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.

Also, if you choose to use the FAQ/errata document that the image comes from then guess what, FW rules are legal. I have a Macharius model. It does not have a datasheet in a codex, so I follow the other step in the flowchart which says to use the index version of the datasheet. And that datasheet is found in the FW index book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:
So according to you, I can ignore the entirety of CA 2017 and every FAQ and errata that GW have come out with and still be playing "matched" play and every opponent who doesn't like that is an unreasonable feth-head?

That is not a valid argument and you know it. GW FAQs and erratas are modifications to the core rules.

Alternatively, you can accept that FW rules have the same status as the FAQs/errata in GW's eyes and, if the FAQs/errata are part of the standard matched play game then so are the FW rules. If you reject the FW rules then the exact same argument allows you to reject the FAQs/errata.

w1zard wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Matched play IS the latest FAQ/erratas.

Only if you choose to use the optional errata/FAQ supplement. The core rules do not include any statement that matched play requires you to do so.

So according to you, I can ignore the entirety of CA 2017 and every FAQ and errata that GW have come out with and still be playing "matched" play and every opponent who doesn't like that is an unreasonable feth-head?

That is not a valid argument and you know it. GW FAQs and erratas are modifications to the core rules.

You might not like it but this also is in the Indexes of FW:
"This book contains profiles for a variety of diffrent units for use in standard games of Warhammer 40'000 and games played using the rules found in Warhammer 40'000 apocalypse"

I honestly don't believe any level of online discourse will ever convince anti-FW people.

I think the best solution is to offer to go to a LGS that has regular tournaments or play-nights that do allow FW models, and ask to play a game with them there. If they play against you, and others that might be there, and they still are anti-FW? I'd personally write the person off as being irrational at that point, and not bother trying to convince them after that. But you're free to react any way you see fit.

FW used to have reputation of being an extremely gamey option for a casual match at my FLGS years back. This was way back before Apocalypse, where rules for things like Baneblades or the dreaded Manta could only come from FW. It's more acceptable now with Lords of War choices abounding all over the place, but I imagine our regular 'beer and pretzels' would be apprehensive if anyone tried to field a FW model without clearing it with their opponent first. I had IG Vendettas when they were part of the regular IG codex, and I don't think it would be fair to refuse my ability to use them because they are now only found in the FW sheets. That said, I would still ask my opponent out of politeness.

I agree with the comparison to Planetstrike or Cities of Death. FW can be a novel and intriguing addition to a game, but for it to be any fun it requires the agreement of both players. To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
FW used to have reputation of being an extremely gamey option for a casual match at my FLGS years back. This was way back before Apocalypse, where rules for things like Baneblades or the dreaded Manta could only come from FW. It's more acceptable now with Lords of War choices abounding all over the place, but I imagine our regular 'beer and pretzels' would be apprehensive if anyone tried to field a FW model without clearing it with their opponent first. I had IG Vendettas when they were part of the regular IG codex, and I don't think it would be fair to refuse my ability to use them because they are now only found in the FW sheets. That said, I would still ask my opponent out of politeness.

I agree with the comparison to Planetstrike or Cities of Death. FW can be a novel and intriguing addition to a game, but for it to be any fun it requires the agreement of both players. To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.

They are tough, else you would have to kick out all codexes.
It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.
I mean sure you can deny it on said basis but then you have set a house rule.

I am surprised to see the Anti-FW hate has endured this long.

We have hugely popular tournaments, the playerbase is expanding, and FW is accepted by 89% of them (79% don't even seem to care if it's mentioned ahead of the battle).

How can you literally watch tournaments happen, that are won and lost on custodes bike captains, plaguebearers with -2 to-hit, and Imperial Knights, and then turn around and say

"Yeah, that malcador you use? No way I'm playing against that. It's all resin-y and stuff."

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
FW used to have reputation of being an extremely gamey option for a casual match at my FLGS years back. This was way back before Apocalypse, where rules for things like Baneblades or the dreaded Manta could only come from FW. It's more acceptable now with Lords of War choices abounding all over the place, but I imagine our regular 'beer and pretzels' would be apprehensive if anyone tried to field a FW model without clearing it with their opponent first. I had IG Vendettas when they were part of the regular IG codex, and I don't think it would be fair to refuse my ability to use them because they are now only found in the FW sheets. That said, I would still ask my opponent out of politeness.

