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.

Absolutely. Forgeworld has some of the most interesting models and rules in the game in my opinion.

 Strg Alt wrote:
I can´t understand why you are so upset about this.

Because you are posting misleading information out of self-admitted ignorance, and then doubling down on your position when confronted with evidence that you are wrong. You expect veto power over your opponent's list because you've come up with this bizarre opinion, and you don't seem to see a problem with this.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm tired of FW. Quite a few armies are in the "forgeworld or lose" camp. Which is dumb.

Quite a few armies are in the "codex or lose" camp. Which is dumb. Therefore ban codex rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
The bad impression results of past experiences according to the players which I have asked. I can´t judge, if this behaviour is warranted or not because I don´t own any FW rulebook.

IOW, you have an opinion based on nothing but ignorance, and you expect veto power over your opponent's army because of that opinion. Why do you think that this is acceptable?

I'm not suggesting Forgeworld should be banned. I don't like that it's a requirement for some armies, and access to FW units is not consistent.

I play competitively so yes, i'm okay with it, because it's ITC legal. If it wasn't i'd be okay with that decision too.

In a general sense I think forgeworld is awful at writing rules.

 Marmatag wrote:
In a general sense I think forgeworld is awful at writing rules.

Well yes, but so is everyone else at GW. It's just weird to single out one particular author when everyone else at GW regularly publishes a mix of blatantly overpowered mistakes and units that are unplayable unless you beg your opponent to go easy on you.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
I love forgeworld. It offers more options to play the game with and sometimes entire armies.

I was going to type something but you already did.

I think Forge World models are stunning, require slightly more skill to build and paint, and show that the player has more investment into the 40k worlds.

I welcome them with open arms.

The downside is the slower update of rules but it seems GW are doing *something* to address this now.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm tired of FW. Quite a few armies are in the "forgeworld or lose" camp. Which is dumb.

Quite a few armies are in the "codex or lose" camp. Which is dumb. Therefore ban codex rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
The bad impression results of past experiences according to the players which I have asked. I can´t judge, if this behaviour is warranted or not because I don´t own any FW rulebook.

IOW, you have an opinion based on nothing but ignorance, and you expect veto power over your opponent's army because of that opinion. Why do you think that this is acceptable?

I'm not suggesting Forgeworld should be banned. I don't like that it's a requirement for some armies, and access to FW units is not consistent.

I play competitively so yes, i'm okay with it, because it's ITC legal. If it wasn't i'd be okay with that decision too.

In a general sense I think forgeworld is awful at writing rules.

What armies require ForgeWorld?

I have a standing rule - I won't play someone who fields Super Heavies.

It turns into a situation where you field a Super Heavy and you win, or you don't and you lose. Or you kit out your list specifically to take down Super Heavies, and you get tabled by a swarm assault list.

I bought a Adeptus Custodes Achillus Dreadnought... but I sold it for two reasons:

-To find a store/Tournament that allow Forgeworld in Spain is basically impossible.
-It was gonna sit there unnopened for years because I don't have the hability to build and paint it how it deserves.

I have 0 problems with Forgeworld.

phydaux wrote:
I have a standing rule - I won't play someone who fields Super Heavies.

It turns into a situation where you field a Super Heavy and you win, or you don't and you lose. Or you kit out your list specifically to take down Super Heavies, and you get tabled by a swarm assault list.

Or, you take a super heavy, and you lose, or you don't and you win. Or you kit out your list specifically to take down a swarm assault list, and you get tabled by a super heavy list/DS plasma spam/Razorback spam etc etc.

What's wrong with super heavies that no other heavy investment of points on a single archetype has? 1000 points on one super heavy is no less of a skewed list than 1000 points of Ripper Swarms.

I said no. Not that I won't play against them, or consider playing with a few select units, but because the rules are so different that I'd rather not generally. I'm not against the more variety is good crowd, the thing is that there are principles that gw generally follows across the whole game and fw just makes up whatever they want and drop it down like it's supposed to be the same game.

