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.
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 2d6dmg - 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.
My mistake on the stomp - decided to read it as 2d6dmg 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.
None of these units will ever be charged turn 1, against a good opponent.
As for damage + D3/D6, it does appear the 2D6 is more common but a quick look yields,
Gauss annihilator = D3 + 6 damage (gauss pylon)
Heavy Neutron pulse array = 3 + D6 damage (Relic Cerberus)
Maliganatas beam cannon = 4+D6 damage (Helforged Cerberus)
apparently I'm just lucky that this is what I've seen played.
Klowny wrote: 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
I agree the batteries are potentially under costed, but if you can target them, they die pretty easily.
Another thing to note on them, is i know at least the ITC are putting in rules that the model representing the unit has to be approx the same size as the original. Apparently the batteries are like 8" across and nearly the same high, so in tournaments they are going to be harder to hide and place going forward. (ruling not in place yet, but was mentioned in the last signal podcast)
None of these units will ever be charged turn 1, against a good opponent.
As for damage + D3/D6, it does appear the 2D6 is more common but a quick look yields,
Gauss annihilator = D3 + 6 damage (gauss pylon)
Heavy Neutron pulse array = 3 + D6 damage (Relic Cerberus)
Maliganatas beam cannon = 4+D6 damage (Helforged Cerberus)
apparently I'm just lucky that this is what I've seen played.
So, basically 3 units then? 2 of which are basically the same model, just for different factions? That'd hardly what i'd call even remotely as common as you're implying.
Oh, in most cases, yes, they won't be charged turn 1. But, turn 2 and 3 it can still easily happen. It can even easily be done without deep strike with just target saturation and heavy psychic powers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/05 14:19:49
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."
I would actually say it is significantly less lethal to be honest. Its main gun averages 1.75 hits (so say 2), wounds on a 2 + so 2 wounds, average 14 damage. The Helforged Cerberus hits on a 2+ and wounds most things on a essentially 2+, with static 4 shots. So it hits 3 times on average, and wounds 3 times on average, each time is 7.5 wounds so 21.5 damage. It is much less random, a shadow sword for 32 points less can do way more damage, but also can do way less (random shots could be 1, which misses.).
It is also significantly more durable than the shadow sword at T9 with a 2+ save. SO not really balanced in this match-up unless by balanced you mean they can kill each other.
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.
yes these things basically remove things that are not infantry from the game, which means having things like this forces the game to infantry spam because other things don't survive. When I played against the Helforged (chaos version has 4 shots) my only thought was I guess I should have just run 200 ork boyz instead of playing a balanced list, because I could win easily in a boring game. Which is my problem. Not that they are unbeatable, but they force the meta in a specific (IMO boring) direction. Other units are guilty of this as well. My point simply was that FW design of giant tank battles, and being balanced toward that end leads to games that are just to opposite when used with regular GW.
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.
Got it. GW while being the better company for rules writing, and response to problems, has infact more OP units because they have more units (proportionally they are close to equal). Especially when we are only factoring tournament results (which you did not respond to because it proves your point wrong) where accessibility dictates what gets played, as the method of determining the power of a unit.
See completely meaningless to any discussion. GW has more op units, that are getting addressed. SO yeah you are right in a completely meaningless statistic. Which has no bearing on any discussion of whether FW rules are good or bad.
Klowny wrote: 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
I agree the batteries are potentially under costed, but if you can target them, they die pretty easily.
Another thing to note on them, is i know at least the ITC are putting in rules that the model representing the unit has to be approx the same size as the original. Apparently the batteries are like 8" across and nearly the same high, so in tournaments they are going to be harder to hide and place going forward. (ruling not in place yet, but was mentioned in the last signal podcast)
None of these units will ever be charged turn 1, against a good opponent.
As for damage + D3/D6, it does appear the 2D6 is more common but a quick look yields,
Gauss annihilator = D3 + 6 damage (gauss pylon)
Heavy Neutron pulse array = 3 + D6 damage (Relic Cerberus)
Maliganatas beam cannon = 4+D6 damage (Helforged Cerberus)
apparently I'm just lucky that this is what I've seen played.
So, basically 3 units then? 2 of which are basically the same model, just for different factions? That'd hardly what i'd call even remotely as common as you're implying.
Oh, in most cases, yes, they won't be charged turn 1. But, turn 2 and 3 it can still easily happen. It can even easily be done without deep strike with just target saturation and heavy psychic powers.
3 that I found in a quick check ignoring all titans. But yes not as bad as I thought, but it is still 3 more than in all of GW.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/09/05 14:41:07
Breng77 wrote: GW has more op units, that are getting addressed. SO yeah you are right in a completely meaningless statistic. Which has no bearing on any discussion of whether FW rules are good or bad.
