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.

Spoletta wrote:
I do undestrand those that don't like to play against FW models, but let's make an assumption first. Those who play forge world models do it because they are better than what is offered by your codex. You don't play a leviathan because it's a good model, you play it because it's the best available dreadnaught.

Everyone who plays FW thematic armies or puts those 96% of perfectly fine/underpowered models of the FW line, should never meet any resistance.

I'm talking about the use that almost all players make of FW (at least in my experience), which is using it as another level of army optimization.

In this case, then FW models do have the problem of being "out of the loop" when it comes to GW "balance patches". There just aren't enough around to have a good representation of the effectiveness of those models, so the error margin is greater. In 8th GW has taken the decision to err on the overnerf side, as we have seen from the first CA, but you still have examples of this error margin creating models that are clearly not in line with other ones (malanthrope before nerf, for example).

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.


That said, i wouldn't refuse to play against a FW model, but if we are talking about particular models, i wouldn't see my opponent with the same light.

Again, why would you optimize a list with a Leviathan when the "Imperium" keyword offers way better alternatives?
Also CA is a thing now, as much as i hate the fact that i get additionally Nickel and dimed for it, and secondly they get Errataed just as much. Even on the same site you will need to go anyways for your pure GW army.

I think the subject is too broad. Its one thing for Op-force to show with a Termite Drill, and another to show with a Warlord.

Reemule wrote:
I think the subject is too broad. Its one thing for Op-force to show with a Termite Drill, and another to show with a Warlord.

if your playing a 10k game expect titans. If your playing a standard 2k or less points game what does it matter they are all over that cost anyway.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I do undestrand those that don't like to play against FW models, but let's make an assumption first. Those who play forge world models do it because they are better than what is offered by your codex. You don't play a leviathan because it's a good model, you play it because it's the best available dreadnaught.

Everyone who plays FW thematic armies or puts those 96% of perfectly fine/underpowered models of the FW line, should never meet any resistance.

I'm talking about the use that almost all players make of FW (at least in my experience), which is using it as another level of army optimization.

In this case, then FW models do have the problem of being "out of the loop" when it comes to GW "balance patches". There just aren't enough around to have a good representation of the effectiveness of those models, so the error margin is greater. In 8th GW has taken the decision to err on the overnerf side, as we have seen from the first CA, but you still have examples of this error margin creating models that are clearly not in line with other ones (malanthrope before nerf, for example).

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.


That said, i wouldn't refuse to play against a FW model, but if we are talking about particular models, i wouldn't see my opponent with the same light.

Again, why would you optimize a list with a Leviathan when the "Imperium" keyword offers way better alternatives?
Also CA is a thing now, as much as i hate the fact that i get additionally Nickel and dimed for it, and secondly they get Errataed just as much. Even on the same site you will need to go anyways for your pure GW army.

Because you see people doing this all the time.

Again, if accepting FW meant that you see on tables a fair share of models from that range, i would be 100% in favor of it.
What is really happening though is that accepting FW in an event means seeing the same 5-6 waac stinking models, that at that point are worst offenders than the OP stuff of GW range (which are overrated, we don't really have OP models, not at the standards we knew of 7th at least) because they are P2W^2.

Spoletta wrote:
I do undestrand those that don't like to play against FW models, but let's make an assumption first. Those who play forge world models do it because they are better than what is offered by your codex. You don't play a leviathan because it's a good model, you play it because it's the best available dreadnaught.

Everyone who plays FW thematic armies or puts those 96% of perfectly fine/underpowered models of the FW line, should never meet any resistance.

I'm talking about the use that almost all players make of FW (at least in my experience), which is using it as another level of army optimization.

In this case, then FW models do have the problem of being "out of the loop" when it comes to GW "balance patches". There just aren't enough around to have a good representation of the effectiveness of those models, so the error margin is greater. In 8th GW has taken the decision to err on the overnerf side, as we have seen from the first CA, but you still have examples of this error margin creating models that are clearly not in line with other ones (malanthrope before nerf, for example).