I agree with the comparison to Planetstrike or Cities of Death. FW can be a novel and intriguing addition to a game, but for it to be any fun it requires the agreement of both players. To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.

They are tough, else you would have to kick out all codexes.
It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.
I mean sure you can deny it on said basis but then you have set a house rule.

The people/groups he is talking about would probably also ban knights, baneblades and primarchs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am surprised to see the Anti-FW hate has endured this long.

It has not been that long since malefic lords were a thing, confirming any FW-hater in their hate.

Not Online!!! wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Also above the armies in the indexes stands the following:
"This section conatains all of the datasheets that you will need in order to fight a battle with your (insert FW army) models. Each datasheet includes the charachteristics profiles of the unit it describes, as well as any wargear and abilites it may have. Some rules are common to several (insert FW army) units - these are described below and referenced on the datasheets."

That says nothing about whether or not the index in question is a supplementary expansion or a part of the core rules.

I know I'm being a but I'm just articulating the anti-FW argument.

If you follow that logic, just bear with me, then you would have to kick out all codexes aswell right?
That part is necessary and is found in each codex, in differing lines written thematically.

No, because... https://i.redd.it/n3g7779rddyz.jpg says you must use the codices. The legitimacy of the codices comes from the core rules, not the codices themselves.

Look again at that picture now would you.
Step one: Do you have a codex? no.
Step two: Use the datasheet in the Index. I.e. Index astra militarum, index for xenos if you play Ork, etc.

For step 1 It says does your model have a codex datasheet. Not do you have a codex.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
FW used to have reputation of being an extremely gamey option for a casual match at my FLGS years back. This was way back before Apocalypse, where rules for things like Baneblades or the dreaded Manta could only come from FW. It's more acceptable now with Lords of War choices abounding all over the place, but I imagine our regular 'beer and pretzels' would be apprehensive if anyone tried to field a FW model without clearing it with their opponent first. I had IG Vendettas when they were part of the regular IG codex, and I don't think it would be fair to refuse my ability to use them because they are now only found in the FW sheets. That said, I would still ask my opponent out of politeness.

I agree with the comparison to Planetstrike or Cities of Death. FW can be a novel and intriguing addition to a game, but for it to be any fun it requires the agreement of both players. To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.

They are tough, else you would have to kick out all codexes.
It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.
I mean sure you can deny it on said basis but then you have set a house rule.

The people/groups he is talking about would probably also ban knights, baneblades and primarchs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am surprised to see the Anti-FW hate has endured this long.

It has not been that long since malefic lords were a thing, confirming any FW-hater in their hate.

Because the normal malefic lord was a problem right?
Smite has not anything to do with it right?
AM still can spam psykers of equal calibre so they are fine too, and the competitive smite spam DP lists are even better balanced right?
/s
Summa sumarum, remove smite, or nerf it.

You might want to have a look at CA and the big FAQ my angry friend.

You cannot deny that malefic lords were a problem.

Not Online!!! wrote:

It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.

At least one of the old Imperial Armour books (IA vol 1. 2nd edition, it's the one I have to hand) had an intro section that explained that all 40k FW units are considered 'official' and are intended for 'standard' 40k, so this has been the case for quite a while. The same paragraph did also say that "owing to the fact [FW units] may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start", which is possibly why so many long term players feel that they have to consult with the other player on whether FW stuff can be used. Tournaments/competitive games are a different beast altogether, but I don't think it's too bad an idea in general to talk to someone before a casual game to make sure you're both on the same page about army composition or what units are being used -- I'd play against that 80 nurglings list at a tourney but probably not at the FLGS!

 nurgle5 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.

At least one of the old Imperial Armour books (IA vol 1. 2nd edition, it's the one I have to hand) had an intro section that explained that all 40k FW units are considered 'official' and are intended for 'standard' 40k, so this has been the case for quite a while. The same paragraph did also say that "owing to the fact [FW units] may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start", which is possibly why so many long term players feel that they have to consult with the other player on whether FW stuff can be used. Tournaments/competitive games are a different beast altogether, but I don't think it's too bad an idea in general to talk to someone before a casual game to make sure you're both on the same page about army composition or what units are being used -- I'd play against that 80 nurglings list at a tourney but probably not at the FLGS!

