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.

Forgeworld has a bad reputation.
I don't think people refuse to play it because they are TFG but because they have been burned in the past by TFG who was cheating.
I have seen a lot of people put down a forgeworld unit and proceed to make up rules - or combine three editions worth of rules to create an overpowered mess. This was especially common in the old system, where Forgeworld's rules often had weird interactions with the main game which lead to arguments which isn't fun.

I guess the solution there is to just say no Forgeworld unless you have a copy of the relevant Imperial Armour with you - but that isn't an automatic solution. You get to the how many books should you be carrying around with you to play a game issue.

Cut to the chase - Forgeworld is even more expensive than regular GW. I would guess something like 90%+ of players have never owned a Forgeworld model, let alone the relevant rule book. People don't like playing against stuff they do not know. The few forgeworld units you do see tend to be things people brought when they were overpowered - even if it was several editions ago.

Jidmah wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So the issue was PRIMARILY with the kustom stompa itself then - which is as I said.

Actually, the model with the rule in question was Mekboss Buzzgob. It gave you a stompa for 300 points no matter what the stompa itself would cost.
So it's not as you said and it was just an example out of many.

Again, not true. Buzzgob himself wasn't an issue. Getting a Stompa wouldn't have been an issue. Getting the Stompa for the massive discount was the issue.

If the Stompa that Buzzgob allowed you to get was correctly priced, there wouldn't be an issue.

Break down what the actual issue was.
If Buzzgob didn't let you take a Stompa, he wouldn't be an issue.
If Buzzgob's Stompa was costed like a normal Stompa, then there wouldn't be an issue, because the Kustom Stompas themselves weren't that OP.
It's because Buzzgob's Stompa ignored the fact that you needed to buy the equipment on a Stompa normally. If Buzzgob's Stompa still needed to buy that gear, it wouldn't be OP.

It's not BUZZGOB that was the issue. It was the fact the Stompa wasn't costed appropriately.

So, let's ignore what happened in previous editions, because it has no bearing on the current one, yeah?

Well, that's exactly my point. People are not declining games against FW units because FW is in a bad state now.

Guilliman, Conscripts, most of the AM line, Eldar Dark Reapers, Mortarion and Eldar unhittable units have been worse blights on this edition than anything FW have done.

FW has been a blight on 5 editions. Guess which one people remember more, three months of dark reapers or ten years of terrible rules.
Also funny how you put Mortarion in that list who has not seen a single nerf in CA or the big FAQ.

Incorrect. The vast majority of FW stuff hasn't been the most OP stuff in 40k quote "on 5 editions". Scatbikes, Riptides, and Gladius have all been worse.

And hell, even IF Forge World had been this blight, why the hell does it matter in 8th?

You say terrible rules, but GW have been consistently worse. You want to know WHY people "remember" FW rules being terrible? Because of people like you who keep touting out "but look at this model here, this was so broken years ago!", when it has no relevance on the current edition. Dark Reapers matter NOW. Buzzgob's Stompa does not.

Who cares what happened last edition? It's this edition people are playing, and most FW stuff this edition is perfectly fine. This is what people are saying, trying to convince people that their views are based in false data. You're the one telling the FW players that they shouldn't be doing that, because...?

If you're going to ban FW for OP units, ban GW ones first.

Yeah, no. I'm not banning anything. I literally put that in my last post. I suggest reading it.

My apologies, I meant the general You, not you personally. Allow me to correct.
"If people want to ban FW for being OP, they should ban GW ones first."

By that logic, why haven't people been boycotting GW units because of things like Knights in 7th, Riptides in 6th/7th,

People have been doing that. Feel free to search this forum for the threads on that.

But they usually advocated boycotting those single units, the actual offensive ones.

In the FW case, people tend to just ban ALL FW stuff, instead of just the broken material, despite most FW stuff being absolutely fine to play against, and even the higher tier FW stuff isn't on the same level as the GW OP units, which no-one seems to have advocated banning.

There wouldn't be a problem if people were advocating banning single units. But it seems that instead of dealing with the FW units like they would the offending GW ones, they just ban all FW units in one motion.

Eldar for 6th/7th/8th

You forgot 4th and 5th.

True, but they weren't quite as bad as 6th/7th back then.

Guilliman/Conscript spam in 8th,

Release 8th edition: June 2017
Release of codex AM which burried conscript spam for good: October 2017

Actually, they were buried for good in Chapter Approved. That bumped up their price to 4PPM, like Guardsmen.

Do you really need an answer to that?

They were still overpowered units. No-one was advocating banning all GW units back then.