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.


That said, i wouldn't refuse to play against a FW model, but if we are talking about particular models, i wouldn't see my opponent with the same light.

So just like any rarely used codex unit? That argument goes for everything, but the 30% most used units in the game.

If a model from the standard range is not in the most used category, then you can be fairly sure that it's not a problem.

 blackmage wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

a post like sinful hero post shows a lot about general game knowledge here.

Ouch, that was kind of harsh. I was just making a comment about not bringing a skewed list against a titan, not literally using nothing but Rippers against a Warlord. If we’re playing with Titans I want to bring some Hierodules, Harridans, and/or Hierophants. If you read the rest of my post you’d see I mentioned I have no problems with ForgeWorld. I quite often make use of a Malanthrope myself.

w1zard wrote:

Karol wrote:
But are they the same, in legal terms, in the british english and american english?

Honestly, I am not sure.

Here is the thing though, if FW is truly just a "division" in a sense of simply being another design team within GW itself, why then do they keep their "Forgeworld" label, and why are they totally insulated from pretty much everything else GW does? It would make a lot more sense to dissolve the FW brand and incorporate it completely into GW. It makes little sense to spread your customer base across multiple brands and weaken both brand names.

The fact that you can't buy FW miniatures off of the GW website, and the fact that they have two different brand names is pretty telling to me that they are two separate entities. GW completely controls FW in terms of finances (that much is pretty obvious), but FW seems pretty independent otherwise especially with rules writing and model design. I personally think FW is a division of GW in the same way that Blizzard Entertainment is a division of Activision.

A lot of it is risk and brand management. This is still true to a degree, but moreso when it first started. FW exists as a direct sales only sales branch that makes its models out of resin. It's a business model not all that different from most made to order resin products. As much as the internet has come to let us view all these little basement production facilities as big companies, in truth they're not getting anywhere near the level of production required to get into the business of retail distribution. That's essentially what FW is about. It's GW's way of making risky, expensive kits out of an unproven material and limit production costs to only what they'll sell. Direct sales also let them make things that post retail market would simply be too costly for any real volume of stores to carry, which is the crux of how retail distribution works. We're seeing Privateer do the exact same thing with Black Anchor for the exact same reasons. It's just about creating a brand that lets you separate your direct sale on demand products from your primarily retail channels.

I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

w1zard wrote:

Karol wrote:
But are they the same, in legal terms, in the british english and american english?

Honestly, I am not sure.

Here is the thing though, if FW is truly just a "division" in a sense of simply being another design team within GW itself, why then do they keep their "Forgeworld" label, and why are they totally insulated from pretty much everything else GW does? It would make a lot more sense to dissolve the FW brand and incorporate it completely into GW. It makes little sense to spread your customer base across multiple brands and weaken both brand names.

The fact that you can't buy FW miniatures off of the GW website, and the fact that they have two different brand names is pretty telling to me that they are two separate entities. GW completely controls FW in terms of finances (that much is pretty obvious), but FW seems pretty independent otherwise especially with rules writing and model design. I personally think FW is a division of GW in the same way that Blizzard Entertainment is a division of Activision.

Then you're wrong.

FW is simply another brand name under the GW umbrella, just like Citadel or Black Library. It isn't a legally distinct company. Want to prove me wrong? Find Forgeworld's UK VAT registration number, not GW's but explicitly Forgeworld's. VAT registration is a matter of public record, and any company turning over more than £85k is legally obliged to register. Or find their company incorporation number, which is again a matter of public record at companies house. You'll also have to offer a compelling argument as to why FW doesn't submit its own accounts anywhere, and simply has its turnover folded in with the GW website and Black Library under the mail order sub section of its turnover breakdown.

Or you can save yourself some time and take my word that you wot find any evidence that FW are a separate company simply owned by GW, because they're not.