Firstly, you are not empowered to decide the discussion subject nor therefore deciding what is useless. Second, if we discuss FW rules being good or bad, then there is reason in comparing it to what GW has done in turn. Certainly their ruleswriting can be criticized by themselves, but comparison is also quite obvious. I do not know what tournament point you speak of, I certainly skipped nothing because it would prove me wrong. There is no need, because my claim is simply correct. What comes to mind from previous editions, only stuff that has dominated tournaments and again ignoring kitchen table commanders subjective views:
7E
GW
Heldrake (early, before nerf)
War Convocation
Horrors (Split)
Brimstone spam
Librarius Conclave
Centurion Devastators (Gravcannon & Grav-amp)
Riptide Wing
Deathstar elements (Draigo, Fenrisian Wolves, Azrael, Iron Priests, WGBTL, Cyclobia Cabal, Flesh Hounds etc.)
Screamerstar
Ynnari
Windriders (Scatter Laser)
Warp Spiders
Gladius Strike Force
Reclamation Legion
Wraithknight
Skyhammer Annihilation Force
Servo Skulls
Celestine
Smashfether
Icing on the cake, the most hated tournament winners from earlier editions: Night Scythe spam, Grey Knights, Eldar Starcannon spam, Chaos Space Marine Iron Warriors + 9x Oblits + Basilisks, Eldar Rangers, Imperial Guard leaf blower. All from GW.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/05 14:50:44
Breng77 wrote: GW has more op units, that are getting addressed. SO yeah you are right in a completely meaningless statistic. Which has no bearing on any discussion of whether FW rules are good or bad.
Firstly, you are not empowered to decide the discussion subject nor therefore deciding what is useless. Second, if we discuss FW rules being good or bad, then there is reason in comparing it to what GW has done in turn. Certainly their ruleswriting can be criticized by themselves, but comparison is also quite obvious. I do not know what tournament point you speak of, I certainly skipped nothing because it would prove me wrong. There is no need, because my claim is simply correct. What comes to mind from previous editions, only stuff that has dominated tournaments and again ignoring kitchen table commanders subjective views:
7E
GW
Heldrake (early, before nerf)
War Convocation
Horrors (Split)
Brimstone spam
Librarius Conclave
Centurion Devastators (Gravcannon & Grav-amp)
Riptide Wing
Deathstar elements (Draigo, Fenrisian Wolves, Azrael, Iron Priests, WGBTL, Cyclobia Cabal, Flesh Hounds etc.)
Screamerstar
Ynnari
Windriders (Scatter Laser)
Warp Spiders
Gladius Strike Force
Reclamation Legion
Wraithknight
Skyhammer Annihilation Force
Servo Skulls
Celestine
Smashfether
Icing on the cake, the most hated tournament winners from earlier editions: Night Scythe spam, Grey Knights, Eldar Starcannon spam, Chaos Space Marine Iron Warriors + 9x Oblits + Basilisks, Eldar Rangers, Imperial Guard leaf blower. All from GW.
The comparison is not meaningless. The comparison as stock number of OP units is meaningless because it ignores a ton of issues. Proportion of bad units is meaningful if we are looking at overall rules writing. Addressing rules issues is meaningful because it suggests how long those problems might exist (right now GW addressing FW not, that may change).
You last Icing on the cake actually proves my tournament point which you still have not addressed about accessibility. In older edtions that you mention FW was by and large banned so using tournament results as the indicator of OP is almost entirely meaningless. GK were OP in tournaments yes. But we have no idea what FW would have been back then, because they were not in tournaments so saying. "These are the worst tournament lists and they are all GW and not FW." is meaningless because NO FW was allowed in those events in the first place.
Which was my point, we don't know all the FW issues because people don't own the models and don't run them. Fire Raptor Spam could have been a thing alongside storm raven spam. But people don't own 5 fire raptors, and the nerf came prior to anyone having the ability to buy/convert them. Elysians and Malific lords are easy to proxy, and guess what we see? You also want tournament results. Razorwing spam won exactly 0 tournaments (it was good at ETC in fixed matchups) so that is based on what that they got nerfed prior to any tournament where they dominated? What event has Drone spam dominated? You completely ignored the fact that tournament results are not any kind of indicator between GW and FW rules, because you will see a ton more GW in those events because more people own just GW.
Also previous editions mean nothing when discussing current rules, and response. Most things you listed are not even units in 7th but formations.