Take the Fire Raptor. Anti-FW people saw that unit, and wanted to use that as their reason why all FW should be banned. Then GW nerfed it, also in the same Chapter Approved Conscripts were ruined in. Now it's hardly taken due to that - but ask anti-FW people, and they'll probably say that it should be banned despite it not being OP.

Or why aren't people mass-refusing games against Astra Militarum for being arguably OP?

Maybe because AM isn't actually winning as many games as everyone claims?
Also, the Big FAQ isn't even a month old. People like Mr. Walks-Away-From-Leviathans probably hasn't even had the chance to play against AM yet.

No, AM are definitely winning lots of games. Tournament level, not so much, but in competitive and casual, they're incredibly strong.

Mr. Walks-Away-From-Leviathans has probably played AM. I have no doubts about that - in fact, odds are, he's played against AM at least once during 8th, and played them again, despite seeing first hand how powerful they can be.

GW have fethed up more than FW have. Why the double standard?

They really haven't.

Dark Reapers.
Conscripts.
Guilliman Parking Lot.
Shadowswords
Massed Mortars
Unhittable Eldar
Shining Spears
AM CP farms
Slamguinius
Quad Fusion Tau
And that's just the OP stuff. That's not even marking the drastically underpowered things like power armoured Space Marines or Grey Knights.

That's just for this edition. How in this edition have FW messed up more?

GW's publications are just as prone to fethups. And it's hardly like the Forge World ones are a struggle to find. You (general you) have no excuse not to know the rules for FW units any more so than GW ones.

Ugh. If a player doesn't care for FW, he won't inform himself. When confronted with a model, he won't know if it's a screw-up or not. From his point of view, declining the game is just erring on the side of caution.

Why don't people have the same attitude for GW units then?

If I don't care about Eldar, I won't know if that big Wraithy looking thing is a screw-up or not. From my point of view, declining the game would be erring on the side of caution. Yet why don't we see that?
FW isn't as bad as GW. It's because people like you keep reinforcing that it somehow is, because of units from editions past, which have no bearing on NOW.

People have no excuse not to educate themselves on FW stuff any more than GW stuff. You can access the rules all the same, they're all legal units, and they can all be taken. If you don't educate yourself on it, but do for GW units, that's your fault.

I seriously have no clue what that awesome space marine flier does that got its points adjusted with the last FAQ. No one here has one of those, why should I bother? I'm pretty sure if someone is going to play it against me, he will be bringing the rules. And before half this threads gets his or her panties up in a bunch again: No, I'm not going to decline that game.

You made that clear. But I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about people like Mr Walks-Away-From-Leviathan, who probably knows nothing about that unit because they've never even bothered to research it, probably hasn't even played against it, but will still deny it out of principle because it's FW. Yet I can guarantee that if OP had taken a unit from a GW book that Mr W-A-F-L hadn't researched or played against, there wouldn't have been an issue, because it's not FW.

That's the problem here - people think because it's FW, it's either optional, or it's OP. Neither are necessarily true, and this is what I'm personally trying to debunk.

How will that reputation go away if no-one's playing against FW units? It's exactly the problem I outlined earlier.
In order for A to do B, X must happen. However, X can only happen if A does B, and so the cycle continues.

Unless, of course, that cycle is just hyperbole and most people actually don't have problem with playing against FW. Ta-da.

I'm not talking about MOST people. I'm talking about the people who refuse to play FW.

Apparently, you need to ease anti-FW players in to playing against FW units to show them that they're not OP.
However, you can't convince them to play against FW units, until they know they're not OP.
You apparently can't show them they're not OP until you play a game with one.
Which they won't do because they think it's OP.
And so the circle goes around.

This is why you need to convince them, with reasoned arguments, why their misconceptions about FW are exactly that - misconceptions, as I'm advocating.

But it's up to the FW crowd in these threads, on Dakka, in those situations to outline that those views are outdated, based on nothing,

"Based on nothing" since the last six month, right? FW has always been famous for just slapping together rules that sound cool and feel right and then put some point costs on whatever they created. That's exactly how malefic lords came to be and I'm not convinced things like that will happen again unless they stay clear of such mistakes for a year or two.

You could replace every instance of FW in that sentence with GW and there would be no difference.
"GW has always been famous for just slapping together rules that sound cool and feel right and then put some points costs on whatever they created. That's exactly how Scatterbikes and Battle Companies and Riptides came to be and I'm not convinced things like that will happen again unless they stay clear of such mistakes for a year or two."

GW are just as bad as FW.

and if people actually treated FW stuff like it was GW's own (which it effectively is), then there would be no problem at all.

Well, if the FW rules had the same quality as GW's stuff had, we wouldn't have had that problem to begin with.