Companies market different product lines under different names all the time. Its simply an easy method of informing the customer in short hand of different qualities of different aspects of your range. Therefore, as a GW customer I know that if I'm buying from FW I'm buying boutique, low volume, resin models. I then also appreciate they may be more technical products requiring greater skill and/or knowledge, and, if GW are lucky, I will be more positively disposed to paying a premium. If I'm buying Citadel I'm more likely to expect more mainstream, easier to assemble, plastic kits.

If you dispose of FW then you lose that point of differentiation and risk customers buying inappropriate products.

It's the same idea as Toyota using the Lexus brand to mark a difference in the cars they're selling, the products on offer are different and appeal to a different demographic.

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.

that mean Gw models are tested? wonder who "tested" things like brimstone at 3pt inv 4++ or who tested De codex where kot of models are clearly undercosted (because we know a ravager with 3 disintegrators costs 125 is correct dont you think?)....a monkey?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

Gw didn't clearly test their codex too but they are dishonest and wont say it, they just put off a codex then ,where is the problem, customers blindly buy (6 stormraves, 200 brimstones, 9 Pbc and so on...) what they find in codex then they FAQ and get the axe over OP models, that is the solution, a good way to make business, at least FW says ok we dont test... then is up to you buy them...

 Peregrine wrote:

meleti wrote:
TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

I'm not seeing it, at all. Compare them to Hammerheads instead of Riptides. The Hammerhead costs 100 points base, the Tigershark costs 245 points base. So that's 200 points for a pair of Hammerheads. Both the tanks and the Tigershark can carry the same pair of ion cannons at the same price, so the only difference in firepower is 4x burst cannons on the tanks vs. 2x burst cannon and 2x missile pod on the Tigershark. The Tigershark has +1 T and -1 to hit, the Hammerheads have almost double the wounds. Mobility doesn't matter when most of your firepower has cross-table range. Maybe the Tigershark isn't a terrible unit, and there's a case to be made for taking it? But it's hardly on the "best unit in the game" shortlist.

My man Peregrine, you’re taking the wrong weapons! Here’s the proper load out:

2 HBC
2 BC
2 MP
2 Skyspear Missile Racks
6 Seeker Missiles

Per the errata, we’ll be using the codex versions of these weapons. That’s 24 HBC shots at BS2+, plus all the other weapons, plus a first turn alpha strike of 6 additional seeker missiles. This flyer has fangs.

I use Fw to balance my list. 3 Bloat Drones are too strong for casual play? Take a Blight Drone then to tone it down.

Same with a Plague Hulk.

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Huron black heart wrote:
I have to admit a lot of my feelings on Forgeworld IS down to ignorance. I've only ever played one or two units from Forgeworld and my main gripe is that I usually don't know what they do, a bit of pre game chat sorts that out which is why I voted for 'yes, if coordinated...'
I have a bit of a preconception from previous eras that Forgeworld units tended to have better rules which was how they got the units sold at the high prices (also being very nice models) I haven't come up against any recently so it's probably not even true any more.

This is probably the case for a lot of people, a lack of familiarity with Forgeworld units could exacerbate perceptions of any unit that seems strong as being "overpowered", because they don't know the unit's weaknesses or limitations.

Not an excuse. Did you deny Skitarii, Cult Mechanicus, and Genestealer Cult armies games when they first came out because you weren't familiar with the rules?

 blackmage wrote:

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.

that mean Gw models are tested? wonder who "tested" things like brimstone at 3pt inv 4++ or who tested De codex where kot of models are clearly undercosted (because we know a ravager with 3 disintegrators costs 125 is correct dont you think?)....a monkey?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

Gw didn't clearly test their codex too but they are dishonest and wont say it, they just put off a codex then ,where is the problem, customers blindly buy (6 stormraves, 200 brimstones, 9 Pbc and so on...) what they find in codex then they FAQ and get the axe over OP models, that is the solution, a good way to make business, at least FW says ok we dont test... then is up to you buy them...

