Poll |
 |
|
 |
Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 04:10:00
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Focused Fire Warrior
|
So much for the topic
Funnily enough tigershark is the one FW model I thought was sort of balanced and a fun alternative to what I usually do. But seriously why try to mathhammer a tigershark against 2 hammerheads? It would always be a hammerhead and Longstrike! Or if you're already going that way 3 hammerheads and longstrike.
I can understand wanting to get away from markerlights but they're not that difficult to get a pair of hits from considering the stratagem, marksmen, and embedding one on a shas'ui. Personally i love seeker missiles, 8 extra chances of hitting a knight with d6dmg is no small thing. Sure it's more work than imperium but its still got value to me.
Now Y'vahra is the issue for me since its rules interact with the codex but hasn't been updated since afaik. Which bring my point back that FW doesn't update its rules, which were designed to be drastically different from the rest of the faction/game, when the core gets updated.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 04:22:25
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Shas'O'Ceris wrote:So much for the topic
Funnily enough tigershark is the one FW model I thought was sort of balanced and a fun alternative to what I usually do. But seriously why try to mathhammer a tigershark against 2 hammerheads? It would always be a hammerhead and Longstrike! Or if you're already going that way 3 hammerheads and longstrike.
I can understand wanting to get away from markerlights but they're not that difficult to get a pair of hits from considering the stratagem, marksmen, and embedding one on a shas'ui. Personally i love seeker missiles, 8 extra chances of hitting a knight with d6dmg is no small thing. Sure it's more work than imperium but its still got value to me.
Now Y'vahra is the issue for me since its rules interact with the codex but hasn't been updated since afaik. Which bring my point back that FW doesn't update its rules, which were designed to be drastically different from the rest of the faction/game, when the core gets updated.
Yeah, I wasn’t intending to derail this topic by just pointing out how good Tiger Sharks are but that’s the way it ended up.
Funnily enough, I voted for being totally OK with FW units. I have no problem with them, and I love many of the models. I just took exception to the whole “ FW is never better than the codex” thing so I pointed out the best FW unit I’m familiar with.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/07 05:10:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 04:27:42
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
meleti wrote:Wait. You seem to think Custodes bikes have a 3+ instead of a 2+? That explains your numbers. I’m not sure I should talk to you about competitive balance if you don’t know what a Vertus Praetor does at this point...
Oh, oops. I misread that as "versus Predators".
But sure, let's kill some jetbikes, because the only thing better than killing space marines is killing gold space marines. The Shadowsword, having made an utter joke out of the Tigershark's performance against Predators, puts an average of 19.18 wounds into the idiots in sparkly armor in the shooting phase and then charges them (spending 1 CP to become a god of combat) for another 5 wounds. Granted, the Shadowsword is a bit more prone to overkilling single models because of its greater damage per wound, but I think it's safe to say that some jetbikes are thoroughly dead.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/07 04:28:18
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 04:37:07
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Peregrine wrote:meleti wrote:Wait. You seem to think Custodes bikes have a 3+ instead of a 2+? That explains your numbers. I’m not sure I should talk to you about competitive balance if you don’t know what a Vertus Praetor does at this point...
Oh, oops. I misread that as "versus Predators".
But sure, let's kill some jetbikes, because the only thing better than killing space marines is killing gold space marines. The Shadowsword, having made an utter joke out of the Tigershark's performance against Predators, puts an average of 19.18 wounds into the idiots in sparkly armor in the shooting phase and then charges them (spending 1 CP to become a god of combat) for another 5 wounds. Granted, the Shadowsword is a bit more prone to overkilling single models because of its greater damage per wound, but I think it's safe to say that some jetbikes are thoroughly dead.
That makes sense. I think you’ve made a mistake on the bikes, though, as they’re actually a multiple model unit and most of that damage you’re mentioning is just the Volcano Cannon doing an average of 1.25 unsaved wounds, meaning a lot of that damage is wasted as one unsaved wound can only do a maximum of 4 damage. Also, if you’re factoring in sponsons, that’s going to significantly increase the cost of the Shadowsword over a TS.