In friendly casual games, it's good to do that anyway regardless of Forgeworld. Like if I'm playing against someone I don't know terribly well I'll give them a heads up if I want to bring my Leman Russ heavy Guard list. Because I know it's sometimes not fun to play against that much cheap T8.

I don't see Forgeworld as any different really. If I think my opponent might struggle or be negatively surprised then I'll give them a heads up sure. But I consider it as legitimate as anything else GW sells.

Jidmah wrote:\

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am surprised to see the Anti-FW hate has endured this long.

It has not been that long since malefic lords were a thing, confirming any FW-hater in their hate.

I'm not sure why they hate FW over the Malefic Lord. Now? Thousand Sons Daemon Princes + Ahriman supreme command is in every list, much like how Malefic Lord supreme command was in every list.
Custodes Bike Captains are as common as Malefic Lords, but no one is saying "ban codex: adeptus custodes."

When FW makes an OP model that is spammed at the top levels of tournaments, everyone wants to ban Malcadors.
When GW makes an OP model that is spammed at the top levels of tournaments, everyone wants to ban Malcadors.

Having an OP model at the top of a tournament is not the only thing determining whether or not FW is allowed; if it truly was people's complaint, then they'd ban Codex: Adeptus Custodes and Codex: Thousand Sons and Codex: Astra Militarum. After all, I bet there are more Company Commanders in tournaments than there were Malefic Lords.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
FW used to have reputation of being an extremely gamey option for a casual match at my FLGS years back. This was way back before Apocalypse, where rules for things like Baneblades or the dreaded Manta could only come from FW. It's more acceptable now with Lords of War choices abounding all over the place, but I imagine our regular 'beer and pretzels' would be apprehensive if anyone tried to field a FW model without clearing it with their opponent first. I had IG Vendettas when they were part of the regular IG codex, and I don't think it would be fair to refuse my ability to use them because they are now only found in the FW sheets. That said, I would still ask my opponent out of politeness.

I agree with the comparison to Planetstrike or Cities of Death. FW can be a novel and intriguing addition to a game, but for it to be any fun it requires the agreement of both players. To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.

They are tough, else you would have to kick out all codexes.
It clearly states above where i quoted from the beginning of a IA index that they are complete for standard 40'000.
I mean sure you can deny it on said basis but then you have set a house rule.

The people/groups he is talking about would probably also ban knights, baneblades and primarchs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I am surprised to see the Anti-FW hate has endured this long.

It has not been that long since malefic lords were a thing, confirming any FW-hater in their hate.

Malefic Lords were hardly the worst thing to face at the beginning of 8th.

 Jidmah wrote:
You might want to have a look at CA and the big FAQ my angry friend.

You cannot deny that malefic lords were a problem.

Again, they are with the regular R&H powers a non issue.
A worse arcana power of -d3 ld.
A smite only good against vehicles
A buff that killed your dudes and if you were not cautious killed your HQ's.....

Add in smite and the fact that they were relatively cheap and everyone and their mother spammed smite.
The profile and the base powers did however not back up the 40 pts they were and certainly not the 80 pts they are now.

Also what about brimstone horrors? pre-nerf, should we have banned codex daemons ?
Also a unit that spams smite btw....

It should also be noted that Malefic Lords, on top of really being only an issue because of Smite, were only an issue for a few months, hardly any sort of hallmark of FW being a major balance issue, especially at the start of a semireboot where everything was still working itself out. Yeah, people can point to Malefic Lords as an FW balance issue, but only as a cherrypicked example in a very narrow context.

You know, it's fine to say "Malefic Lords were OP" and, back when they were dirt cheap, refuse a game against someone bringing 12 Malefic Lords and nothing else from Renegades and Heretics. They're bringing a very competitive list, and if you aren't, you're gonna get buttsmashed, and that's not fun.

But that's not a Forge World specific issue. If that same person showed up with 400 Brimstone Horrors, back when they were 4++ and even cheaper than they are now, they're STILL bringing a super hard list, and if you aren't, you won't have fun.

I don't see anything wrong with my opponent saying "This model is OP-I'd rather not play against it," regardless of where the model comes from. The issue is people have a misconception that EVERYTHING from Forge World is OP, which is pretty massively wrong.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
To have a matched play game exclude FW models is no less reasonable than agreeing that a matched play game exclude Lords of War. I would not call that 'house rules' as Peregrine claims.