>GW
>Quality
>My sides
>Orbit.jpg

Yeah, sure.

You're complaining that people are trying to educate people, so that they HAVE no rational reason not to accept the game. That should be EXACTLY what you want.

I think you are mixing in stuff mmmpi wrote I said no such thing.
There is also always one good reason to decline the game: if you are sure the opponent is not going to give you a good time. FW has been connected to that reason for too long.

GW units are also able to give you a bad time. Scatterbikes, Riptides, Conscript spam, parking lots, Fish of Fury, unhittable Eldar, Dark Reapers, etc etc.

I would have NO PROBLEM with people boycotting the actual OP FW units, so long as they did the same with the OP GW ones as well. That's fine. If you won't enjoy the game because that unit is gamebreaking, I don't think anyone here will complain about that.

Banning ALL FW uints when most aren't OP or would mean that the game isn't a good time, is a problem, because at that point, you're not banning them because it would negatively affect your game - you'd be banning them solely because they're FW units. Hell, that wouldn't be an issue so long as people did it to GW too - but they don't!

Yes, you can have FW units that are OP. Should you be able to decline those games? Yes!
Yes, you can have GW units that are OP. Should you be able to decline those games? Yes!
Banning all FW units because a few are OP? No - that's just lazy.
Banning all GW units because a few are OP? No - that's just lazy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
Forgeworld has a bad reputation.

In previous editions, and because of people cheating. The same has happened for GW too, but people only seem to focus on when it's about FW.

I don't think people refuse to play it because they are TFG but because they have been burned in the past by TFG who was cheating.

Rightfully so. But that's not FW's fault. That TFG could have done that with any GW unit and you know it.

Just because someone cheats, it doesn't mean that all of FW is suddenly for cheaters. Unless you're calling everyone who uses FW cheaters, which would be a TFG thing to do.

I have seen a lot of people put down a forgeworld unit and proceed to make up rules - or combine three editions worth of rules to create an overpowered mess. This was especially common in the old system, where Forgeworld's rules often had weird interactions with the main game which lead to arguments which isn't fun.

And people can do that with GW ones too. Being able to cheat isn't a FW exclusive thing. The reason people could do that was because no-one educated themselves with the FW units - which created a vicious circle.

People didn't read FW books.
Cheaters could take advantage of the fact people didn't read the books.
When people either found out they were cheating, or just got hammered, they boycotted FW, and therefore didn't bother to read the books, because they had boycotted FW.

By not reading the books, they had set themselves up to be duped by cheaters. This isn't a FW exclusive problem though - the same could happen to any GW army. I've never read the GSC rules. Someone could come up to me and play with their GSC, and they could absolutely cheat all over me - doubly so if they had no rules on hand. When I find out they've been cheating, do I then boycott GSC? No - because that's not the fault of GW or GSC. That's the fault of the cheater for cheating, not having the book, but also on me for not researching myself, or playing against someone with no book.

I guess the solution there is to just say no Forgeworld unless you have a copy of the relevant Imperial Armour with you - but that isn't an automatic solution. You get to the how many books should you be carrying around with you to play a game issue.

You carry as many books as you need for what units you're taking. If I'm playing Space Marines, and I'm using a Lieutenant and an Apothecary on a Bike,I should be carrying both the Index AND the Codex at the very least. No excuses - same as there being no excuses for not having FW rules on hand if you're using a FW unit.

If you want to use the unit, you have the rules on hand. If you don't, your opponent has every right to brush you off.

How is this hard to grasp? If you or your opponent have the FW rules on hand, then there's no way either of you can cheat.

Cut to the chase - Forgeworld is even more expensive than regular GW. I would guess something like 90%+ of players have never owned a Forgeworld model, let alone the relevant rule book. People don't like playing against stuff they do not know. The few forgeworld units you do see tend to be things people brought when they were overpowered - even if it was several editions ago.

You have no excuse not knowing. People can research and find the rules online instead of complaining about FW online. They can ask to look at their opponent's rules, and if they don't have them, then you have every right declining them. If they have the rules on them, then you can ask to read them.
Not knowing is a poor excuse.

Forge World isn't always more expensive, and the rules certainly aren't. The "FW is expensive" argument doesn't stop you reading their rules, and seeing as GW sell Knights, Superheavies, and heinously pricey character models, the price gap on "standard" tabletop units like Dreadnoughts and non-SHVs is much smaller.

Units being powerful editions ago has no bearing on 8th edition. "Let the past die - kill it, if you have to."

