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.
bananathug wrote: Best custode list at LVO (the most competitive tournament period) was 5-1 (68th over all out of over 700 so top 10% army...) and was mostly that non-competitive troop choice.
I'll be honest, i gave up on them after the SM release.
This is an excellent point, i might have been a little overzealous in my defense of FW but my point still stands, you can't remove FW after ten years of being an integral part of both game systems.
Doesn't the placement and list of that player prove that FW is not integral to the game? It's just an add-on, ten times more so than any of the actual supplements at least. "So do you want free rules?" "Yes?" "Ok, here ya go!"
I promise you he didn't run a 100% codex army. He either had allied detachments or FW models. You can't play Custodies competitively without them.
I mean, i guess he could have used a Warden bomb, but damn i haven't seen that in years.
Edit: HOLY , HA, damn i really didn't think it was a Warden bomb. I stand corrected.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/05 01:03:44
Yoyoyo wrote: Regardless of optional, it is inarguable that a ruleset dispersed amongst 5-6 sources is incredibly sloppy design.
isnt this how most RPG books are? sure they are cheaper but there are a lot of them for the same system.
No. The vast majority of RPGs can be played entirely with 1 book.
Every other book is optional. DnDs Dungeon Masters Guide isn't needed to play. It's just extremely useful. The monster Manual isn't needed to play (you could just make up monsters stat blocks) it's just extremely useful. Every other book adds options (but generally speaking not power creep) and offers fluff or prebuilt adventures that you don't need to play the game and are just more sources to make the DMs life easier. Optional quality of life improvements.
1 book and some paper and pencils is all you need to play a RPG.
while true... i would say for a beginning DM would have the best experience with at least the monster manual, dungeon masters guide and players handbook. other books and addons being optional. pretty sure adventurer's leage advised gms to have all this as well.
on the 40k front though as the 40k core rules for 8th are literally on a free pamplet you could call that the "rules, get your army codex and ignore all the errata/ and changes and have a good game.
hell you could use the free/downloadable pamplet, an app like battlescribe, and still play a game.
Except not. Because while the codex provides the strategems specific to your army, the rules that govern their use and the 3 available to everyone are in the main rule book you have to pay for. The battle primer lets you "play" in the way that the DnD starter box has some pre generated characters. But its not the same as buying the Players Hand Book. To have JUST the PHB level of playability in 40k requires the 50.00 codex and the 70.00 BRB. Which again, doesn't actually get you the up to date rules. You then need Psychic awakening for your army because those are the latest rules and datasheets. And the FAQ Erratas.
Not only that, but the Starterbox for DnD has class options for leveling up, loot tables, and all the rules to run a game. The battle primer has nothing about terrain, nothing about battle forging armies or detachments, etc etc... The 50.00 starter box for DnD is a far more complete experience than the battle primer and codex is for the same price. While the PHB costs as much as the starter box and is again, the ENTIRE GAME for less than half the cost of the BRB and codex. We haven't even purchased a model yet btw.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
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.
FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
FW units should have a place in casual 40k and not be entirely rubbish. But with how the game stacks rules its always possible for a few units to jump over to competitive scene.
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Why?
Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative so from a financial point of view it also makes sense to make the OG units better and playable. Cue Chaplain dreads.
Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K. Personally I dont think so. But I love seeing them in "casual" 40k games because they are awesome models.
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Why?
Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
The price difference between FW stuff and main studio stuff is not what it once was, in fact for many models they're pretty much on par (particularly stuff like infantry characters) and a lot of stuff isn't too far off.
Pricing also shouldn't have anything to do with it, competitive 40k doesn't pay attention to that factor anywhere else (e.g. the expense of an Ork or Guard or Tyranid horde vs elite SM or Knight armies). Likewise, the internet is a thing and most people are buying their stuff online anyway, unless you're one of the tiny minority of people that can only purchase though a local store, it shouldn't make a difference. It's also not like the main studio line doesn't have its own "web exclusives" from time to time that can only be bought online.
Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K. Personally I dont think so.
How is that different than Knights and Baneblades?
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Why?
Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative so from a financial point of view it also makes sense to make the OG units better and playable. Cue Chaplain dreads.
Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K. Personally I dont think so. But I love seeing them in "casual" 40k games because they are awesome models.
There are plenty of comparative units from forgeworld that cost lest less money than codex units. They are working on moving out of print stuff to legends I bet once the new rules for forgeworld come out you will see a lot of oop stuff go to legends. So what if the units are that obscene from their codex then thats ok? Queue triple riptide since I don't think a Taunar list has won any major events.