The volcano cannon is doing “10.2 wounds” but like I said that’s actually 1.25 unsaved wounds so it’s likely one dead Custodes.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/07/07 04:44:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 04:50:17
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
meleti wrote:I think you’ve made a mistake on the bikes, though, as they’re actually a multiple model unit and most of that damage you’re mentioning is just the Volcano Cannon doing an average of 1.25 unsaved wounds, meaning a lot of that damage is wasted as one unsaved wound can only do a maximum of 4 damage.
That's what I mentioned about overkill. The Shadowsword has a high chance of overkilling models and won't do its full ~25 wounds every turn, but the Tigershark also loses some damage (granted, not as much) to overkill. Even if you assume that half its volcano cannon wounds are lost to overkill (~6.5 wounds) it's still out-performing the Tigershark by a solid margin in the shooting phase and then charging for even more damage.
I’m also not sure what sponsons you’re running, but that Shadowswords is likely significantly more expensive than a TS.
Four sponsons, each with a twin HB and a lascannon. The total is 540 points, compared to ~350-400 points for the Tigershark (depending on how you arm it). That's a significant difference, but the Shadowsword is also out-performing the Tigershark by a significant margin against pretty much any target type. Even against hordes of guardsmen/orks/etc the titan killer specialist is putting out the same average volume of fire, then piling on even more damage in the assault phase. The best you can say for the Tigershark is that in some cases it compares reasonably well with the Shadowsword in damage per point, and it probably won't cost you the game if you bring a Tigershark or three. Which goes back to the original point: the Tigershark looks better than the codex options because most of the Tau codex is underwhelming and the Tigershark avoids several of its flaws, not because it's amazingly powerful compared to tournament-tier units/armies in general.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 05:08:04
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
409/379 for the Tiger Shark with/without Seekers yeah. It’s comparable to a naked Shadowsword. Not so much a unit that’s 140-170 points more.
Not sure about charging with a Shadowsword against Custodes, by the way. Sometimes you can, but if you’re against a list with multiple bike squads a careful Custodes player will just respond by charging your tank in your own charge phase (that’s a thing, yeah) and take a free fight phase against you. Watch out for that, as it could lose you your tank.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/07 05:10:34
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 05:10:14
Subject: Re:Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I play a lot of 30k sooo it goes with the territory, never had a problem.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 05:15:24
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
meleti wrote:409/379 for the Tiger Shark with/without Seekers yeah. It’s comparable to a naked Shadowsword. Not so much a unit that’s 140-170 points more.
But the point is that the Shadowsword out-performs the Tigershark by a greater margin than the increase in point cost. You pay ~33% more points for more than 33% more power in most situations. In terms of power per point the Shadowsword wins. The Tigershark is not a terrible unit, as it's at least in the same conversation as the Shadowsword, but its perceived power level has far more to do with the Tau codex being deeply flawed than the Tigershark being overpowered relative to tournament-tier stuff in general.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 05:42:49
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Peregrine wrote:meleti wrote:409/379 for the Tiger Shark with/without Seekers yeah. It’s comparable to a naked Shadowsword. Not so much a unit that’s 140-170 points more.
But the point is that the Shadowsword out-performs the Tigershark by a greater margin than the increase in point cost. You pay ~33% more points for more than 33% more power in most situations. In terms of power per point the Shadowsword wins. The Tigershark is not a terrible unit, as it's at least in the same conversation as the Shadowsword, but its perceived power level has far more to do with the Tau codex being deeply flawed than the Tigershark being overpowered relative to tournament-tier stuff in general.
The more you mention that Tau are “deeply flawed” the less I am convinced you’re a serious tournament player, or at least an objective one. I’m a bigger Tau homer than anybody but Tau are clearly in the discussion of competitive 40k. Tau sometimes win tournaments and more often Tau finish highly at tournaments. Do you have an axe to grind or something?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 06:16:39
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
meleti wrote:The more you mention that Tau are “deeply flawed” the less I am convinced you’re a serious tournament player, or at least an objective one. I’m a bigger Tau homer than anybody but Tau are clearly in the discussion of competitive 40k. Tau sometimes win tournaments and more often Tau finish highly at tournaments. Do you have an axe to grind or something?