Actually your last point is what irks me really.
It isn't like the rules are not avilable even cheaper as E-publication in the same area were you need to go to get FAQ's. This day and age everybody has a smartphone or a tablet or a PC, one would think that going to the site to see if there is a FAQ you would also see the rules for FW indexes.

EVEN if this wasn't the case, you would still buy CA and even then you can atleast partially inform yourself about units in FW indexes.

Sometimes i have a feeling that certain people tend to take the "knowledge is the way to heresy" way to serious.

Tyel wrote:
I guess the solution there is to just say no Forgeworld unless you have a copy of the relevant Imperial Armour with you - but that isn't an automatic solution. You get to the how many books should you be carrying around with you to play a game issue.

Of course you need the rules. Would you play someone with the codex(es) for their army on hand because they tell you that they can totally remember the rules?

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess the solution there is to just say no Forgeworld unless you have a copy of the relevant Imperial Armour with you - but that isn't an automatic solution. You get to the how many books should you be carrying around with you to play a game issue.

Of course you need the rules. Would you play someone with the codex(es) for their army on hand because they tell you that they can totally remember the rules?

Depends how well I know them, and how well I know their army.

If they're playing, say, Chaos? I know that like the back of my hand. Go ahead, I can remember your rules better than you do, probably. If they're playing, say, Eldar? If I know them and know they're honest, sure! If I don't know them and they lack their codex... Eh. Another time, friendo.

Tyel wrote:
I have seen a lot of people put down a forgeworld unit and proceed to make up rules - or combine three editions worth of rules to create an overpowered mess.

Do you really think these people weren't doing the exact same thing with GW units whenever they thought they could get away with it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess the solution there is to just say no Forgeworld unless you have a copy of the relevant Imperial Armour with you - but that isn't an automatic solution. You get to the how many books should you be carrying around with you to play a game issue.

Of course you need the rules. Would you play someone with the codex(es) for their army on hand because they tell you that they can totally remember the rules?

Depends how well I know them, and how well I know their army.

If they're playing, say, Chaos? I know that like the back of my hand. Go ahead, I can remember your rules better than you do, probably. If they're playing, say, Eldar? If I know them and know they're honest, sure! If I don't know them and they lack their codex... Eh. Another time, friendo.

Even if you know it really well can you 100% recite any rule verbatim for one of those cases where the exact wording is important?

I've seen plenty of people who claimed to not need their codex and there were always rules they were playing wrong.

If you play against someone who doesn't have the rules on them, and you find out they've been cheating the whole time, it's both their fault for cheating, and yours for not calling them out on not being able to back up their rules.

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
For a thread asking if any other people see this kind of behaviour, it seems as if this has gotten into was way too overthetop argument about justification.
Stop there? I think you've exhausted the point now.

For some people on dakka inclusion of FW has to be militantly defended to the point of anyone not wanting to play with it is somehow a troll, TFG, or even worse.

It's like the left/right extremes of the political spectrum. Both extremes are so adamant about inclusion/exclusion they only notice the other side as irrational despite them both being irrational.

blaktoof wrote:

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
For a thread asking if any other people see this kind of behaviour, it seems as if this has gotten into was way too overthetop argument about justification.
Stop there? I think you've exhausted the point now.

For some people on dakka inclusion of FW has to be militantly defended to the point of anyone not wanting to play with it is somehow a troll, TFG, or even worse.

It's like the left/right extremes of the political spectrum. Both extremes are so adamant about inclusion/exclusion they only notice the other side as irrational despite them both being irrational.

You might have a point there on the latter, but come on - what reasons do you think you could give as to why someone shouldn't play against it?

If people don't defend FW, then we end up with perpetuated myths that are simply unfair, unfounded, and frankly, exclusionary in this community.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If you play against someone who doesn't have the rules on them, and you find out they've been cheating the whole time, it's both their fault for cheating, and yours for not calling them out on not being able to back up their rules.

I always bring my Imperial Armour book when I intend to use FW stuff. The guys at my lgs were a bit hesitant at first, but after a few games they quickly realized it's not op even a little bit. They even enjoy it at times, because it's different stuff than they're used to seeing.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
For a thread asking if any other people see this kind of behaviour, it seems as if this has gotten into was way too overthetop argument about justification.
Stop there? I think you've exhausted the point now.

For some people on dakka inclusion of FW has to be militantly defended to the point of anyone not wanting to play with it is somehow a troll, TFG, or even worse.

It's like the left/right extremes of the political spectrum. Both extremes are so adamant about inclusion/exclusion they only notice the other side as irrational despite them both being irrational.

You might have a point there on the latter, but come on - what reasons do you think you could give as to why someone shouldn't play against it?