Smirrors wrote: Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
All units should be competitive. And the type of people who play 40K competitively have not shown an inability to obtain FW units, so I would hardly call them "harder to access". And as for price? Oh please. There are things that FW sell that are cheaper than regular GW plastic releases. Maybe 10 years ago (or more) that was a relevant criticism.
Smirrors wrote: GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative...
So what? I don't see how that's relevant to allowing FW units or not.
Smirrors wrote: Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K.
Are they though? Besides, and as much as it sounds like I am splitting hairs here I will say it, there's no such thing as "competitive 40K". There are people who play 40K competitively, but there is no separate sub-set of 40K that is "competitive 40K".
Forge World units are hardly anything special, and the idea that they should be banned because some people don't have access to them is ludicrous. Doubly so when GW themselves are writing all their rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/05 02:13:43
There are plenty of comparative units from forgeworld that cost lest less money than codex units. They are working on moving out of print stuff to legends I bet once the new rules for forgeworld come out you will see a lot of oop stuff go to legends. So what if the units are that obscene from their codex then thats ok? Queue triple riptide since I don't think a Taunar list has won any major events.
Can you provide samples? For Australians, everything forgeworld equivalent you can compare is 50% more or 100% the price. And fact is most "comparative" units dont exist nor do they even have comparative plastics. You can't get plastic Leviathans for example.
You think riptides are obscene...yeah ok you have no idea then.
Smirrors wrote: Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
All units should be competitive. And the type of people who play 40K competitively have not shown an inability to obtain FW units, so I would hardly call them "harder to access". And as for price? Oh please. There are things that FW sell that are cheaper than regular GW plastic releases. Maybe 10 years ago (or more) that was a relevant criticism.
Smirrors wrote: GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative...
So what? I don't see how that's relevant to allowing FW units or not.
Smirrors wrote: Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K.
Are they though? Besides, and as much as it sounds like I am splitting hairs here I will say it, there's no such thing as "competitive 40K". There are people who play 40K competitively, but there is no separate sub-set of 40K that is "competitive 40K".
Forge World units are hardly anything special, and the idea that they should be banned because some people don't have access to them is ludicrous. Doubly so when GW themselves are writing all their rules.
All units that are readily available as part of GW retail line should be competitive. Stuff that doesn't exist anymore or is made to order should be playable but not top of the pile.
Who said anything about banning FW. People who want to bring FW models should be doing so because they want to. But chasing the meta should not involve buying FW and buying models that are no longer available. It makes sense from a competitive standpoint and a business standpoint. People who are buying titans and fw flyers aren't doing so to chase the meta.
You missed the point. The Astraeus or Taunar should never be in the realms of top competitive choices is the point. As random gate keeper units sure. The chaplain dread should not be a top choice as it is now, but I also disagree with legending a completely cool model. Thats worse. Rebalance the points to make it inefficient or make it targetable by having more wounds.
A good example is the Porphyrion, it was nerfed to not be a competitive choice. But if a player loves the model enough they can definitely use it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/05 02:52:34
There are plenty of comparative units from forgeworld that cost lest less money than codex units. They are working on moving out of print stuff to legends I bet once the new rules for forgeworld come out you will see a lot of oop stuff go to legends. So what if the units are that obscene from their codex then thats ok? Queue triple riptide since I don't think a Taunar list has won any major events.
Can you provide samples? For Australians, everything forgeworld equivalent you can compare is 50% more or 100% the price. And fact is most "comparative" units dont exist nor do they even have comparative plastics. You can't get plastic Leviathans for example.
You think riptides are obscene...yeah ok you have no idea then.
Smirrors wrote: Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
All units should be competitive. And the type of people who play 40K competitively have not shown an inability to obtain FW units, so I would hardly call them "harder to access". And as for price? Oh please. There are things that FW sell that are cheaper than regular GW plastic releases. Maybe 10 years ago (or more) that was a relevant criticism.
Smirrors wrote: GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative...
So what? I don't see how that's relevant to allowing FW units or not.
Smirrors wrote: Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K.
Are they though? Besides, and as much as it sounds like I am splitting hairs here I will say it, there's no such thing as "competitive 40K". There are people who play 40K competitively, but there is no separate sub-set of 40K that is "competitive 40K".