Example: Butcher cannons are really cool, but they are not comparable to anything in the base game. I'd like them in my night lords list but then I'd feel bad for using fanfic esq rules. And who needs smite when there are soulburner petards?

I get that its hit or miss and gw can't fine tune their way out of a paper bag, but at least it's all in the same game. Y'vahra for instance, probably needs an update but oops nobody can be bothered to make one.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
I can´t understand why you are so upset about this.

Because you are posting misleading information out of self-admitted ignorance, and then doubling down on your position when confronted with evidence that you are wrong. You expect veto power over your opponent's list because you've come up with this bizarre opinion, and you don't seem to see a problem with this.

So never play a game with this person, or their friends and move on and enjoy your hobby the way you feel is correct.

This may come as a shock to you, but people on the internet may have different opinions

As long as my opponent lets me know ahead of time I'm generally ok with it. It can be as simple as "hey my army uses forgeworld units, is that ok?" and as long as they have the datasheets for the relevant units on then I'm ok with it and I always say yes.

That being said, an opponent using forgeworld units who just assumed that I would be ok with it without asking would seriously miff me. I'm sorry, despite the arguments that people like to put out there that FW = GW, it is NOT. FW may be a subsidiary company of GW but FW has a completely different rules writing team that to my knowledge has little to no contact with the GW rules writing team. The fact that GW purposely nerfed many of the FW units into uselessness in the latest CA shows me that some FW units are absolutely not welcome in GWs eyes. I consider FW units an optional expansion range to the GW line. LEGITIMATE, but optional.

Forgeworld stuff is always awesome and, it shouldn't have to be argued at this point they are as officially a part of the game as a marine squad. Only thing I don't want to play against are Titans outside of Apoc games.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
I can´t understand why you are so upset about this.

Because you are posting misleading information out of self-admitted ignorance, and then doubling down on your position when confronted with evidence that you are wrong. You expect veto power over your opponent's list because you've come up with this bizarre opinion, and you don't seem to see a problem with this.

So never play a game with this person, or their friends and move on and enjoy your hobby the way you feel is correct.

This may come as a shock to you, but people on the internet may have different opinions

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts. Equally, an opinion spawned in a vacuum with no knowledge or understanding of the subject is utterly worthless, and to maintain that opinion when presented with information that contradicts it is simply willful ignorance.

As the Brian Cox quote says in my sig says, he can hold any opinion he likes, but if he chooses to express it he can expect the consequences.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
I can´t understand why you are so upset about this.

Because you are posting misleading information out of self-admitted ignorance, and then doubling down on your position when confronted with evidence that you are wrong. You expect veto power over your opponent's list because you've come up with this bizarre opinion, and you don't seem to see a problem with this.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts. Equally, an opinion spawned in a vacuum with no knowledge or understanding of the subject is utterly worthless, and to maintain that opinion when presented with information that contradicts it is simply willful ignorance.

I'm sorry, but I would also trust my friend's opinions over that of nameless, faceless words from people I've never met and know nothing about. The thing about opinions, they don't need any facts. If they did, they would no longer be opinions. Which also goes with the point that an opinion only ever has worth to the person who holds it. Your opinions mean as much to me as my opinions mean to you.


As for the topic, my opinion is forgeworld models are pretty ugly and I'm unfamiliar with much of their rules so for now, no I wouldn't play them for now. After I learn their rules... who knows.

w1zard wrote:
FW may be a subsidiary company of GW

FW isn't a subsidiary company. It's a brand name used by GW for certain products. Arguing it's a subsidiary and therefore less official is like saying that Citadel model kits aren't really official and you need special permission for them.

FW has a completely different rules writing team that to my knowledge has little to no contact with the GW rules writing team.

So? How is this any different from one team member writing a codex and another team member writing a different codex? The rules are still compatible, how GW allocates its work assignments internally is irrelevant.

The fact that GW purposely nerfed many of the FW units into uselessness in the latest CA shows me that some FW units are absolutely not welcome in GWs eyes.