If people don't defend FW, then we end up with perpetuated myths that are simply unfair, unfounded, and frankly, exclusionary in this community.

Some of the myths have basis in fact is the problem.

FW often has only two types of units; too efficient for their cost, or too inefficient for their cost.

FW often only has two types of units in another way; Imperial, Chaos. With imperial squarely first.

In summary FW adds unit entries to the two factions that need it least, the supposed variety is often just bad FW units that do similar to their codex equivalents, and then the few FW units which are Superior to their codex equivalents. Often when FW models are placed on the table it's only those few units which are more efficient than their codex equivalents, for factions that don't need the unit variety.

I like the idea of FW- I don't use FW entries but regularly play against them. The problem is that forgeworld is forgeworld. It has a separate design team that doesn't have the same insight into the codex/brb rules being a separate studio and all.

It should just be redone as a normal GW publication with a normal GW model range with normal regional availability if it wants to be taken seriously as part of the normal game.

blaktoof wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
For a thread asking if any other people see this kind of behaviour, it seems as if this has gotten into was way too overthetop argument about justification.
Stop there? I think you've exhausted the point now.

For some people on dakka inclusion of FW has to be militantly defended to the point of anyone not wanting to play with it is somehow a troll, TFG, or even worse.

It's like the left/right extremes of the political spectrum. Both extremes are so adamant about inclusion/exclusion they only notice the other side as irrational despite them both being irrational.

You might have a point there on the latter, but come on - what reasons do you think you could give as to why someone shouldn't play against it?

If people don't defend FW, then we end up with perpetuated myths that are simply unfair, unfounded, and frankly, exclusionary in this community.

Some of the myths have basis in fact is the problem.

FW often has only two types of units; too efficient for their cost, or too inefficient for their cost.

FW often only has two types of units in another way; Imperial, Chaos. With imperial squarely first.

In summary FW adds unit entries to the two factions that need it least, the supposed variety is often just bad FW units that do similar to their codex equivalents, and then the few FW units which are Superior to their codex equivalents. Often when FW models are placed on the table it's only those few units which are more efficient than their codex equivalents, for factions that don't need the unit variety.

I like the idea of FW- I don't use FW entries but regularly play against them. The problem is that forgeworld is forgeworld. It has a separate design team that doesn't have the same insight into the codex/brb rules being a separate studio and all.

It should just be redone as a normal GW publication with a normal GW model range with normal regional availability if it wants to be taken seriously as part of the normal game.

Ok I can see why you would think imperials need it the least, but chaos, your having a laugh, even with all the FW stuff they still haven’t scratched the surface of what they could have, forge world thankfully adds a lot of the weird chaos stuff and fleshes out aspects that GW should have already done but hasn’t for “reasons”

blaktoof wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
For a thread asking if any other people see this kind of behaviour, it seems as if this has gotten into was way too overthetop argument about justification.
Stop there? I think you've exhausted the point now.

For some people on dakka inclusion of FW has to be militantly defended to the point of anyone not wanting to play with it is somehow a troll, TFG, or even worse.

It's like the left/right extremes of the political spectrum. Both extremes are so adamant about inclusion/exclusion they only notice the other side as irrational despite them both being irrational.

You might have a point there on the latter, but come on - what reasons do you think you could give as to why someone shouldn't play against it?

If people don't defend FW, then we end up with perpetuated myths that are simply unfair, unfounded, and frankly, exclusionary in this community.

Some of the myths have basis in fact is the problem.

FW often has only two types of units; too efficient for their cost, or too inefficient for their cost.

And there's absolutely none that hit the point of being balanced? I think that's
A - Very subjective. A unit which is perfectly balanced to one person is unbalanced to another, so is therefore:
B - Unlikely
C - The same as GW, in some respects. In this current state of the community, hardly anything is ever 100% balanced, and is always over- or under-powered.
Not a fault exclusive to Forge World, then.

FW often only has two types of units in another way; Imperial, Chaos. With imperial squarely first.

Implying GW proper don't have a massive bias towards the Imperium? How many codexes are there? How many are Imperial? Consider how allies work - aren't essentially half of all units Imperial and can be used by eachother as per Keywords?

Being Imperial-centric isn't exclusive to FW. But even then, FW do a good amount of stuff for xenos - Tau and Eldar mostly, with some Necron, Tyranid and Ork material. It's Dark Eldar who suffer most.
Really with FW being Imperial/Chaos centric, can you blame them though? They produce the ONLY DKOK and R&H models, and have to do the 30k line almost entirely themselves, barring BaC and BoP. It makes sense they'd have more assets dedicated to that.