Forge World units are hardly anything special, and the idea that they should be banned because some people don't have access to them is ludicrous. Doubly so when GW themselves are writing all their rules.
All units that are readily available as part of GW retail line should be competitive. Stuff that doesn't exist anymore or is made to order should be playable but not top of the pile.
Who said anything about banning FW. People who want to bring FW models should be doing so because they want to. But chasing the meta should not involve buying FW and buying models that are no longer available. It makes sense from a competitive standpoint and a business standpoint. People who are buying titans and fw flyers aren't doing so to chase the meta.
You missed the point. The Astraeus or Taunar should never be in the realms of top competitive choices is the point. As random gate keeper units sure. The chaplain dread should not be a top choice as it is now, but I also disagree with legending a completely cool model. Thats worse. Rebalance the points to make it inefficient or make it targetable by having more wounds.
A good example is the Porphyrion, it was nerfed to not be a competitive choice. But if a player loves the model enough they can definitely use it.
Sorry, but limiting the use of anything because of its Australian price is ridiculous. Australia is an extreme outlier when it comes to gw's prices.
And what you're not getting is that nerfing a model for competitive play also nerfs it for casual. We use the same codexes, brb, errata, and ca for both. Make a unit bad for competitive and you make it bad for casual games as well.
You think riptides are obscene...yeah ok you have no idea then.
I mean every competitive Tau list that I see that actually win events have riptides. I did a quick google search for Tau gt wins and all I saw was Riptides and drones. There was one list that had 8 piranhas which was neat still had a riptide though. I didn't see a Taunar lists win an event. Seen them definitely be gatekeeper lists for sure but never taking the top spots. Not to say that they can't I'm just not seeing the evidence to support your argument that the taunar is better than riptides.
I am one of the honest few. Lots of folk buy FW for the awesome models and the fluff. I bought my triple deredeo and a leviathan and now a contemptor to run with my Deathguard purely for the rules to give my force a strength bump. There are loads of people like me they just can't admit it.
Oh, I'll admit to buying & playing things for the power/rules (I don't really care about the fluff). But I have to ALSO like the model.
Because if I don't like model? Then it doesn't matter what it's rules advantages are, I won't buy it. (though I might use it if I can find an acceptable substitute or scratch build/convert my own)
Upon returning to 40k in late '18 & seeing the Deredeo? I asked one question: "Is that thing legal in a 40k army?" A: "Yes." Reply: "Add to cart."
If our Deredeos go to gak will you still field yours?
I will, how about you?
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Oh i miss meant what I was writing. You get the gist of it. Bring FW because you like them, not because you are chasing the meta.
No. Fw models should not be op. No unit should. But they should be just as competitive as any other unit. No one should be penalized for playing models they like. That goes against the entire point of the hobby.
Sorry, but limiting the use of anything because of its Australian price is ridiculous. Australia is an extreme outlier when it comes to gw's prices.
And what you're not getting is that nerfing a model for competitive play also nerfs it for casual. We use the same codexes, brb, errata, and ca for both. Make a unit bad for competitive and you make it bad for casual games as well.
Ok I assume your US so heres a somewhat random comparison of models that have a remotely close example:
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Oh i miss meant what I was writing. You get the gist of it. Bring FW because you like them, not because you are chasing the meta.
No. Fw models should not be op. No unit should. But they should be just as competitive as any other unit. No one should be penalized for playing models they like. That goes against the entire point of the hobby.
If a model is OP or super efficient, it should not be a FW model is what I am getting at. And I believe GW is on the same page with that. In some respects this will lead to units being put in Legends (which plenty people are calling for) which i disagree with.
For example the Deathguard player should not have to buy forgeworld models to make his army competitive.
The guys that won LVO and Cancon should not have a forgeworld Leviathan and Chaplain dreads form the crux of their lists.
Of the forgeworld models that made it into LVO and Cancon lists, how many of them were legit? I think fewer than 10% and that is being generous. GW knows this too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/05 04:07:24
Sorry, but limiting the use of anything because of its Australian price is ridiculous. Australia is an extreme outlier when it comes to gw's prices.
And what you're not getting is that nerfing a model for competitive play also nerfs it for casual. We use the same codexes, brb, errata, and ca for both. Make a unit bad for competitive and you make it bad for casual games as well.
Ok I assume your US so heres a somewhat random comparison of models that have a remotely close example:
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Oh i miss meant what I was writing. You get the gist of it. Bring FW because you like them, not because you are chasing the meta.