I'm not talking about just a competitive tournament context. The Tau codex is underwhelming in a lot of areas, especially for veteran players who played Tau in previous editions. Crisis suits are weak, railguns are weak, our tanks still can't move and shoot effectively, etc. It feels like a lot of the codex is a house of cards where everything, especially the magic laser pointers, has to work together perfectly just to equal what other factions can do with single units. After getting frustrated with crisis suits having poor accuracy and apparently being intended to win through ork-style rolling tons of dice it seems too good to be true when you get a unit like the Tigershark that just plain works. It delivers cost-effective shooting every turn without depending on stratagems or aura bubbles or magic laser pointers. It has BS 3+ by default, no buffs needed. But it's still only comparable to good units from other factions.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 06:26:55
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Peregrine wrote:meleti wrote:The more you mention that Tau are “deeply flawed” the less I am convinced you’re a serious tournament player, or at least an objective one. I’m a bigger Tau homer than anybody but Tau are clearly in the discussion of competitive 40k. Tau sometimes win tournaments and more often Tau finish highly at tournaments. Do you have an axe to grind or something?
I'm not talking about just a competitive tournament context. The Tau codex is underwhelming in a lot of areas, especially for veteran players who played Tau in previous editions. Crisis suits are weak, railguns are weak, our tanks still can't move and shoot effectively, etc. It feels like a lot of the codex is a house of cards where everything, especially the magic laser pointers, has to work together perfectly just to equal what other factions can do with single units. After getting frustrated with crisis suits having poor accuracy and apparently being intended to win through ork-style rolling tons of dice it seems too good to be true when you get a unit like the Tigershark that just plain works. It delivers cost-effective shooting every turn without depending on stratagems or aura bubbles or magic laser pointers. It has BS 3+ by default, no buffs needed. But it's still only comparable to good units from other factions.
That makes sense. I’m a pretty competitive player and from my perspective this Tau codex has been a very powerful codex capable of hanging with the very best armies in the game, even if it might not be ‘the best codex.” So I don’t find anything underwhelming at all other than the fact that I’ve got some models that aren’t as good as they once were (RIP fish of fury).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 07:31:29
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote:meleti wrote:The more you mention that Tau are “deeply flawed” the less I am convinced you’re a serious tournament player, or at least an objective one. I’m a bigger Tau homer than anybody but Tau are clearly in the discussion of competitive 40k. Tau sometimes win tournaments and more often Tau finish highly at tournaments. Do you have an axe to grind or something?
I'm not talking about just a competitive tournament context. The Tau codex is underwhelming in a lot of areas, especially for veteran players who played Tau in previous editions. Crisis suits are weak, railguns are weak, our tanks still can't move and shoot effectively, etc. It feels like a lot of the codex is a house of cards where everything, especially the magic laser pointers, has to work together perfectly just to equal what other factions can do with single units. After getting frustrated with crisis suits having poor accuracy and apparently being intended to win through ork-style rolling tons of dice it seems too good to be true when you get a unit like the Tigershark that just plain works. It delivers cost-effective shooting every turn without depending on stratagems or aura bubbles or magic laser pointers. It has BS 3+ by default, no buffs needed. But it's still only comparable to good units from other factions.
You hit the nail on the head.
For the same reason you gotta remember how competitive Tyranids were in 6th/7th, even though it was strictly Flyrants/Rippers and Mucolids/Mawlocs. The poor quality of codex writing didn't stop it from topping with just those units
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 07:54:43
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Azreal13 wrote:w1zard wrote:
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.
What worse it might move some money from buying plastic to buying resin. Disaster for gw
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 07:56:00
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Strg Alt wrote: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.
As much as I understand you trusting the opinions of people you actually know, I do think you are missing the point that from the point of view of the person who has bought the model (often having had to save for longer, put in a few more hours at work etc to afford it compared to a citadel equivalent) then had the nightmare of assembling it, spending hours painting it, then wrote a list including it and developing tactics that incorporate it, then made the journey to a game, only to be told to "take it off the table or play someone else" is a very frustrating experience. Even more so if the reason for that demand isn't really well substantiated. Even more so again if the model isn't particularly powerful for its points. I'd be angry if I'd made time for a game, made the effort to get to the venue and didn't get one because your friends don't like an arbitrary subdivision of a hobby company.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 08:04:11
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Azreal13 wrote: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.