It shows no such thing. Only a tiny percentage of FW units were nerfed, and an even tinier percentage were nerfed for no apparent point besides "get titans out of normal games". Most of the nerfs at least had a plausible reason behind them, whether or not you disagree with the exact change that was made. And by this standard codex units are not welcome in GW's eyes because they nerfed IG conscripts into uselessness, so we should consider codex rules an optional expansion that needs special permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
This may come as a shock to you, but people on the internet may have different opinions

And people on the internet can point out when those opinions are based on ignorance and do not acknowledge the reality of the situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

phydaux wrote:
I have a standing rule - I won't play someone who fields Super Heavies.

It turns into a situation where you field a Super Heavy and you win, or you don't and you lose. Or you kit out your list specifically to take down Super Heavies, and you get tabled by a swarm assault list.

So you would refuse a game because I bring a Macharius, a unit that is considerably worse than just bringing its point cost in LRBTs?

Yes. Most of it is overpriced hot garbage anyway.

Titans would be the obvious exception.

 Peregrine wrote:

w1zard wrote:
FW may be a subsidiary company of GW

FW isn't a subsidiary company. It's a brand name used by GW for certain products. Arguing it's a subsidiary and therefore less official is like saying that Citadel model kits aren't really official and you need special permission for them.

You are wrong. On Forgeworld's page:

"Forge World is a subcompany of Games Workshop Inc. that creates models outside of the normal auspices of Games Worshop. It is a company similar to Black Enterprises and Warp Artefacts, dedicated to creating high quality, exotic miniatures for passionate gamers."

it is absolutely a subsidiary company.

 Peregrine wrote:
So? How is this any different from one team member writing a codex and another team member writing a different codex? The rules are still compatible, how GW allocates its work assignments internally is irrelevant.

Because even different team members writing different codices collaborate to iron out balance issues, and any particular codex usually has multiple authors and staff within the GW design team helping even if it is mainly authored by one person. There is no collaboration to my knowledge between GW writers and FW writers.

w1zard wrote:
You are wrong. On Forgeworld's page:

"Forge World is a subcompany of Games Workshop Inc. that creates models outside of the normal auspices of Games Worshop. It is a company similar to Black Enterprises and Warp Artefacts, dedicated to creating high quality, exotic miniatures for passionate gamers."

it is absolutely a subsidiary company.

Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

Because even different team members writing different codices collaborate to iron out balance issues, and any particular codex usually has multiple authors and staff within the GW design team helping even if it is mainly authored by one person. There is no collaboration to my knowledge between GW writers and FW writers.

Again, why does it matter how GW allocates its employees? That's GW internal policy, all that matters is the end result they publish. And what they publish is rules that are treated no differently from any other rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
I can´t understand why you are so upset about this.

Because you are posting misleading information out of self-admitted ignorance, and then doubling down on your position when confronted with evidence that you are wrong. You expect veto power over your opponent's list because you've come up with this bizarre opinion, and you don't seem to see a problem with this.

People won´t be buying anything you are selling. Why? Because it isn´t important what you say but how you say it and your tone has been shrill from the beginning on. As I have already stated, I don´t have a problem trusting a couple of people about this FW subject. I can´t even fathom why somebody should be so furious about this. How would you react when something really bad happens in your life? And having an opinion that deviates from yours is not by any means bizarre. Have a nice day.

I am on the whole not cool with Forgeworld existing as it does. On the one hand I have been straight burned by Forgeworld handling their own rules and making units worse than garbage out of the blue. On the other hand I’m sick of seeing things in Forgeworld indexs that are flat better than anything I can take out of a codex.

Lastly that I have to deal with ridiculous exchange rates and international shipping is also a PITA.

If Forgeworld were a strictly cosmetic thing I’d be fine with it but roll of the dice hope you don’t get boned pay to wind is silly beyond reason.

Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

 Peregrine wrote:
Can you provide a link to this page? Because the only search result I'm getting is a third-party wiki site, and as far as I can tell the Warp Artefacts thing was a GW brand that hasn't existed in over a decade.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

I see you’ve not played against certain Tau FW models.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Because it isn´t important what you say but how you say it and your tone has been shrill from the beginning on.