GW:
Guilliman
Magnus (poss +changeling combo)
Stormraven spam - fixed/nerfed
Razorback spam - Really relies on Girlyman to be OP, so kind of a misnomer to list separately
Conscripts - Codex coming next month
Commander spam - Listing as OP is a misnomer as it allows Tau to be competitive, but they aren't dominating tournaments
Drone spam - as above, another misnomer. In fact the first Tau list you hit that fielded both finished 50th.
Razorwing Flock spam - fixed/nerfed
Scion spam - Codex coming next month
Brimstone spam - fixed/nerfed
FW:
Malefic lord spam
Karybdis Assault Claw
Elysians
Earthshaker Carriage Battery
+ Necron Gauss Pylon and others that don't seem OP yet thanks to the owning army being an Index
Plus we have the big Chapter Approved bringing Matched Play changes in December. When will FW fix their units?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/05 15:20:14
First off, you are ignoring a later of GW units. A taurox prime is probably as good as the earthshaker carriage for example.
Second, I refuse to treat stormraven spam as a successful fix, considering they refused to nerf a single problematic unit and instead nerfed all existing flyers, even ones that weren't very good.
SilverAlien wrote: First off, you are ignoring a later of GW units. A taurox prime is probably as good as the earthshaker carriage for example.
Second, I refuse to treat stormraven spam as a successful fix, considering they refused to nerf a single problematic unit and instead nerfed all existing flyers, even ones that weren't very good.
It doesn't hurt any flyers that were not going to be spammed as an entire army. It is an entirely reasonable fix that future proofs against other flyers getting spammed. For instance take the FW fire raptor for CSM. It is another powerful flyer that may well have been spammed if the storm raven was the only thing that was fixed, or the storm talon etc.
Also if it fixed storm raven spam, then it was a successful fix. Maybe not the one you wanted but successful none the less.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/05 16:06:56
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.
It would take me all of 10 minutes to do it for GW and 2 minutes for FW in all my gaming since 4th edition. It isn't hard to do a little research either. You just won't do it because you're afraid of being proven wrong. I work 5-7 (usually 6) days a week and can easily make time. What's YOUR excuse?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GhostRecon wrote: GW:
Guilliman
Magnus (poss +changeling combo)
Stormraven spam - fixed/nerfed
Razorback spam - Really relies on Girlyman to be OP, so kind of a misnomer to list separately
Conscripts - Codex coming next month
Commander spam - Listing as OP is a misnomer as it allows Tau to be competitive, but they aren't dominating tournaments
Drone spam - as above, another misnomer. In fact the first Tau list you hit that fielded both finished 50th.
Razorwing Flock spam - fixed/nerfed
Scion spam - Codex coming next month
Brimstone spam - fixed/nerfed
FW:
Malefic lord spam
Karybdis Assault Claw
Elysians
Earthshaker Carriage Battery
+ Necron Gauss Pylon and others that don't seem OP yet thanks to the owning army being an Index
Plus we have the big Chapter Approved bringing Matched Play changes in December. When will FW fix their units?
The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/05 16:10:25
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.
GW has to put back 0-1 and 0-2 choices.
O at last "0-1 for every X".
Otherwise there will be always this kind of problem.
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Arguably this is the case, as none of those were in the winning lists.
I thought the argument was "stuff in the winning lists is OP, and Forge World is among the stuff in the winning lists, therefore Forge World is OP?"
Or are we talking about something else now?
My argument, at least, is that FW has its fair share of OP units and has an exceedingly poor history of actually addressing them. In a solely 8th Edition-focused context, even, GW has made fairly aggressive steps at times to quell potentially OP units - whereas FW's last FAQs did nothing of the sort, and have made no mention of changing from that tack.
Runic et all want to drag it into comparing GW's track history to FW's when it comes to advertent/inadvertent OP units to try and portray FW as being fine or better. My post was just touching on how GW at least is trying to fix theirs and has several other fixes in the pipeline. From FW - anything?
And so, at least until FW actually begins to release balance updates like GW is currently attempting to do it doesn't seem prudent to allow FW in mainstream tournaments - otherwise, things like Malefic Lord spam, Elysian-heavy Imperial lists, etc., will remain even if/when Conscripts, Girlyman, etc., are balanced (eventually).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/05 16:26:54
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Arguably this is the case, as none of those were in the winning lists.
I thought the argument was "stuff in the winning lists is OP, and Forge World is among the stuff in the winning lists, therefore Forge World is OP?"
Or are we talking about something else now?
I never made that argument. My current concerns regarding FW is that it is not designed with the same design ideas as basic GW stuff, and I'm not sure how well they will address issues when they arise. By and large most units in the game are fine (both GW and FW), but for those that are an issue I'm not convinced FW stuff will get addressed in a timely fashion.