In summary FW adds unit entries to the two factions that need it least, the supposed variety is often just bad FW units that do similar to their codex equivalents, and then the few FW units which are Superior to their codex equivalents. Often when FW models are placed on the table it's only those few units which are more efficient than their codex equivalents, for factions that don't need the unit variety.

Ignoring the redundancy of GW units as well? Dreadnought, Ironclad, Venerable, Contemptor, etc etc - all GW variants on essentially the same unit. Special Weapons Teams and Command Squads and Veterans - all effectively the same thing now, with slight efficiency boosts.

For complaining about "they're only there to give slight buffs to factions who already have the units", you're ignoring GW doing exactly the same thing.

I like the idea of FW- I don't use FW entries but regularly play against them. The problem is that forgeworld is forgeworld. It has a separate design team that doesn't have the same insight into the codex/brb rules being a separate studio and all.

But is still part of GW.

It should just be redone as a normal GW publication with a normal GW model range with normal regional availability if it wants to be taken seriously as part of the normal game.

No, by all accounts it IS part of the normal game. What needs to happen is the dispelling of the beliefs that it's somehow not.
If regional availability, "normal model range" and "normal GW publication" (despite Chapter Approved existing, with FW units in it) is what it takes to be recognised as part of GW, does that mean Sisters of Battle aren't part of GW?

After all, they don't have a codex, just an Index (same as FW), they don't have a normal model range (metal monopose models), and certainly not normally regionally available.

Funnily enough, and I know it's a fringe case, but Forge World is EASIER for me to get than Sisters of Battle, due to me living near Nottingham Warhammer World, where Forge World have a store. Again, a fringe case, but to me, there's no difference in picking up a GW kit or a FW kit.

So the extra layer of redundancy is good that FW gives is what you are saying. You didn't actually address a single criticism with any effect.

If it was a part of GWs normal offering it wouldn't have a separate design team and be mostly unavailable outside of the UK at any FLGs, further not available at actual Games Workshop stores in most countries.

blaktoof wrote:
So the extra layer of redundancy is good that FW gives is what you are saying. You didn't actually address a single criticism with any effect.

If it was a part of GWs normal offering it wouldn't have a separate design team and be mostly unavailable outside of the UK at any FLGs, further not available at actual Games Workshop stores in most countries.

Rules, 'OP-ness' (or lack of), or it's acceptability by GW has nothing to do with FW's availability. Nothing at all.

It can't be sold at 'FLGS' and the like, because of the casting process used. FW models are not mass produced like the Citadel range is. They are essentially hand made, and almost entirely made to order - that's how resin kits work.

The advantage of that is you can make some quite spectacular, sometimes 'niche' models that the main range doesn't cover. But what you can't do is stock all the stores all over the planet, because the production method doesn't allow it. It's literally functionally impossible.

In that sole respect - yes - there is a division between Citadel and FW, but it has nothing at all to do with this discussion.

blaktoof wrote:
So the extra layer of redundancy is good that FW gives is what you are saying. You didn't actually address a single criticism with any effect.

If it was a part of GWs normal offering it wouldn't have a separate design team and be mostly unavailable outside of the UK at any FLGs, further not available at actual Games Workshop stores in most countries.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that FW of being redundant, Imperial-centric and wonky in terms of rules are all criticisms of Games Workshop as a whole, not just Forge World. As such, it's unfair to ban Forge World and hold them to a different standard to Games Workshop, seeing as they have the same faults, barring one - accessibility, and that's only because FW models need to be shipped over in other countries (so, it's pretty much the same here in the UK - they already hit the "normal" part there).

However, given that most GW stores across the world don't even stock everything the company provides (when was the last time you saw Sisters of Battle in store? Or a good deal of their terrain?), it's not a FW specific flaw as well.

The rules for units is the main issue here. You don't need to force people to use FW models. No-one's asking that. We're asking that people don't decline games because they see Forge World and assume that it's OP. The rules, however, can be accessed rather easily, and should be on hand by the controlling FW player. If people actually took some time instead of complaining, they could read those rules, and see that FW is hardly any worse than the stuff GW pump out.

I addressed all your points. My responses were largely "why critique FW but not GW for exactly the same thing?".
If that's not satisfactory to you, I don't think there's anything left to discuss.

So you both agree with my points on why some people dislike FW inclusion. Great.

blaktoof wrote:
So you both agree with my points on why some people dislike FW inclusion. Great.

Do you apply the same standards to GW? Because if so, you should more inclined to disinclude their products over FW's.

blaktoof wrote:
So you both agree with my points on why some people dislike FW inclusion. Great.

I agree that you (general) can dislike Forge World because of that. That's reasonable, and perfectly valid.