Excluding lords of war absolutely is a house rule - they're part of the standard game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue is people have a misconception that EVERYTHING from Forge World is OP, which is pretty massively wrong.

MALCADOR OP! PLZ NERF!!

Forge World is super common at my FLGS, Leviathans, Fellblades/Falchions, Telemon Dreds, occasionally a Fire Raptor, mostly big Imperial stuff, occasionally a Tyranid FW item.

I don't use any but I'll happily play against it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You might want to have a look at CA and the big FAQ my angry friend.

You cannot deny that malefic lords were a problem.

Again, they are with the regular R&H powers a non issue.
A worse arcana power of -d3 ld.
A smite only good against vehicles
A buff that killed your dudes and if you were not cautious killed your HQ's.....

Add in smite and the fact that they were relatively cheap and everyone and their mother spammed smite.
The profile and the base powers did however not back up the 40 pts they were and certainly not the 80 pts they are now.

Also what about brimstone horrors? pre-nerf, should we have banned codex daemons ?
Also a unit that spams smite btw....

If you want any sort of answer from me, go back to what I actually wrote and ask about that.

Malefic lords were a game-breaking unit.
Malefic lords were a datasheet made by FW.
FW made a game-breaking unit only slightly more than one year ago.
This an undeniable fact.
Nothing else is relevant.
Nothing else was implied.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You might want to have a look at CA and the big FAQ my angry friend.

You cannot deny that malefic lords were a problem.

Again, they are with the regular R&H powers a non issue.
A worse arcana power of -d3 ld.
A smite only good against vehicles
A buff that killed your dudes and if you were not cautious killed your HQ's.....

Add in smite and the fact that they were relatively cheap and everyone and their mother spammed smite.
The profile and the base powers did however not back up the 40 pts they were and certainly not the 80 pts they are now.

Also what about brimstone horrors? pre-nerf, should we have banned codex daemons ?
Also a unit that spams smite btw....

If you want any sort of answer from me, go back to what I actually wrote and ask about that.

Malefic lords were a game-breaking unit.
Malefic lords were a datasheet made by FW.
FW made a game-breaking unit only slightly more than one year ago.
This an undeniable fact.
Nothing else is relevant.
Nothing else was implied.

Nothing else was implied except that the justification was viable that because of one unit all FW units should be banned.
Because someone stole at the market an apple we should now hack off the hands off his whole family. Same argumentation really and certainly not justifiable.
How about you ask why they were all of those, and then we put the blame down on which side fault it was ; either GW or FW

Because of Spam. Who allowed spam in the first days of 8th? Supreme Detachments, etc? GW
True, but the stats neither back up 40 pts nor the 80 pts now, now do they? --> the only spell consistently cast by malefics was smite. Heck the most chosen and casted spell in the whole game is smite. Now i ask you, who designed smite? GW.
FW made a datasheet for a medicore psyker at low costs. Acess to smite was given by GW to all psykers. I don't know but considering how much smite spamming is en vogue atm i'd wager a bet and put the blame there on GW. Granted the pts cost of Malefics was off with smite, should've been around 50.
Nobody is denieng the fact that Malefics were gamebreaking, but their circumstances were enabled by GW not FW.

Also a little side note, the lists that spammed malefics, were btw the same lists that spammed brimstone horrors, you know, the even more gamebreaking unit? Tell me who at the start of 8th thought it was a good idea to allow soup?
Who has designed Brimstones that way?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Nothing else was implied except that the justification was viable thatbecause of one unit all FW units should be banned.
Because someone stole at the market an apple we should now hack off the hands off his whole family. Same argumentation really and certainly not justifiable.
How about you ask why they were all of those, and then we put the blame down on which side fault itither GW or FW

I took the liberty of marking everything that is utter BS you made up in your mind and is no where found in any of my posts in yellow. Start fething reading the posts of people your are replying to.

Because of Spam. Who allowed spam in the first days of 8th? Supreme Detachments, etc? GW
True, but the stats neither back up 40 pts nor the 80 pts now, now do they? --> the only spell consistently cast by malefics was smite. Heck the most chosen and casted spell in the whole game is smite. Now i ask you, who designed smite? GW.
FW made a datasheet for a medicore psyker at low costs. Acess to smite was given by GW to all psykers. I don't know but considering how much smite spamming is en vogue atm i'd wager a bet and put the blame there on GW. Granted the pts cost of Malefics was off with smite, should've been around 50.