The real issues in the game right now IMO is that anti-infantry firepower is woefully ineffective by comparison to anti-multi wound model weapons. This essentially forces the game into horde spam backed by untargetable firepower (either characters or things that don't need LOS or deepstrikers)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/05 16:28:54
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Arguably this is the case, as none of those were in the winning lists.
I thought the argument was "stuff in the winning lists is OP, and Forge World is among the stuff in the winning lists, therefore Forge World is OP?"
Or are we talking about something else now?
My argument, at least, is that FW has its fair share of OP units and has an exceedingly poor history of actually addressing them. In a solely 8th Edition-focused context, even, GW has made fairly aggressive steps at times to quell potentially OP units - whereas FW's last FAQs did nothing of the sort, and have made no mention of changing from that tack.
Runic et all want to drag it into comparing GW's track history to FW's when it comes to advertent/inadvertent OP units to try and portray FW as being fine or better. My post was just touching on how GW at least is trying to fix theirs and has several other fixes in the pipeline. From FW - anything?
And so, at least until FW actually begins to release balance updates like GW is currently attempting to do it doesn't seem prudent to allow FW in mainstream tournaments - otherwise, things like Malefic Lord spam, Elysian-heavy Imperial lists, etc., will remain even if/when Conscripts, Girlyman, etc., are balanced (eventually).
Well, I did hear from the GW community guys at NOVA that they are looking at adjusting some of the points costs in Forge World stuff in a future Warhammer Community contribution.
Though I'm sure that something released by Warhammer Community addressing something from FW without GW designer's input will just make everyone's heads explode because THEYRE"RER NOT THE SAME COMAPNYS REAWRRY!
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Well how many of the things I listed made it super far compared to your list? What in those units I named just being excellent is actually super broken about them? I'll admit the Claw borders, but it's not broken in any sense.
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.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Well, I did hear from the GW community guys at NOVA that they are looking at adjusting some of the points costs in Forge World stuff in a future Warhammer Community contribution.
If that's the case, awesome - will look forward to seeing it. Doesn't necessarily change the present, though, so until then...
Unit1126PLL wrote: Though I'm sure that something released by Warhammer Community addressing something from FW without GW designer's input will just make everyone's heads explode because THEYRE"RER NOT THE SAME COMAPNYS REAWRRY!
Don't think I've seen anybody claim they're not the same company so much as not the same design studio/group/shop/whateveryouwanttocallthem. No surprise that the GW mandated site they're using for communicating everything will still be used for communicating everything (it lists FW, Horus Heresy, AOS, and everything else under GW's myriad umbrella, after all).
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Well how many of the things I listed made it super far compared to your list? What in those units I named just being excellent is actually super broken about them? I'll admit the Claw borders, but it's not broken in any sense.
Earth Shakers won BAO, so more than razorbacks have done, or commanders, drones, Magnus etc. SO by your own metric if earthshakers are just excellent then so are all of the things you've listed here.
People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/05 17:34:24
Hoodwink wrote: People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Or maybe many people don't pour over every resource for units. Number of units taken is a poor metric for what is strong, especially the first time someone plays a specific list.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.
Hoodwink wrote: People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Or maybe many people don't pour over every resource for units. Number of units taken is a poor metric for what is strong, especially the first time someone plays a specific list.
So... you're saying that it doesn't matter how many times a given unit shows up?
I'm confused...
...by what metric are we determining if FW is OP again? Subjectivity?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.
"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Well how many of the things I listed made it super far compared to your list? What in those units I named just being excellent is actually super broken about them? I'll admit the Claw borders, but it's not broken in any sense.
Earth Shakers won BAO, so more than razorbacks have done, or commanders, drones, Magnus etc. SO by your own metric if earthshakers are just excellent then so are all of the things you've listed here.
How often did the Earthshakers show up though?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/05 18:02:32
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.
Hoodwink wrote: People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Or maybe many people don't pour over every resource for units. Number of units taken is a poor metric for what is strong, especially the first time someone plays a specific list.
So... you're saying that it doesn't matter how many times a given unit shows up?
I'm confused...
...by what metric are we determining if FW is OP again? Subjectivity?
Honestly we have no great metric for FW units because they are not common, the ones that can be easily proxied are the ones we are likely to see.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The Earthshaker, Assault Claw, and Pylon are just excellent. They're not broken at all. Assault Claw I will say borders, but that's because it's more that its younger brother is bad, and the youngest of all (regular Drop Pod) is complete garbage right now.