But if you (general) do, I'd find it incredibly hypocritical if you didn't dislike Games Workshop as well because of the same reason. Do you agree with that?

Because if not, then you have no right to ban FW and keep using GW ones.

blaktoof wrote:
So you both agree with my points on why some people dislike FW inclusion. Great.

You could make the point that some people don't like FW because a guy painted a Cerastus Knight pink once. You know what, you would quite possibly be right. There's no end to the possible reasons why someone might not like something, and given enough people and enough time, most are likely to be true.

It doesn't make the reasons reasonable or rational though. And that is what some of us object to. .

At the risk of going over what is fast becoming very old ground, whether people wish it weren't so, or not, Forge World models are a part of 40K. They are no more or less legitimate than any Citadel miniature. This is a fact. Debating such facts invites similar levels of eye rolling as you'd expect when encountering someone who is convinced the earth is flat.
For the record, the above isn't fact because we say so, it's fact because GW do. If one day they say otherwise, we'll all need to adjust accordingly.

That being the case, when someone turns up at a LFGS and says 'No FW', it's that individual who is asking to be treated as a special case. If I say 'ok', and adjust my list, I have done them a favour, because they have no reasonable expectation to be allowed to dictate to anyone else what they may or may not use where that unit or rule is a standard part of the game.

Now, having an opinion on FW is no problem, nor is making a polite request should you really have an issue with it, about it's inclusion or lack of, in a game. But you aren't owed acceptance - remember, it's you who is asking for deviation from what is generally accepted.

Personally, I would politely ask the anti-FW crowd to be a little more open minded, and a little less bloody-minded. Many of the arguments against have hinged on elements from old editions, or unfamiliarity with rules. These are things that are either not an issue, or are born out of ignorance which a conversation and an attitude of humility can solve. Where you simply wish to dig your heels in regardless, and are completely unwilling to compromise, sorry but you are TFG.

I also kinda suspect (and correct me if I'm wrong, because it never occurred to me until today), that some of this 'resentment' (for want of a better word) is possibly coming from people outside of the UK (and especially outside of Europe), in large part because FW is that much more difficult or tedious to get hold of in those areas. That, actually, makes some sense to me. It's very easy to become suspicious of something you have a very limited exposure to. But I don't think it's an excuse to not be better educated on the subject and the rules.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you both agree with my points on why some people dislike FW inclusion. Great.

I agree that you (general) can dislike Forge World because of that. That's reasonable, and perfectly valid.

But if you (general) do, I'd find it incredibly hypocritical if you didn't dislike Games Workshop as well because of the same reason. Do you agree with that?

Because if not, then you have no right to ban FW and keep using GW ones.

I already stated I always allow FW from my opponents, even though I dont personally use FW. I am just presenting you the reasoning behind why people dislike FW. They have valid reasons for disliking it, despite it being generally allowed in games of 40k.

The view that because some GW units are imbalanced adding further and often more imbalanced units from a model range that is not normally available to the factions which need them the least seems to be somewhat ignoring a burning highrise because there is a dumpster fire across the street.

blaktoof wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So you both agree with my points on why some people dislike FW inclusion. Great.

I agree that you (general) can dislike Forge World because of that. That's reasonable, and perfectly valid.

But if you (general) do, I'd find it incredibly hypocritical if you didn't dislike Games Workshop as well because of the same reason. Do you agree with that?

Because if not, then you have no right to ban FW and keep using GW ones.

I already stated I always allow FW from my opponents, even though I dont personally use FW. I am just presenting you the reasoning behind why people dislike FW. They have valid reasons for disliking it, despite it being generally allowed in games of 40k.

You're not answering my question. I know you personally aren't banning anyone.

What I'm asking is: Do you think it's valid that people can ban FW, but not ban GW for doing exactly the same thing?

The view that because some GW units are imbalanced adding further and often more imbalanced units from a model range that is not normally available to the factions which need them the least seems to be somewhat ignoring a burning highrise because there is a dumpster fire across the street.

Games Workshop are ALSO adding "further and often more imbalanced units... to the factions which need them the least", yet why is Forge World the one who's the biggest problem?!

They're as bad as eachother. If Games Workshop was this perfectly balanced, completely equal, watertight system you're pretending it was, you'd have a point, but to use your fire analogy, this is ignoring a dumpster fire because there's another dumpster fire. There's still two dumpster fires, both as bad as eachother.

blaktoof wrote:
So the extra layer of redundancy is good that FW gives is what you are saying. You didn't actually address a single criticism with any effect.

If it was a part of GWs normal offering it wouldn't have a separate design team and be mostly unavailable outside of the UK at any FLGs, further not available at actual Games Workshop stores in most countries.