To summarize:
=> GW is to blame for everything but the point costs
=> FW made the point costs
=> Malefic lords would not have been broken at a higher point costs

Nobody is denieng the fact that Malefics were gamebreaking, but their circumstances were enabled by GW not FW.

Nobody, huh?

Also a little side note, the lists that spammed malefics, were btw the same lists that spammed brimstone horrors, you know, the even more gamebreaking unit? Tell me who at the start of 8th thought it was a good idea to allow soup?
Who has designed Brimstones that way?

FW designed malefic lords. They had full access to all of WH40k's rules at that time. They are to blame for malefic lords.
Stop trying to distract from this with strawmen.

FW is to blame for every single number and every single word written in their indexes. Just because GW sucks at balancing, FW is not excused from properly testing and balancing their units.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Nothing else was implied except that the justification was viable thatbecause of one unit all FW units should be banned.
Because someone stole at the market an apple we should now hack off the hands off his whole family. Same argumentation really and certainly not justifiable.
How about you ask why they were all of those, and then we put the blame down on which side fault itither GW or FW

I took the liberty of marking everything that is utter BS you made up in your mind and is no where found in any of my posts in yellow. Start fething reading the posts of people your are replying to.

Because of Spam. Who allowed spam in the first days of 8th? Supreme Detachments, etc? GW
True, but the stats neither back up 40 pts nor the 80 pts now, now do they? --> the only spell consistently cast by malefics was smite. Heck the most chosen and casted spell in the whole game is smite. Now i ask you, who designed smite? GW.
FW made a datasheet for a medicore psyker at low costs. Acess to smite was given by GW to all psykers. I don't know but considering how much smite spamming is en vogue atm i'd wager a bet and put the blame there on GW. Granted the pts cost of Malefics was off with smite, should've been around 50.

To summarize:
=> GW is to blame for everything but the point costs
=> FW made the point costs
=> Malefic lords would not have been broken at a higher point costs

Nobody is denieng the fact that Malefics were gamebreaking, but their circumstances were enabled by GW not FW.

Nobody, huh?

Spoiler:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Because the normal malefic lord was a problem right?
Smite has not anything to do with it right?
AM still can spam psykers of equal calibre so they are fine too, and the competitive smite spam DP lists are even better balanced right?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm not sure why they hate FW over the Malefic Lord. Now? Thousand Sons Daemon Princes + Ahriman supreme command is in every list, much like how Malefic Lord supreme command was in every list.
Custodes Bike Captains are as common as Malefic Lords, but no one is saying "ban codex: adeptus custodes."

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Malefic Lords were hardly the worst thing to face at the beginning of 8th.

Also a little side note, the lists that spammed malefics, were btw the same lists that spammed brimstone horrors, you know, the even more gamebreaking unit? Tell me who at the start of 8th thought it was a good idea to allow soup?
Who has designed Brimstones that way?

FW designed malefic lords. They had full access to all of WH40k's rules at that time. They are to blame for malefic lords.
Stop trying to distract from this with strawmen.

FW is to blame for every single number and every single word written in their indexes. Just because GW sucks at balancing, FW is not excused from properly testing and balancing their units.

If one reads your posts one can safely assume that you take said bs stance, but who am i to second guess your intentions, i can just go off the impression you gave me with your posts.
Pts cost is a problem which i conceded, but you not going in on a valid argument that smite itself is broken beyond reason is not my concern, infact calling me therefore a hypocrite or completly missintepreting posts like the one under the spoilers which mention equally broken miniatures or state that there were WORSE OFFENDERS of breaking the game, is as valid as it gets that is not a strawmen, that is not FW zealotry.
Also calling this argument of Brimstone Horrors a strawmen is about as hypocritical as it gets.
Even now the decisions with detachments can cause unbalanced situations, even now soup is favoring Imperium and Chaos factions, even now cheap smite spam is a problem.
The problem is not that that FW model was broken, the problem is that people argue because of one unit we should ban all and considering that you regard all pro FW sentiment as piling in of zealotry you will support that sentiment.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Oh, it's the thread about pro FW zealots piling on everyone who dares post anything but "all hail FW" again.

Because i can't seriously get another impression of that post.

