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.

I think have seen some debate on here about how readily non GW rules and models, such as all the big tanks etc that forgeworld make, will be accepted into a 40K game.

In the 40K app all these rules are provided next to each other providing a sense of equal legitimacy to me. So if i showed up with a tiger shark ax10 or a contemptor Achillus dreadnought and said “look it’s in the rules” how would you react?

What sense of inequality does that bring? I don’t think there’s an equal inflation of rules and options for all armies across the forgeworld stuff and indexes.

Seeing they have been valid all the time...no difference to past.

I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. If your list were horrible as a potential opponent (in my estimation) I might decline to play, but the presence of Forgeworld stuff wouldn't be a determining factor.

Some tournaments still seem to ban Forgeworld stuff out of hand.

Putting them in the app is great for giving access to players, but if they lose that access with book releases.

I think it will just be the same as before, foreign and annoying to get access to at times.
Particularly with things that come out and have weird effects in the game.

Battlescribe has the rules for Forgeworld units, in case you forget your book.

The times were Forgeworld was something special are over since... I don't know, when I started in 6th edition Forgeworld was already a proper part of the system.

Call me pedantic, but I just want to point out that Forge World IS GW, and the rules for FW minis are written by the main GW rules team.

There was a time when FW rules could be considered 'experimental' and justifiably barred from tournament use, but they've never been non-GW, and nowadays they're just part of the game.

It's apparently taken GW a long, long time to realize hey, people might buy more of our absurdly expensive resin kits if they had proper, official rules support.

One would think that would be how they look at it, but they consistently seem to try to discourage certain fw units from being played. A Fellblade is, essentially, a tougher Baneblade with better shooting and a different weapons loadout. Yet since ca 2018 gw has priced it and the other fw super heavys out of usefulness. There is no logical, defensible explanation why a Fellblade should be 330 ppm more than a two sponson Baneblade. It seems gw just doesn't want these units played for whatever reason.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
One would think that would be how they look at it, but they consistently seem to try to discourage certain fw units from being played. A Fellblade is, essentially, a tougher Baneblade with better shooting and a different weapons loadout. Yet since ca 2018 gw has priced it and the other fw super heavys out of usefulness. There is no logical, defensible explanation why a Fellblade should be 330 ppm more than a two sponson Baneblade. It seems gw just doesn't want these units played for whatever reason.

It's because of balance. The game has been far, far more balanced ever since those dastardly forge world models were priced out of usefulness.

(the above is sarcasm, do please try to read it with a discerning sense of humor)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
One would think that would be how they look at it, but they consistently seem to try to discourage certain fw units from being played. A Fellblade is, essentially, a tougher Baneblade with better shooting and a different weapons loadout. Yet since ca 2018 gw has priced it and the other fw super heavys out of usefulness. There is no logical, defensible explanation why a Fellblade should be 330 ppm more than a two sponson Baneblade. It seems gw just doesn't want these units played for whatever reason.

It's because of balance. The game has been far, far more balanced ever since those dastardly forge world models were priced out of usefulness.

(the above is sarcasm, do please try to read it with a discerning sense of humor)

Duly noted. You're a Chaos Daemons player right? Don't you just love those wonderful "fluffy" prices gw gave all the big fw daemons? Such brilliant balance!

I do play Chaos Daemons, and it is totally justified* that Zarakynel costs nearly twice as much as a Knight Gallant** despite not having as good rules.***

*hahaha 666 points, that's almost as funny as the person who says "you should be happy, khorne cares not from where the blood flows!" to a WE player they just trivially tabled.

**666 pts vs like 354, back in the day. Zarakynel is psychic, but the knight is better in combat, the same speed, has better stratagem support, better rules (e.g. stepping over infantry)... basically the works.

***wouldn't want big daemons to go toe-to-toe with knights, everyone knows that a relatively rare Imperial walker is stronger than the greatest arch-daemons the Warp has ever seen except the Gods themselves of course.