IOW, "my hurt feelings are more important than the facts of the situation". You're forming your opinion out of ignorance. Sorry if that truth hurts, but it is true. If you want to care more about tone than substance then that's your problem.

I can´t even fathom why somebody should be so furious about this.

Because you're spreading ignorant statements and expecting veto power over your opponent's army when you can't even bother to learn about the rules you're trying to veto.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/1nx1s5/what_is_the_difference_between_forge_world_and/ - top comment
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Forge_World_(company)
http://everquest.allakhazam.com/wiki/Games_Workshop#Subsidiaries

I admit, all three are third party sources. But unless we actually get our hands on financial reports or something that detail GW's relationship with FW, the consensus seems to be that FW is a subsidiary or child studio of GW.

As you said, all third party sources. On the other hand we have evidence directly from GW that all IP for the FW brand is owned by GW, all purchases of FW brand products are billed to GW, all packages are sent from GW, etc. The entire argument that FW is some kind of subsidiary is based on nothing more than people wanting it to be true.

meleti wrote:

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

I see you’ve not played against certain Tau FW models.

As far as i can tell you can play better with an all GW list. There is no Tau unit that i woud prefer over it's GW counterpart in 8th, beyond the looks.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I don’t particularly want to face down a Warlord with a bunch of Ripper Swarms, but I like a lot of FW stuff. It’s cool to see new units that don’t normally hit the table. I have no problems with it at all.

If you don't have anything but ripper swarms in 6000 pts minimum something is seriously wrong.

And in any case warlords vs 6000 pts worth of ripper swarms would be easiest victory for tyranids ever. 181 units of swarms, he can kill 5 units max per turn. 6 turns, 30 units. You just swamp objectives and win. He kills 90 bases out of 543. Whee.

There is a single tau FW model that is even playable, and the main reason it looks so good, is that the actual codex is pretty poorly written

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
I can´t understand why you are so upset about this.

Because you are posting misleading information out of self-admitted ignorance, and then doubling down on your position when confronted with evidence that you are wrong. You expect veto power over your opponent's list because you've come up with this bizarre opinion, and you don't seem to see a problem with this.

People won´t be buying anything you are selling. Why? Because it isn´t important what you say but how you say it and your tone has been shrill from the beginning on. As I have already stated, I don´t have a problem trusting a couple of people about this FW subject. I can´t even fathom why somebody should be so furious about this. How would you react when something really bad happens in your life? And having an opinion that deviates from yours is not by any means bizarre. Have a nice day.

See and here lies the problem. At the beginning he pointed relativ calmly on the issue he had with your statement, whilest you did only provide some annecdotal evidence, he then proceded to point out that your group basically just is ignorant, while you implied the he was not genuine and that the majority here has no sway whatsoever/ has no idea about rules powerlevel of certain armies.

You of all people should know what the problem is of ignorance and just accepteing spouted annecdotal evidence. Atleast you should've heard about what happens when that happened.
And instead of accepting that you and or your group might be wrong, you harp on about his presentation, or spew bs like the majority isn't allways right on a issue where 90% of problems stem from ignorance, which i will addmit became more hostile the more you showed your preference of ignorance.
I mean i can't really blame him, because in said FW op mentality you squander alot of fluffy armies that are so far from op that many of those have begun to play after regular GW codexes, because they are infinetly better and more inbalanced torwards each other then anything else in this game.

StarHunter25 wrote:
Outside of Imperial Knights, I cannot think of a single FW unit that is patently better than anything in an army's codex. At best you get side-grades. Xyphon? Literally a flying tri-las predator that costs an extra 100 points. Fire Raptor? Storm Raven with different guns and no transport ability. Probably the ONLY things that could be considered "Pay2Win" are the Leviathan for vanilla, which is a bigger ironclad, and the Deredeo for Dark Angels, and only because of how well it synergizes with their plasma stratagem.

Even then, FW stuff hasn't absurd since maybe 6th. And honestly, I'd love to see someone bring a Warhound to a 2k game. I'd win turn 1. A bloodthirster can reliably kill one on the charge.

Umm knight might have been true per codex but with price cuts, warlord traits and relics no more