No. Fw models should not be op. No unit should. But they should be just as competitive as any other unit. No one should be penalized for playing models they like. That goes against the entire point of the hobby.
If a model is OP or super efficient, it should not be a FW model is what I am getting at. And I believe GW is on the same page with that. In some respects this will lead to units being put in Legends (which plenty people are calling for) which i disagree with.
For example the Deathguard player should not have to buy forgeworld models to make his army competitive.
The guys that won LVO and Cancon should not have a forgeworld Leviathan and Chaplain dreads form the crux of their lists.
Of the forgeworld models that made it into LVO and Cancon lists, how many of them were legit? I think fewer than 10% and that is being generous. GW knows this too.
So you're arguing that fw should be inferior due to price? By that logic shouldn't tac marines be superior to primaris? Shouldn't big models like knights be less efficient than infantry?
Sorry, but limiting the use of anything because of its Australian price is ridiculous. Australia is an extreme outlier when it comes to gw's prices.
And what you're not getting is that nerfing a model for competitive play also nerfs it for casual. We use the same codexes, brb, errata, and ca for both. Make a unit bad for competitive and you make it bad for casual games as well.
Ok I assume your US so heres a somewhat random comparison of models that have a remotely close example:
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Oh i miss meant what I was writing. You get the gist of it. Bring FW because you like them, not because you are chasing the meta.
No. Fw models should not be op. No unit should. But they should be just as competitive as any other unit. No one should be penalized for playing models they like. That goes against the entire point of the hobby.
If a model is OP or super efficient, it should not be a FW model is what I am getting at. And I believe GW is on the same page with that. In some respects this will lead to units being put in Legends (which plenty people are calling for) which i disagree with.
For example the Deathguard player should not have to buy forgeworld models to make his army competitive.
The guys that won LVO and Cancon should not have a forgeworld Leviathan and Chaplain dreads form the crux of their lists.
Of the forgeworld models that made it into LVO and Cancon lists, how many of them were legit? I think fewer than 10% and that is being generous. GW knows this too.
So you're arguing that fw should be inferior due to price? By that logic shouldn't tac marines be superior to primaris? Shouldn't big models like knights be less efficient than infantry?
If this was the case Blood Knights wouldn't still be a thing.FW and GW shouldn't be more or less powerful than each other, and that's why they are bringing the rules all under one house now.
Sorry, but limiting the use of anything because of its Australian price is ridiculous. Australia is an extreme outlier when it comes to gw's prices.
And what you're not getting is that nerfing a model for competitive play also nerfs it for casual. We use the same codexes, brb, errata, and ca for both. Make a unit bad for competitive and you make it bad for casual games as well.
Ok I assume your US so heres a somewhat random comparison of models that have a remotely close example:
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Oh i miss meant what I was writing. You get the gist of it. Bring FW because you like them, not because you are chasing the meta.
No. Fw models should not be op. No unit should. But they should be just as competitive as any other unit. No one should be penalized for playing models they like. That goes against the entire point of the hobby.
If a model is OP or super efficient, it should not be a FW model is what I am getting at. And I believe GW is on the same page with that. In some respects this will lead to units being put in Legends (which plenty people are calling for) which i disagree with.
For example the Deathguard player should not have to buy forgeworld models to make his army competitive.
The guys that won LVO and Cancon should not have a forgeworld Leviathan and Chaplain dreads form the crux of their lists.
Of the forgeworld models that made it into LVO and Cancon lists, how many of them were legit? I think fewer than 10% and that is being generous. GW knows this too.
So you're arguing that fw should be inferior due to price? By that logic shouldn't tac marines be superior to primaris? Shouldn't big models like knights be less efficient than infantry?
No I am arguing that FW should be on par or inferior due to availability and price. FW was always a side project, never the main course.
Interestingly you just ignored the price discrepancy. Still waiting for Salty to say that FW is cheaper than GW
We can agree to disagree.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/05 05:13:21
There's no point in arguing with you smirrors, because you have no point, just envy.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
Is it me or can your entire response to pretty much any criticism of FW units be summed up as 'no, you're wrong and I'm right'?
There are tons of examples of janky FW units. Not necessarily OP, just odd. Often using mechanics no other unit in the game uses or having really outdated datasheets that make them work differently to other, very similar units.
It is this jankiness that causes the OP interactions to occur, quite often.