Honestly these days FW units are more of a handicap than not, independent of how they're priced, because of how much the game has become about the stratagem combos that are entirely written around the Codexes and ignore the FW stuff. I think it's telling that the FW units that have made the most waves in the meta in 8e are loyalist Dreadnaughts, which get a bunch of stratagems by virtue of having the Dreadnaught keyword (since there are so many Dreadnaught datasheets in the Codex that GW didn't lock all the FW Dreadnaughts out of the stratagems by saying "oh, Dreadnaught here refers to a datasheet name, not a keyword" the way they did to Chaos Helbrutes).

FW has always been part of GW.
So it makes no difference if it's the FW team writing the rules or now the main 40k team.

I have never had any issues with FW stuff. You got it? Good for you. Bring it, play it, enjoy it.
Nor am I at all worried about any sort of equality between how many FW options exist between armies.

Three years ago those shockingly-written FW Indexes launched, full of woefully underpowered and overcosted models, plus the odd gem. Some people just love to play gatekeeper, and hating on FW as a whole gives them something to do. The most OP stuff right now is largely GW, so “FW=broken” is simply edition lag of the worst order.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Three years ago those shockingly-written FW Indexes launched, full of woefully underpowered and overcosted models, plus the odd gem. Some people just love to play gatekeeper, and hating on FW as a whole gives them something to do. The most OP stuff right now is largely GW, so “FW=broken” is simply edition lag of the worst order.

Honest question , when was the last time fw broke something so abismally that it was reasonable to gatekeep? 4th Edition maybee?
But we also had other great gw breaking issues aswell , Like , lash of Submission, one of the most devastating psy powers to EVER exist.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Three years ago those shockingly-written FW Indexes launched, full of woefully underpowered and overcosted models, plus the odd gem. Some people just love to play gatekeeper, and hating on FW as a whole gives them something to do. The most OP stuff right now is largely GW, so “FW=broken” is simply edition lag of the worst order.

Were the communication channels better at GW HQ, FW might've had longer to work on the books, and therefore produced fewer broken entries.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Three years ago those shockingly-written FW Indexes launched, full of woefully underpowered and overcosted models, plus the odd gem. Some people just love to play gatekeeper, and hating on FW as a whole gives them something to do. The most OP stuff right now is largely GW, so “FW=broken” is simply edition lag of the worst order.

The infuriating thing is that gw took some of those already overcosted units and made them even more overcosted in ca 2018, and have just stuck with those inflated prices ever since, because "reasons".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I do play Chaos Daemons, and it is totally justified* that Zarakynel costs nearly twice as much as a Knight Gallant** despite not having as good rules.***

*hahaha 666 points, that's almost as funny as the person who says "you should be happy, khorne cares not from where the blood flows!" to a WE player they just trivially tabled.

**666 pts vs like 354, back in the day. Zarakynel is psychic, but the knight is better in combat, the same speed, has better stratagem support, better rules (e.g. stepping over infantry)... basically the works.

***wouldn't want big daemons to go toe-to-toe with knights, everyone knows that a relatively rare Imperial walker is stronger than the greatest arch-daemons the Warp has ever seen except the Gods themselves of course.

Its such a shame, Zarakynel was playable at 300-400 points wherever she was at, she hit that strength 8 margin where the keeper was S7 unless they took the relic sword, and the fallback/charge and being able to take whatever warlord trait you wanted etc etc. but then meme points and then the keepers got their rework.... if only forgeworld rolled some of those changes over to big Z and made her worth those 666 points... I do miss using her.... But for god sakes let her get free attacks with her claws like the other keepers.

 Dysartes wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Three years ago those shockingly-written FW Indexes launched, full of woefully underpowered and overcosted models, plus the odd gem. Some people just love to play gatekeeper, and hating on FW as a whole gives them something to do. The most OP stuff right now is largely GW, so “FW=broken” is simply edition lag of the worst order.

Were the communication channels better at GW HQ, FW might've had longer to work on the books, and therefore produced fewer broken entries.

