed is which makes more broken units, and only that matters in the context of said discussion. It also doesn't matter is something has already been nerfed; the broken unit was created still. I'm talking about which manufacturer has created the most broken units, nothing else. Sidetracking is pointless. If GW made 2 units that are overpowered, and FW made 1, then GW made more broken units than FW no matter what the accessibility is.

The fact of the matter is that currently, and in the past, GW has been responsible for most of the broken units and other combinations (such as formations) numerically. There is simply no way around this.

For 8th edition:

GW:

Guilliman
Stormraven spam
Razorback spam
Conscripts
Commander spam
Drone spam
Razorwing Flock spam
Scion spam
Brimstone spam

FW:

Malefic lord spam
Elysians
???

7-2 if we account for stuff that has actually fared in tournaments around the world and not take into account someones kitchen table subjective views.

Got it so you are interested in academic, irrelevant debate.

Fixing it does matter, what is worse 7 OP units that get fixed quickly, or 2 that never get fixed?

Further if "the unit performing in tournament winning lists" is being used as a mechanic then accessibility absolutely matters. For instance fire raptor spam might have been a thing, if people owned 5 of them...but they don't. Super chicken might have been a thing, but it was pre-emptively banned from many events, and most people don't own the model. Malific Lords and Elysians are easy to proxy using GW models, so we see those on the table.

Also in your method, number of created units doesn't matter either. Who is the better rules writer the guy how creates 10 units and has 2 OP units, or the one that creates 2 and has 1 OP unit?

Your argument is completely meaningless when it comes to a discussion of "quality of rules" or issues that arise with them being used in tournaments.

10 GW Mark of Slaanesh Terminators with Prescience, Combi-plasmaguns and Cacophony can easily oneshot most of the FW superheavies while costing less and being less affected by the soft Wound table of 8th edition (which basically hits all big and effective things in the knees).

Best LoW choices are coming from, you guessed it, GW.

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breng77 wrote:My biggest issue with FW (whether it is OP or not) in 8th is that it seems to be a completely different design idea. A lot of the stuff there seems to be "lets see if we can one up GW stuff." A lot of it also feels like "we play APOC level games all the time so these rules are fine."

The reason I feel this is for a few reasons.

1.) No units in GW written books are T9, there are multiple such models in the FW books.
2.) No unit in the GW books does more than 6 damage of a single wound. A ton of FW stuff does things like D6+4 damage.
3.) The Macro rule exists seemingly to be a counter to other FW super heavy stuff, this is a FW only rule, no GW unit has this rule.

I actually perceive the opposite problem: I feel like Forge World is trying too hard to conform to 8th's design philosophy.

Based on what I've seen, I feel like GW has been upping the lethality of weapons (it's why first turn matters so much, both for CC and shooting - many things are super lethal). This makes things like Conscripts OP, because they aren't "durable" in the traditional sense but are "durable" in this ridiculous-lethality environment where units with only 20 wounds can get obliterated in a heartbeat (I was tabled before turn 4 in at least 2 of my games at NOVA and had 78 T8 wounds, 20 T7 wounds, 23 T3 wounds).

So along comes Forge World with units that, in the fluff, are supposed to be able to endure tons and tons of enemy firepower (Titans, Thunderhawks) - so they make them super tough (T10-16, T9, there are more). But then, they've deviated from 8th Edition's "lethality" gimmick, and so they quickly have to shoehorn in a rule that makes those 'super-tough' units not so super-tough. The only fluffy way to do this is have Titan-killing guns gain the Macro rule, and voila - you end up with a super weird dichotomy where Macro weapons overpay against non-superheavies, underpay against superheavies, and superheavies who are very expensive against eachother but very cheap against non-macro/non-superheavy foes.

I think if FW just doubled down on the "These units aren't supposed to be one-shotted ever in a single phase by the same points of enemy gear" metric, then Macro weapons wouldn't exist, but they'd also have deviated from GW's push to increase lethality.

Except they also made a ton of guns that are more lethal than anything GW put into the game. Which makes units that are GW and supposed to be durable laughably easy to one shot off the table. I agree that conscripts need a fix, but I'd have less issue with FW if they didn't both, go high on durability, and lethality. It makes it so that FW is designed to kill FW, and GW is not as much. I'd also have less issue if they were all titans but they aren't. They also could have added more wounds as part of a solution. But FW units very much (against non-infantry spam) are point and delete target unit. Precisely because they are designed to fight the super tough FW units. For instance I faced the chaos Cerberus, 470 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound. So it might be balanced against things with the FW durability level, but against most standard stuff 2 wounds is enough to wipe out a vehicle.

That's... not true at all. The Shadowsword is both cheaper than the Cerberus and slightly more lethal.

The Cerberus is balanced with the Shadowsword, I would say. And the Shadowsword is a GW unit.

The here is your exact sentence with the Shadowsword instead of the Cerberus:

"For instance I faced the Guard Shadowsword, 438 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound."

Breng77 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Except they also made a ton of guns that are more lethal than anything GW put into the game. Which makes units that are GW and supposed to be durable laughably easy to one shot off the table. I agree that conscripts need a fix, but I'd have less issue with FW if they didn't both, go high on durability, and lethality. It makes it so that FW is designed to kill FW, and GW is not as much. I'd also have less issue if they were all titans but they aren't. They also could have added more wounds as part of a solution. But FW units very much (against non-infantry spam) are point and delete target unit. Precisely because they are designed to fight the super tough FW units. For instance I faced the chaos Cerberus, 470 points, its main gun is basically a delete target high toughness model as it routinely wounds 3-4 times and does 7 to 8 damage for each wound. So it might be balanced against things with the FW durability level, but against most standard stuff 2 wounds is enough to wipe out a vehicle.

But, what happens when the Cerberus faces off against the conscript spam list that doesn’t really have any super high toughness/wound models? You are looking at things in pure isolation. Sure, the Cerberus will absolutely destroy a heavy mech elite force - like it is meant to, but beyond that it does 3 shots a turn plus sponson weapons. Hardly going to die, but not going to prevent the rest of your army from getting pounded.

Breng77 wrote:
Got it so you are interested in academic, irrelevant debate.

Got it, you fail to understand that when discussing "which company makes more broken units" it actually matters which company makes more broken units.

Breng77 wrote:
Fixing it does matter, what is worse 7 OP units that get fixed quickly, or 2 that never get fixed?

Not in the context that was discussed. And by the way, even after the fixes GW still outnumbers FW in the tournament faring broken units.

Breng77 wrote:
Also in your method, number of created units doesn't matter either. Who is the better rules writer the guy how creates 10 units and has 2 OP units, or the one that creates 2 and has 1 OP unit?

Your argument is completely meaningless when it comes to a discussion of "quality of rules" or issues that arise with them being used in tournaments.

"Who is the better rules writer" was not also being discussed.It appears you are simply avoiding admitting when someone is right in a claim they make, instead forcefully trying to sidetrack the context into something different so you can have your way.

Well guess what, I refuse. GW has created more broken units than FW has was my claim. We can move on to other matters when you acknowledge this fact.