Tested doesn't mean fail proof. Yes, there were mistakes. No, it doesn't mean that the game wasn't tested. It was, it is obvious to anyone who has been in this hobby for some edition. The indices were clearly the product of a good amount of testing.
Just look at the difference between index models and FW models. If the target was 1, then the indici's model range went from 0,75 to 1,25, while FW went from 0,5 to 2! There was (and there is) an objective, obvious and clear HUGE difference in testing between these 2 lines.

Don't expect tested to mean balanced. We didn't reach that with 1 year of public testing, which counts as 10 years of internal testing.
Fact is, that 8th is without a doubt more balanced than 7th, and 7th was a consolidated product which had 4 editions of maturation. For a new edition (truly new, like 2nd to 3rd new), to be at it's basis more balanced than 7th, means that there was a really serious testing.

Spoletta wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I do undestrand those that don't like to play against FW models, but let's make an assumption first. Those who play forge world models do it because they are better than what is offered by your codex. You don't play a leviathan because it's a good model, you play it because it's the best available dreadnaught.

Everyone who plays FW thematic armies or puts those 96% of perfectly fine/underpowered models of the FW line, should never meet any resistance.

I'm talking about the use that almost all players make of FW (at least in my experience), which is using it as another level of army optimization.

In this case, then FW models do have the problem of being "out of the loop" when it comes to GW "balance patches". There just aren't enough around to have a good representation of the effectiveness of those models, so the error margin is greater. In 8th GW has taken the decision to err on the overnerf side, as we have seen from the first CA, but you still have examples of this error margin creating models that are clearly not in line with other ones (malanthrope before nerf, for example).

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.


That said, i wouldn't refuse to play against a FW model, but if we are talking about particular models, i wouldn't see my opponent with the same light.

Again, why would you optimize a list with a Leviathan when the "Imperium" keyword offers way better alternatives?
Also CA is a thing now, as much as i hate the fact that i get additionally Nickel and dimed for it, and secondly they get Errataed just as much. Even on the same site you will need to go anyways for your pure GW army.

Because you see people doing this all the time.

Again, if accepting FW meant that you see on tables a fair share of models from that range, i would be 100% in favor of it.
What is really happening though is that accepting FW in an event means seeing the same 5-6 waac stinking models, that at that point are worst offenders than the OP stuff of GW range (which are overrated, we don't really have OP models, not at the standards we knew of 7th at least) because they are P2W^2.

Acting like seeing the same "5-6 waac stinking models" doesn't happen with Games Workshop's CODEXES.

Spoletta wrote:

What is really happening though is that accepting FW in an event means seeing the same 5-6 waac stinking models,

Which is different than anything else how?

that at that point are worst offenders than the OP stuff of GW range (which are overrated, we don't really have OP models, not at the standards we knew of 7th at least) because they are P2W^2.

Um, that certainly hasn't been borne out by any major event in many editions barring some of the R&H stuff in the first few months of the edition which has since all been hammered into obscurity. Looking at the London GT, I don't believe any of the top lists used any FW models/units at all.

Spoletta wrote:

Fact is, that 8th is without a doubt more balanced than 7th, and 7th was a consolidated product which had 4 editions of maturation. For a new edition (truly new, like 2nd to 3rd new), to be at it's basis more balanced than 7th, means that there was a really serious testing.

Given how atrocious 7E was, and the fact that writers have publicly stated on places like facebook and reddit that they were told to do things like up the power on units like Wraithknights but not increase costs by management, you don't need to do much testing to fix a lot of that. That's not a high bar, you just have to stop actively and knowingly breaking the game

 oni wrote:
I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

And yet, FW stuff has little major showing in major competitive events where it's broadly allowed. Seems to be an imagined issue.

Yup, completely ok with it

Absolutely ok with it. I can also refuse to play against it just like any normal game.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Then you're wrong.

FW is simply another brand name under the GW umbrella, just like Citadel or Black Library. It isn't a legally distinct company. Want to prove me wrong? Find Forgeworld's UK VAT registration number, not GW's but explicitly Forgeworld's. VAT registration is a matter of public record, and any company turning over more than £85k is legally obliged to register. Or find their company incorporation number, which is again a matter of public record at companies house. You'll also have to offer a compelling argument as to why FW doesn't submit its own accounts anywhere, and simply has its turnover folded in with the GW website and Black Library under the mail order sub section of its turnover breakdown.