It’s pretty much the opposite. If they’d had more time they’d have produced more units worth taking. Not much that’s broken these days as they nerfed a load of stuff into oblivion early on or changed core rules (cf Malefic Psykers). Most of the stuff that became OP for a time was due to GW forgetting the IA Indexes existed when writing 8th Codexes, but that’s on main studio not FW. FW wrote the IA Indexes in a lunch break and it shows as most stuff is pretty bland or bad. The changes in 9th core rules will hopefully nudge some of my models into relevance again.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Three years ago those shockingly-written FW Indexes launched, full of woefully underpowered and overcosted models, plus the odd gem. Some people just love to play gatekeeper, and hating on FW as a whole gives them something to do. The most OP stuff right now is largely GW, so “FW=broken” is simply edition lag of the worst order.

Were the communication channels better at GW HQ, FW might've had longer to work on the books, and therefore produced fewer broken entries.

It’s pretty much the opposite. If they’d had more time they’d have produced more units worth taking. Not much that’s broken these days as they nerfed a load of stuff into oblivion early on or changed core rules (cf Malefic Psykers). Most of the stuff that became OP for a time was due to GW forgetting the IA Indexes existed when writing 8th Codexes, but that’s on main studio not FW. FW wrote the IA Indexes in a lunch break and it shows as most stuff is pretty bland or bad. The changes in 9th core rules will hopefully nudge some of my models into relevance again.

Broken applies to "woefully underpowered" as much as it does stupidly overpowered.

Eh, on Dakka ‘broken’ means ‘way too good’ generally, so I hope you can understand my confusion about your post. I don’t disagree actually giving them more than one lunch break to write three Indexes in would have yielded better results!

Never had any issues with FW stuff being used anyway, so no change for me.

You still get the few diehard “FW is different” people floating about, but they are less common now.

As a tyranid player, taking my FW stuff basically handicaps me anyway.
My choices range from mediocre at best to absolutely terrible.

Kind of sucks spending 2 weeks drilling, cutting and pinning heirophant legs and then sculpting back the detail Just to have it gather dust on shelves.

Hrm, personally the core vehicle rules and Hull Points alone would keep me from ever going back to 6E/7E again regardless of codex issues for my own part. That era had a lot of problems aside from just codex ones, Jink being another that comes to mind. FW made a lot of cool and interesting content in the 6E/7E years, but oh man were the core rules silly, and that really kept me from looking further into HH stuff.

Ditto. To each his own - I certainly don't judge anyone for preferring one rule set over another (You're having fun wrong! lol), but I do think it's telling that whenever someone says "Actually, 7th wasn't that bad ..." it's almost always followed by something akin to "...if you just don't allow most of the codexes, all of the formations, house rule these 8 parts of the rulebook, eliminate these psychic powers, consolidate the first 4 pages of USRs, tweak how vehicles work, and adjust the missions, then BOOM! Pretty much a solid game!"

Too much work for me. Most of the people I know who "play 7th" don't REALLY play 7th. It ends up being more like a 5.5 edition.

That said, I am curious to see if FW actually truly gets rolled into 9th or just finally axed completely. I've been waiting very patiently for an update to my Red Hunters for ages. Time will tell I suppose, but I'm pretty skeptical because it really seems like GW has their hands full with the rushed launch of 9th, and a lot of those FW rules are going to require significantly more work than just minor tweaks.

FW is solely responsible for 30k, and did all the work of fixing the 7th edition rulebook for you already.

1) 30k doesn't use the codexes
2) 30k doesn't use the formations
3) The rulebook has already changed in a few ways (e.g. superheavy flyers can Jink)
4) Invisibility was replaced
5) USRs aren't consolidated but some are addressed (e.g. Missile Lock, which did nothing from GW throughout 7th but was changed to do a lot more for FW) and worded more clearly (the difference between Sunder and Tank Hunters is obvious)
6) Vehicles work the same, I'll grant, but I didn't have that much of a problem in the first place.
7) Missions for 30k are totally different (woo war of lies!)

Bam, a 7th edition 'Oldhammer' straight from FW that's had all the fine-tuning applied in advance that you don't have to add.