Regular Drop Pod is not complete garbage. Just in this same NOVA OPEN Reecius got very nice results using one in his list. Of course it feels garbage in this edition when its not given free so people actually need to use brains how to make most of using it.
"Very nice results"
How far did Drop Pods make it again?
Breng77 wrote: By that metric razorbacks, Commanders, Drones, Magnus, and maybe Guilimann are just excellent, and not broken.
Well how many of the things I listed made it super far compared to your list? What in those units I named just being excellent is actually super broken about them? I'll admit the Claw borders, but it's not broken in any sense.
Earth Shakers won BAO, so more than razorbacks have done, or commanders, drones, Magnus etc. SO by your own metric if earthshakers are just excellent then so are all of the things you've listed here.
How often did the Earthshakers show up though?
again this is a poor method for FW because most people don't run FW. By the method of how many show up tactical marines are OP.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/05 18:06:15
Hoodwink wrote: People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Or maybe many people don't pour over every resource for units. Number of units taken is a poor metric for what is strong, especially the first time someone plays a specific list.
So... you're saying that it doesn't matter how many times a given unit shows up?
I'm confused...
...by what metric are we determining if FW is OP again? Subjectivity?
Honestly we have no great metric for FW units because they are not common, the ones that can be easily proxied are the ones we are likely to see.
So if we've no metric or data on FW's OPness, why the constant whining?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually fought a pick-up game while I was there against a DKoK army with 9 Earthshaker cannons in 3 batteries.
Not only did I table him, but he was bringing some of the Earthshakers to the tournament and ended up 2-6.
Earthshakers OP indeed.
Nothing is OP if the rest of the list is not good, or the player is not very good. My argument about earthshakers is that if they aren't op then neither is a bunch of stuff people claim is OP from GW, as they have placed higher in events than most of what people complain about from GW.
Hoodwink wrote: People keep saying FW is super broken but they aren't winning tournaments where people are going to spam the most broken units as much as they can in an edition that allows it.
Elysians were used in the winning army... But way more conscripts and other units were used. If Elysians were broken, I'd expect to see more armies with them. Not one.
Truth is, regardless of FW's history, their units are not broken right now. There will be winners and that doesn't mean something is broken. The best metric is to see how many people brings specific units compared to how well they do. Flyer spam was broken when every other list included 5 Stormravens. Saying stuff is broken because someone in a tournament won is taking credit away from the person winning if there are no other factors to come to that conclusion.
Or maybe many people don't pour over every resource for units. Number of units taken is a poor metric for what is strong, especially the first time someone plays a specific list.
So... you're saying that it doesn't matter how many times a given unit shows up?
I'm confused...
...by what metric are we determining if FW is OP again? Subjectivity?
Honestly we have no great metric for FW units because they are not common, the ones that can be easily proxied are the ones we are likely to see.
So if we've no metric or data on FW's OPness, why the constant whining?
I already explained why I think FW is in a bad place right now, and OP has nothing to do with it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/05 18:09:13
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually fought a pick-up game while I was there against a DKoK army with 9 Earthshaker cannons in 3 batteries.
Not only did I table him, but he was bringing some of the Earthshakers to the tournament and ended up 2-6.
Earthshakers OP indeed.
Nothing is OP if the rest of the list is not good, or the player is not very good. My argument about earthshakers is that if they aren't op then neither is a bunch of stuff people claim is OP from GW, as they have placed higher in events than most of what people complain about from GW.
But the same argument can be turned on its head: if it placed higher in events, perhaps the player was just good or the rest of the list is good?
The Earthshakers themselves didn't win BAO, it wasn't 2000 points of Earthshaker cannons.
A unit whose utility depends on player skill and the composition of the rest of the list is a balanced unit imo.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually fought a pick-up game while I was there against a DKoK army with 9 Earthshaker cannons in 3 batteries.
Not only did I table him, but he was bringing some of the Earthshakers to the tournament and ended up 2-6.
Earthshakers OP indeed.
Nothing is OP if the rest of the list is not good, or the player is not very good. My argument about earthshakers is that if they aren't op then neither is a bunch of stuff people claim is OP from GW, as they have placed higher in events than most of what people complain about from GW.
But the same argument can be turned on its head: if it placed higher in events, perhaps the player was just good or the rest of the list is good?
The Earthshakers themselves didn't win BAO, it wasn't 2000 points of Earthshaker cannons.
A unit whose utility depends on player skill and the composition of the rest of the list is a balanced unit imo.
Then every unit is balanced, end of discussion. No list is ever made up of 2000 points of a single unit, no unit auto wins games without any skill or a good rest of the list.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