Or you can save yourself some time and take my word that you wot find any evidence that FW are a separate company simply owned by GW, because they're not.

Companies market different product lines under different names all the time. Its simply an easy method of informing the customer in short hand of different qualities of different aspects of your range. Therefore, as a GW customer I know that if I'm buying from FW I'm buying boutique, low volume, resin models. I then also appreciate they may be more technical products requiring greater skill and/or knowledge, and, if GW are lucky, I will be more positively disposed to paying a premium. If I'm buying Citadel I'm more likely to expect more mainstream, easier to assemble, plastic kits.

If you dispose of FW then you lose that point of differentiation and risk customers buying inappropriate products.

It's the same idea as Toyota using the Lexus brand to mark a difference in the cars they're selling, the products on offer are different and appeal to a different demographic.

Then why can't you buy FW models off of GW's website? They could just have a "forgeworld" section to differentiate it.

w1zard wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Then you're wrong.

FW is simply another brand name under the GW umbrella, just like Citadel or Black Library. It isn't a legally distinct company. Want to prove me wrong? Find Forgeworld's UK VAT registration number, not GW's but explicitly Forgeworld's. VAT registration is a matter of public record, and any company turning over more than £85k is legally obliged to register. Or find their company incorporation number, which is again a matter of public record at companies house. You'll also have to offer a compelling argument as to why FW doesn't submit its own accounts anywhere, and simply has its turnover folded in with the GW website and Black Library under the mail order sub section of its turnover breakdown.

Or you can save yourself some time and take my word that you wot find any evidence that FW are a separate company simply owned by GW, because they're not.

Companies market different product lines under different names all the time. Its simply an easy method of informing the customer in short hand of different qualities of different aspects of your range. Therefore, as a GW customer I know that if I'm buying from FW I'm buying boutique, low volume, resin models. I then also appreciate they may be more technical products requiring greater skill and/or knowledge, and, if GW are lucky, I will be more positively disposed to paying a premium. If I'm buying Citadel I'm more likely to expect more mainstream, easier to assemble, plastic kits.

If you dispose of FW then you lose that point of differentiation and risk customers buying inappropriate products.

It's the same idea as Toyota using the Lexus brand to mark a difference in the cars they're selling, the products on offer are different and appeal to a different demographic.

Then why can't you buy FW models off of GW's website? They could just have a "forgeworld" section to differentiate it.

I can't buy Zara clothes in Stradivarius stores, and they are still both part of the same company, just different brands.

 Galas wrote:
I can't buy Zara clothes in Stradivarius stores, and they are still both part of the same company, just different brands.

That is different, it makes sense to differentiate physical stock, but not online stock.

For example you can buy Black Library and citadel products off of GW's webstore, why not FW products?

Because it confuses the brands.

Really it's pretty bloody self evident, I'm also sure BL have their own store too.

Spoletta wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

So when on the table, you have problems against an FW model, you will always have this doubt that something is wrong with that model, because it's a product that is less "tested" compared to regular models.

that mean Gw models are tested? wonder who "tested" things like brimstone at 3pt inv 4++ or who tested De codex where kot of models are clearly undercosted (because we know a ravager with 3 disintegrators costs 125 is correct dont you think?)....a monkey?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I didn't like it previously, but since 8th dropped my apprehension turned into a hard 'no'.

Forge World as I understand it have blatantly said in their seminars that they did not play test their Index rules.

Gw didn't clearly test their codex too but they are dishonest and wont say it, they just put off a codex then ,where is the problem, customers blindly buy (6 stormraves, 200 brimstones, 9 Pbc and so on...) what they find in codex then they FAQ and get the axe over OP models, that is the solution, a good way to make business, at least FW says ok we dont test... then is up to you buy them...