The Levi Dread is absolutely OP, it is too points efficient. IH simply magnify that twofold and nullify any potential weaknesses.
Finally - this isn't 'outrage'. I'm not sure what led you to believe such. It just looks really poor on GW to have these weird, separate units that act differently to their plastic counterparts in a very unintuitive way.
vict0988 wrote: 7th had Skatach Wraithknights. Generally, FW was a non-factor because of bad integration with the Detachment system which dominated 7th. It'd be like if FW not only didn't benefit from all the IH buffs, but cancelled them in any Detachment they were in.
8.16 had Big Bird and Malefic Lords.
8.17 had CSM and SM Fire Raptor.
8.18 had Custodes vehicles and butcher cannon Dreads.
8.19 has Leviathan.
Those are the truly gross units, then we have units like the Tyranid -1 to hit HQ, AM Vulture Gunships and the Necron Gauss Pylon that while not directly gross were some of the very best units for their respective factions. I think it's to some degree fair to be outraged when FW is the most competitive option for a faction, generally, FW is pretty weak though. In 6th the idea that FW was OP was still widespread enough that I think it was banned at many tournaments.
Skatach Wraithknights were no more an offender than the regular ones. Imagine saying a unit is broken for being based on a broken unit to begin with! Also Butcher Cannons and the Custodes vehicles were not broken to begin with and merely things holding up armies that were poor to begin with. THEN you're making claim the Leviathan is broken when nothing happened until Iron Hands appeared.
So no, that outrage is illogical and should be pointed out as such.
Skatach WK was arguably the single best unit in 7th, making an even more op version of an op unit is silly. Leviathan is broken now, I don't care why. I do not believe I am contributing to any outrage, if anything my comment dispels it. The list of Citadel cheese would be much longer.
Except the Leviathan isn't OP. It's Iron Hands that are OP. Hell, Iron Hands aren't even always taking the Leviathan and Chap Dreads!
Is it me or can your entire response to pretty much any criticism of FW units be summed up as 'no, you're wrong and I'm right'?
There are tons of examples of janky FW units. Not necessarily OP, just odd. Often using mechanics no other unit in the game uses or having really outdated datasheets that make them work differently to other, very similar units.
It is this jankiness that causes the OP interactions to occur, quite often.
The Levi Dread is absolutely OP, it is too points efficient. IH simply magnify that twofold and nullify any potential weaknesses.
Finally - this isn't 'outrage'. I'm not sure what led you to believe such. It just looks really poor on GW to have these weird, separate units that act differently to their plastic counterparts in a very unintuitive way.
Complaining about rules jankyness from an ork, a codex more often then not was sumarisable with the word itself ruleswise is an issue to you?
Irony thine name is AAE.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/05 10:23:28
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Smirrors wrote: FW units should not be for competitive 40k period.
Why?
Competitive units should form part of the core codex with readily available models, not ones exclusively from FW which are overpriced and harder to access for many people.
GW should know that a lot of people aren't buying from FW themselves and sourcing alternative so from a financial point of view it also makes sense to make the OG units better and playable. Cue Chaplain dreads.
Should models like the Astraeus and Taunar really be scene in competitive 40K. Personally I dont think so. But I love seeing them in "casual" 40k games because they are awesome models.
What a ridiculous statement to make.
Chapter supplements, Psychic Awakening, etc are not part of a core codex. Should they be banned too?
Should models like Castellans and Baneblades really be seen in competitive 40k? Your entire viewpoint is complete rubbish, as I've just illustrated, and I suspect your budgetary limitations and jealousy might be the reason for it.
Forgeworld is an OFFICIALGW product, and one that is most commonly purchased by the most dedicated hobbyists, collectors and players.
Orodhen wrote: So the Leviathan being OP in one edge case is reason enough to nerf (or ban) the entire datasheet? Sounds legit... /s
It's under-costed to start with, but blatantly overpowered in an edge case, so yes.
Another silly idea. The model is not too cheap at all, but it is certainty too good with specific chapter and stratagem combinations.
It needs a keyword change, and nothing more.
The sheer amount of ignorance in this topic is staggering. Most FW units require a substantial cost reduction in combination with rule improvements. Some are too good. That's the same issue as the rest of the GW plastic range.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/02/05 14:12:11
-~Ishagu~-
2020/02/05 14:24:52
Subject: Re:GW plans to rebalance all of FW's rules
, HA, damn i really didn't think it was a 
| 
| 
Krieg | 
| Blackshields 