How is FW mostly unavailable outside the UK?

Right now it is just as available in the US as in the UK since there's one GW location that carries it and it is otherwise mail order only.

A lot of the supposed issues vanish if more people can get over aversions to proxying and conversions. The Leviathan dreadnought is unfair because it's harder to get? Let people convert one from a Redemptor or whatever.

Also, it's hard to argue with a straight face that the rules for a Leviathan are inaccessible or not easily available when BattleScribe exists.

So, I've been following this since I last posted, and it's still very much the same "Uh hu", "Nuh uh" that it's been since page 2.

While I still stand by my arguments I presented, I feel that I'm going to bow out as I've basically been repeating myself for the last few pages.

I wish both sides the best as both sides *have* made valid points.

 Mmmpi wrote:
So, I've been following this since I last posted, and it's still very much the same "Uh hu", "Nuh uh" that it's been since page 2.

While I still stand by my arguments I presented, I feel that I'm going to bow out as I've basically been repeating myself for the last few pages.

I wish both sides the best as both sides *have* made valid points.

I never thought I'd see "bothsame" thrown out between people who make fun and awesome armies, and people that want to ban those fun and awesome armies because they are scared or something.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So the extra layer of redundancy is good that FW gives is what you are saying. You didn't actually address a single criticism with any effect.

If it was a part of GWs normal offering it wouldn't have a separate design team and be mostly unavailable outside of the UK at any FLGs, further not available at actual Games Workshop stores in most countries.

How is FW mostly unavailable outside the UK?

Right now it is just as available in the US as in the UK since there's one GW location that carries it and it is otherwise mail order only.

I agree, how is it unavailable outside the UK? How is it so available in the UK? I don;t know about anyone else but short of walking into the HO shops in Nottingham, I've never seen FW models in any GW store or Local Gaming Stores.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
So the extra layer of redundancy is good that FW gives is what you are saying. You didn't actually address a single criticism with any effect.

If it was a part of GWs normal offering it wouldn't have a separate design team and be mostly unavailable outside of the UK at any FLGs, further not available at actual Games Workshop stores in most countries.

How is FW mostly unavailable outside the UK?

Right now it is just as available in the US as in the UK since there's one GW location that carries it and it is otherwise mail order only.

I agree, how is it unavailable outside the UK? How is it so available in the UK? I don;t know about anyone else but short of walking into the HO shops in Nottingham, I've never seen FW models in any GW store or Local Gaming Stores.

We have one physical store in the UK that stocks Forge World stuff - but that's only of much use if you happen to live near Warhammer World. Otherwise, I dunno - postage if you live in the UK is quicker? I guess there might be a tax reason in some parts of the world that could affect price? That's about the sum of the argument though.

There seems to be a growing number of people that are buying their, ahem, 'Forge World' models from China now anyway. Which somewhat defuses many of the above points anyway.
(I'd advise against it though. Having unknowingly purchased a recast second hand, there is - in my experience - a HUGE difference in quality).

Actually, tarifs are the reason, why outside of the UK / Commonwealth FW units are that expensive. I remember that i had to pay around 10-20% on tarifs for some of my units.
This is also why i stopped bothering Mail ordering and instead now switched over mainly to kitbashing aswell as buying Indexes electronical. I have looked into some 3rd parties but especially regarding Infantery units you have problems with their size.

Funnily enough though the books are way easier to access now thanks to the fact that you can buy them as E-Book. Main problem is, that you might have to make a printout for them and or have a tablet witha decent runtime battery in order to have good access to the rules.

As for the whole China knock offs, eh i would not bother with them, since China is not particulary known for having good standards, especially when we look at their plastic and paints.
I remember 1 or 2 years ago that they had some scandals involving plastic that could cause cancer.

There are way easier and better alternatives, for models, especially Earthshaker batteries or other pieces of artilery.
Also you don't even need to search for an alternative outside of GW, you could just buy for exemple a Basilisk and make a Salamander Scout Tank out of the chasis and a Earthshaker out of the gun. So long you do a good job at conversions that is not really a problem. Especially Orks have it really easy in that regard.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Actually, tarifs are the reason, why outside of the UK / Commonwealth FW units are that expensive. I remember that i had to pay around 10-20% on tarifs for some of my units.
This is also why i stopped bothering Mail ordering and instead now switched over mainly to kitbashing aswell as buying Indexes electronical. I have looked into some 3rd parties but especially regarding Infantery units you have problems with their size.

To be fair, we pay an additional 20% on anything ordered from FW in the UK as well. Don't feel too bad - we don't get away with it either