And this is also the reason why a lot of people have problems playing against forgeworld, and why forgeworld isn't totally "accepted" yet. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 08:13:11
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Been Around the Block
Vacaville, California
|
Well I'm a DKoK player so obviously I'm ok with it. I play my army strictly by the rules provided in the index so if anything I've got a handicap because I'm essentially playing a very restricted guard army. No one I know complains about it and generally I get a few spectators when I play.
|
Babylon a mosh up the sea and fear him the Rasta mon. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 08:20:34
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
UK
|
Personally I've no problem with FW and divide it into three parts:
1) Models/upgrade parts that add things present in the army Warscroll/codex. These should be usable without any prior agreement nor limit as they provide content which is already within the "core" rules of the game itself and thus can be an expected part of a battle.
2) Armies that are majority or totally FW produced. Because of the nature of these armies being produced by FW they are, by default, "pre arranged FW content" since you typically know what faction your opponent is playing when you agree to setup a game.
3) Use of FW exclusive models in regular armies with opponents permission agreed in advance before the game.
I hold the view that the "core" of any GW game is basically the content within the Battletome/codex of any army. With the way GW releases models now any unit released and sold by GW with a dataslate/warscroll of its own is also part of the "core" of the game.
Rules expansions such as Cities of Death, Malign Sorcery etc... are all expansions to the core rules that you agree to use with your opponent prior to the game (in the case of Malign you might even decide to include which specific parts - eg Endless spells, realm spells, realm artifacts*).
In this context bringing models from the FW site into regular matches is also adding to the base content of the game - ergo its expanded content.
This has nothing to do with how powerful/limited release etc... it is. It is purely you and your opponent saying "ok we are playing 40K and I'll be bringing Tyranids and also some Imperial Armour models for Tyranids" before the match. You are informing your opponent what army you are playing and what expanded rules you are using for that army. If they agree it also allows them to bring the IA content for their own army. If they disagree then you can debate on what expanded content you are both allowing for the game or not.
I don't hold that just because I've bought FW models that I've some inherent "right" to use them in any game. They are expansion content to the core game and as such is it not only part of the game rules but also a point of wargaming manners to inform my opponent and to agree with them the use of the Imperial Armour expansion content (and the same for Sigmar stuff etc...).
I often feel that online there is a higher density of FW owning players which creates an atmosphere of automatic FW acceptance in general. Ergo most people online have and want to/do use FW stuff and thus online its seen as pretty standard. In reality a lot of people don't use/have access to FW stuff and thus might well not permit its use in games for a variety of reasons. The reasons honestly don't matter - like any wargame - you agree with your opponent(s) as to what the game will entail. Being informative up front simply saves headaches later.
*This is even noted at the start of the rules within the Malign Sorcery boxed set
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 08:53:26
Subject: Re:Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
I love that the one thing someone is crying OP over is a single model with lots of wounds. As someone who has been running knights for all of 8th, big models are kinda terrible in 8th. This is the boyz before toyz edition if there ever was one. If you honestly think that a 16 wound t8 model with a -1 to hit is the worst thing ever, What are you going to do when you face 3 aliotic wrathlords with double starcannons
I can only think of 1 or 2 armies who would want to use FW regularly to patch holes in their army, and those are AdMech for termites, and CSM for butcher cannons & soulburners.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 08:56:05
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
UK
|
In my view FW debates online get distracted by the whole "how balanced is it" argument which is a moot point. It doesn't matter if FW stuff is perfectly balanced or horribly overpowered. In my view its still adding content to the base game thus its polite and important to inform your opponent that they might well encounter things not in the codex/battletome.
The manners and good sportsmanship is the important part; the balance debate is for specific situations and is a separate debate.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 09:01:27
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Overread wrote:I hold the view that the "core" of any GW game is basically the content within the Battletome/codex of any army.
GW disagrees with you, and does not separate army rules into "core" and "expansion".