Tested doesn't mean fail proof. Yes, there were mistakes. No, it doesn't mean that the game wasn't tested. It was, it is obvious to anyone who has been in this hobby for some edition. The indices were clearly the product of a good amount of testing.
Just look at the difference between index models and FW models. If the target was 1, then the indici's model range went from 0,75 to 1,25, while FW went from 0,5 to 2! There was (and there is) an objective, obvious and clear HUGE difference in testing between these 2 lines.

Don't expect tested to mean balanced. We didn't reach that with 1 year of public testing, which counts as 10 years of internal testing.
Fact is, that 8th is without a doubt more balanced than 7th, and 7th was a consolidated product which had 4 editions of maturation. For a new edition (truly new, like 2nd to 3rd new), to be at it's basis more balanced than 7th, means that there was a really serious testing.

you dont need test to understand a unit costing 3pts cant have a 4++save, that mean just dont have hint what you are doing (then if you call index was tested well i think i have nothing more to say),, day after index was released every tournament demon player started listing 200 brimstones+lot of untargettable characters... i was still playing in ETC team that day and we was on skype already listing 200+ brims lol ,yeah yeah need really LOT of play test to figure things like that. Unconditioned defense of Gw is what makes this game what it is now. i understand we need to convince ourselves we didn't waste our money but cmon...

I didn't use to be ok with FW back in 5th/6th ed. Not because stuff was OP, but because I had all the "official" GW rules pretty well memorized to avoid "surprises" and as I did not have access to FW, it kinda sucked having to face rules I was not familiar with.

But since 7th & 8th ed dropped, GW shoots out rules at such a rapid-fire rate that I have given up trying to remember every faction's rules. So FW is just as "foreign" to me as the latest hotness off the GW presses.
I've had to learn to be ok to every single game having a "surprise", so why not FW? Bring it on.

-

w1zard wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I can't buy Zara clothes in Stradivarius stores, and they are still both part of the same company, just different brands.

That is different, it makes sense to differentiate physical stock, but not online stock.

For example you can buy Black Library and citadel products off of GW's webstore, why not FW products?

First off, FW is linked off the GW site. More importantly though, BL, Citadel stuff can all be ordered by your FLGS and sold to you at their usual retail rate. Even if something says its Webstore exclusive can be included in a retailer's product order and sold to you at retail. FW stuff cannot, at least not at a rate that provides any profit for the FLGS.

 LunarSol wrote:
First off, FW is linked off the GW site.

Link to the exact page please?

EDIT: Nevermind I found it. Point conceded. I still think Games Workshop needs to do a better job incorporating FW into their brand, and to have better collaboration between rules writers for their main product line and their FW line.

meleti wrote:

TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

You do know that the cheapest Tigershark costs almost 400p, right?

 Vector Strike wrote:

meleti wrote:

TS has more than double the firepower of a Riptide while being much quicker, just as tough if not tougher, and being well under twice the points. Tau gun lines do not outperform them.

You do know that the cheapest Tigershark costs almost 400p, right?

Riptides are 280 points, double that is 560. A Tiger Shark is 409 points.

w1zard wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
First off, FW is linked off the GW site.

Link to the exact page please?

EDIT: Nevermind I found it. Point conceded. I still think Games Workshop needs to do a better job incorporating FW into their brand, and to have better collaboration between rules writers for their main product line and their FW line.

Maintaining it as a thing apart is exactly the bloody point. The perceived exclusivity and rarity of Forgeworld product is part of the appeal, and to make it more mainstream would render that aspect much less significant. There is zero evidence that greater collaboration (assuming it doesn't already occur) would make any difference, given the already spotty quality of rules writing on both sides.

It doesn't mean people shouldn't be ok with playing against it, a simple glance at the data sheet in the relevant supplement should be all that's needed just like a standard codex unit a player is unfamiliar with, but the whole concept of FW as a brand goes out the window if it's made less exclusive, as well as the logistical challenges of casting resin on that scale.