No one is saying Malefic Lords were a well-balanced unit. We're just saying that banning all Forge World because of a small number of broken units (that have been fixed) is silly. By that same logic, ban Games Workshop units-they have even more broken stuff.

Jidmah's just using some deliberately misleading communication to trap people into statements that he can deliberately intemperate in a negative manner to support his claims. It's best to just not argue and ignore.

But.... But... Someone on the internet is WRONG!

 JNAProductions wrote:
But.... But... Someone on the internet is WRONG!

I almost posted Duty Calls along with it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Oh, it's the thread about pro FW zealots piling on everyone who dares post anything but "all hail FW" again.

Because i can't seriously get another impression of that post.

Ok, I'll make it simple for you:
I'm fully against denying anyone a game for fielding a model/unit just because its rules are drawn from the FW index instead of any other source.
I have stated this multiple times on multiple threads on this topic and it has never prevented any of the zealots acting like I want to murder baby seals when pointing out that half their pro-FW points are actually BS.
To me walking away from a FW model is just the same as walking away from a knight, from a daemon primarch, from spam lists or from grey knights. I also stated this multiple times.
Yet, the FW zealots are not satisfied unless you declare everyone who denies a FW player a game to be worse than Hitler. If you don't, suddenly you are worse than Hitler.

Any rational discussion in these threads is impossible, even if you put down a list of actual major feth-ups from FW, the people I call "zealots" will hand-wave those problems, put out strawmen(this time it's brimstones) and outright lie and post incorrect information just so their Emperor of Resinkind remains pure.

The entire problem with this topic is forgeworld's reputation. The zealots' solution to that problem is ignoring all problems that have lead to that reputation and fling poo at everyone who brings up those reasons.

I hate those zealots for how they act, not for their opinion.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Oh, it's the thread about pro FW zealots piling on everyone who dares post anything but "all hail FW" again.

Because i can't seriously get another impression of that post.

Ok, I'll make it simple for you:
I'm fully against denying anyone a game for fielding a model/unit just because its rules are drawn from the FW index instead of any other source.
I have stated this multiple times on multiple threads on this topic and it has never prevented any of the zealots acting like I want to murder baby seals when pointing out that half their pro-FW points are actually BS.
To me walking away from a FW model is just the same as walking away from a knight, from a daemon primarch, from spam lists or from grey knights. I also stated this multiple times.
Yet, the FW zealots are not satisfied unless you declare everyone who denies a FW player a game to be worse than Hitler. If you don't, suddenly you are worse than Hitler.

Any rational discussion in these threads is impossible, even if you put down a list of actual major feth-ups from FW, the people I call "zealots" will hand-wave those problems, put out strawmen(this time it's brimstones) and outright lie and post incorrect information just so their Emperor of Resinkind remains pure.

The entire problem with this topic is forgeworld's reputation. The zealots' solution to that problem is ignoring all problems that have lead to that reputation and fling poo at everyone who brings up those reasons.

I hate those zealots for how they act, not for their opinion.

That is understandable.
However my mainpoint still stands, that smite and the supreme detachment option are and were the main problem.
Simply put, the cheaper the psyker or better faction powers, the more it get's spammed, to be able to get spammed in the first place you will need acess to, atleast in the case of most psykers, HQ slots. There is a reason why CSM still uses a Supreme command detachment filled with Arihman and DP's with wings.
There is a reason why cheap psykers still get their pts in, which is not necessarily a bad thing, the main problem still lies however with smite itself and that the detachments at the beginning of 8th with no rule of 3 apllied allowed for Spammbuilds far beyond a healthy meta. That and faction Keyword soup certainly did not help at all. Simply put you can say it was a broken unit because it was undercosted and therefore say that FW have a reputation, but you can't deny that the same applies to virtually all of GW's Codex units that were/are must haves. That is also why a comparison or analogy with brimstones prenerf is valid point. They were equally in their problems they generated as in: Undercosted, smiting, too durable for the pts invested in them.
The whole notion that you can justify the mindset by pointing to one or two FW units and say it is a justifyable position, whilest you can't do the same for literally all GW mainline Codexes/Indexes is highly irrational and stupid. Because if we would follow the same standards equally applied to regular GW Codexes you would have to equally go around and banhammer whole factions of GW.
It is called a slippery-slope argument btw.