Rules expansions such as Cities of Death, Malign Sorcery etc... are all expansions to the core rules that you agree to use with your opponent prior to the game (in the case of Malign you might even decide to include which specific parts - eg Endless spells, realm spells, realm artifacts*).
In this context bringing models from the FW site into regular matches is also adding to the base content of the game - ergo its expanded content.
This is not at all the same. Playing a Cities of Death game adds rule changes that affect both players. They change objectives, terrain setup, mission rules, etc. It is not possible to bring a Cities of Death army while your opponent plays without Cities of Death, so of course you have to agree on the use of the expansion. FW rules do not work the same way at all. Bringing a FW unit is no different from bringing a scout squad instead of a tactical squad. It changes what is in your army, but it has no effect on your opponent's army. Therefore the only reason to consider it "optional" and demand special permission is that you feel entitled to veto your opponent's list-building choices if you don't like the units they're taking. It is no better than attempting to tell your opponent that they aren't allowed to bring any transports for their space marines because you don't like that your shooting units have to kill transports before they can get to the passengers.
In reality a lot of people don't use/have access to FW stuff and thus might well not permit its use in games for a variety of reasons.
There is no such thing as not having access to FW stuff. It is 2018, online shopping is the default for everyone over 18. You can choose not to buy FW rules/models, but don't try to claim that it isn't possible for you to do so unless you are a small child who doesn't have money of their own.
The reasons honestly don't matter - like any wargame - you agree with your opponent(s) as to what the game will entail.
Of course the reasons matter. There are legitimate reasons and there are TFG reasons for accepting or rejecting a game. You can't force someone to accept a game because you don't like their reasons, but you can certainly be honest in describing their TFG behavior as exactly that. Automatically Appended Next Post: Overread wrote:In my view its still adding content to the base game thus its polite and important to inform your opponent that they might well encounter things not in the codex/battletome.
But why draw the line there? I could equally reasonably argue that the original index books are the "base game" and everything else is an expansion, so you'd better be polite and ask permission before using a codex army.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/07 09:03:02
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 09:37:02
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
UK
|
Peregrine wrote: Overread wrote:I hold the view that the "core" of any GW game is basically the content within the Battletome/codex of any army.
GW disagrees with you, and does not separate army rules into "core" and "expansion"..
" It is important to note that the rules presented here are optional; they can be used , or not, in any combination that you and your table top adversaries find enjoyable"
GW agrees with me, that's from the first page of the rule segment in Malign Sorcery. The core game has always been the main rule book and codex/battletomes. Nearly every other publication that GW produces is an expansion to those core components; with the exception in recent years of models sold by GW central with Warscrolls/dataslates - as in the past those would have been in the codex/battletome but not released whereas now GW releases the rules after with the model (due to issues with 3rd parties making alternate sculpts before GW can bring them to market themselves).
Peregrine wrote:
This is not at all the same. Playing a Cities of Death game adds rule changes that affect both players. They change objectives, terrain setup, mission rules, etc. It is not possible to bring a Cities of Death army while your opponent plays without Cities of Death, so of course you have to agree on the use of the expansion. FW rules do not work the same way at all. Bringing a FW unit is no different from bringing a scout squad instead of a tactical squad. It changes what is in your army, but it has no effect on your opponent's army. Therefore the only reason to consider it "optional" and demand special permission is that you feel entitled to veto your opponent's list-building choices if you don't like the units they're taking. It is no better than attempting to tell your opponent that they aren't allowed to bring any transports for their space marines because you don't like that your shooting units have to kill transports before they can get to the passengers.
When players agree to a game then they go into that agreement with some basic understandings which influence what they choose to take within their armies. Knowing the points value, the mission/objectives and what army the opponent is taking are all factors that come into what army they choose to field. It is part of the game process to list build to ensure that your army is going to work for the game you are going to play. As such agreeing to include units from outside of the codex/battletome in advance is part of what will influence what a player takes in their army.
It also confirms for a player that FW is allowed and thus influences their choices on what models they can take as they too can then take FW models as well. Treating the FW Warscrolls/Imperial Armour as an expansion in this form is a point of manners; you are confirming the game state for you and your opponent.
Your latter example of randomly selecting items from the codex to exclude is a separate issue as you are then drawing random lines. You are, as clarified later in this post again, fully within your right to request such a change for a game if you so wish. Of course you might find it harder to find an opponent willing to agree to such; but that's beside the point. You can draw random lines in the sand if you want. GW allows it (heck with open and narrative play they actually encourage it).
Peregrine wrote:
There is no such thing as not having access to FW stuff. It is 2018, online shopping is the default for everyone over 18. You can choose not to buy FW rules/models, but don't try to claim that it isn't possible for you to do so unless you are a small child who doesn't have money of their own.
Far as I'm aware many overseas have to pay a lot in postage/import costs for FW models so that's in initial extra barrier right there. Plus many people are under 18 in this game. There are still those with more limited access to FW models/unit options - yes even in 2018,
Peregrine wrote:
But why draw the line there? I could equally reasonably argue that the original index books are the "base game" and everything else is an expansion, so you'd better be polite and ask permission before using a codex army.
Yes and you've every right too.
Heck you can even play 3rd edition if you want.
The key is that you and your opponent agree to what you are both going to play in advance of the game beginning and you putting models on the table. All I'm saying is that when it comes to the inclusion of FW models its a point that is raised as an extra as opposed to accepted as the default state for a game.
Of course at the local level each club will have its own rough standards. In some FW models will be so accept that you don't generally have to ask, save for a new person joining the club, because the models are so readily accepted by the majority. At others there might be very few to no FW model use.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/07 09:39:31
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 09:55:43
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Overread wrote:" It is important to note that the rules presented here are optional; they can be used , or not, in any combination that you and your table top adversaries find enjoyable"
GW agrees with me, that's from the first page of the rule segment in Malign Sorcery. The core game has always been the main rule book and codex/battletomes. Nearly every other publication that GW produces is an expansion to those core components; with the exception in recent years of models sold by GW central with Warscrolls/dataslates - as in the past those would have been in the codex/battletome but not released whereas now GW releases the rules after with the model (due to issues with 3rd parties making alternate sculpts before GW can bring them to market themselves).
First of all, that's an AoS book and not relevant here. Second, I said they don't separate army rules. They separate out expansions for different ways of playing the game: different missions, campaigns, etc. But they don't set aside certain unit/upgrade rules and say "these are an optional expansion".
As such agreeing to include units from outside of the codex/battletome in advance is part of what will influence what a player takes in their army.
Knowing if your opponent is taking IG LoW spam or a green tide ork army influences what you take in your army. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that you need to state up front that you're taking some boyz in your army and ask for special permission to do so.
It also confirms for a player that FW is allowed and thus influences their choices on what models they can take as they too can then take FW models as well.
FW being allowed is confirmed by the fact that FW rules are part of the standard game as published by GW. No further confirmation is needed. It may be helpful to confirm that your opponent is not TFG, but I prefer to assume that by default until proven otherwise.
Far as I'm aware many overseas have to pay a lot in postage/import costs for FW models so that's in initial extra barrier right there. Plus many people are under 18 in this game. There are still those with more limited access to FW models/unit options - yes even in 2018,
"This model costs more than I want to pay for it" is not the same as not having access. Otherwise guess what, your codex costs more than I want to pay so you're only allowed to use the index rules.
And sure, there are people under 18. Most of them are people I have zero interest in playing, and therefore their concerns don't really matter to me. They can have their special starter set only game in the corner and leave the rest of us alone.
The key is that you and your opponent agree to what you are both going to play in advance of the game beginning and you putting models on the table. All I'm saying is that when it comes to the inclusion of FW models its a point that is raised as an extra as opposed to accepted as the default state for a game.
And all I'm saying is that when it comes to the inclusion of codex rules its a point that is raised as an extra as opposed to accepted as the default state for a game. Your position is no more reasonable than mine.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/07 09:56:36
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 14:55:43
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
I'm totally fine with it. I'm one of the harder players at my GW (not tournament level or anything, but we're a relatively casual place) so if someone wants to bring Forgeworld for pretty much any reason? They can go nuts. Only thing is I need to see their rules.
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 15:06:28
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
StarHunter25 wrote:There are a handful of things currently that could be considered strong from forgeworld. Most core GW units are better than what FW produces. The few that are strong are generally with armies that aren't all that hot in their own right. Space Marine Leviathan Dreads, CSM Fire Raptors. Anyone who complains about FW being overpowered then plops down 30 dark reapers with 3 Black heart ravagers is as disingenuous as it gets.
But what's stronger is insanely stronger.
All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 15:19:07
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I've got no problem with it but id always inform a player before showing up for a random pick up game with FW. But imo that's no different than saying something along the lines of "hey I'm practicing for a tournament so I'm going to bring a competitive list" or "I'm looking for a fun narrative game". The more communication before a random pick up game the more likely you are to have a fun enjoyable experience for both players.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 15:23:01
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Danny slag wrote:StarHunter25 wrote:There are a handful of things currently that could be considered strong from forgeworld. Most core GW units are better than what FW produces. The few that are strong are generally with armies that aren't all that hot in their own right. Space Marine Leviathan Dreads, CSM Fire Raptors. Anyone who complains about FW being overpowered then plops down 30 dark reapers with 3 Black heart ravagers is as disingenuous as it gets.
But what's stronger is insanely stronger.
All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.
Can you list FW models that appeared in recent top tournament scenes?
|
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 15:45:21
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
w1zard wrote: Azreal13 wrote: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.
And this is also the reason why a lot of people have problems playing against forgeworld, and why forgeworld isn't totally "accepted" yet. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
So how is my opponent playing a FW model I'm unfamiliar with any different from them playing a GW unit, or even entire faction I'm unfamiliar with?
Relative rarity is completely irrelevant, the process remains the same, chat to your opponent about the unfamiliar model and give the rules a once over, then get on with it. If your opponent doesn't have the official rules to hand, that's a different conversation, but making the assumption that most reasonable players will bring the appropriate rules with them, there's really no problem.
I mean, I've never played against nor read the codex for GSC, Death Guard or 1K Sons, or pretty much any of the new factions and sub factions that have been introduced since 7th, so there's absolutely no difference should I find myself opposing them than if my opponent brought a FW unit.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there's possibly more people out there with FW units in their collection than there are players of those factions in total.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/07 15:46:33
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 17:03:35
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I made that argument for Genestealer Cults and Cult Mechanicus for 7th.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 21:18:55
Subject: Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Danny slag wrote:All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.
Just like they spam broken codex models, therefore ban codex rules.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2018/07/07 23:43:06
Subject: Re:Are you okay with playing forgeworld?
|
 |
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine
|
For those whom wont play vs forgeworld I ask the following. Would you find it to be acceptable if the forgeworld player agreed to remove his units but also asked you to remove units he disliked as well? Because that is exactly what is going on.
Forgeworld is official. It is accepted as 40k legal as long as it has a 40k unit entry. Forgeworld is owned by GW. Forgeworld models are produced to be used in either 30k or 40k games. Forgeworld is 100% legal from a RAW perspective. As long as you know this and accept that a forgeworld player can ask you to remove units in kind I don't see this as a problem.
If you do not want to remove units and still expect the FW player to do so then its best to be truthful with yourself and your perspective opponent and just say that you think your army cant handle FW units. Because once more, FW models are 100% legal RAW. Its as valid as a land raider. Automatically Appended Next Post: Danny slag wrote:StarHunter25 wrote:There are a handful of things currently that could be considered strong from forgeworld. Most core GW units are better than what FW produces. The few that are strong are generally with armies that aren't all that hot in their own right. Space Marine Leviathan Dreads, CSM Fire Raptors. Anyone who complains about FW being overpowered then plops down 30 dark reapers with 3 Black heart ravagers is as disingenuous as it gets.
But what's stronger is insanely stronger.
All you have to do to answer this question is look at the WAAC tournament scene and see everyone spam the gak out of broken forgeworld models.
So a CSM player who includes drop pods and fire raptors is trying to spam to win a game? Its more like they are trying to patch a HUGE hole that their GW codex has left. CSM have both drop pods and proper flyers in the lore. However the codex provides none of these options. The Heldrake is no longer a true flyer as it has neither supersonic or the -1 to be hit.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/07 23:47:25
|
|
 |
 |
|