PDA

View Full Version : Forgeworld Units vs GW Units -> totally out of synch or do they fit? Outbalanced?



IcedCrow
06-11-2013, 17:24
This thread is about the concept of FW units vs GW Units and the claim that Forgeworld units are more out of balance than their GW counterparts, and how FW units are completely out of synch with the game.

Instead of derailing other topics with this I went with creating a new thread that can be used to totally discuss this mindset.

This is not a thread to discuss FW being legal or not legal or official or whatever. Those are other threads. This thread is for discussing just how exactly FW units break the game or are out of balance more so than GW units are and/or how FW units simply "do not fit" as others have claimed.

I am interested greatly in hearing this one laid out.

Hendarion
06-11-2013, 17:26
Oh not yet another topic of that kind.

PS: Compared to the Revenant or Phantom, most other Eldar Super Heavies are rather meh comparing their abilities to their costs. Personal opinion.

IcedCrow
06-11-2013, 17:27
The other topics weren't discussing just how they were out of synch. T hey discuss the legality of FW units being "official". To discuss why they are out of balance / power with each other would be to derail the topic of FW being legal / not legal.

This is an entirely different topic.

BrainFireBob
06-11-2013, 17:34
Recently (most of the last decade), they're fine.

There was a period when FW first started doing their own stuff heavily- pre-Vraks, so what, 2004?- that FW did a horrible job under-costing and over-costing things, so FW units were either useless or overpowered, pretty much guaranteed.

Their "beta" versions- the "Experimental Stamp" rules of today- still show that trend. The R'varna is horrid. It's also not usable without permission as part of its rules. The version that gets the approved stamp will, no doubt, be either appropriately costed or slightly undercosted for what it does.

The main thing with FW, is that they fill "gaps" in the main line. AA defense batteries and additional flyers, when the flyer rules were released. That is their game-value today.

I think most of the hate is legacy hate. Gingerwerewolf is a vocal opponent of them in the legality thread. He also mentioned "when I used to play" and then alludes to returning to the game after a gap of years. I don't think he's that familiar with "current" FW.

It's like the guys who go on about how awesome 2nd Ed was, and how superior to the current game- and haven't played since late 3rd. They formed set opinions of things that are dynamic and fluid. Things have evolved since then, and frankly, the judgments are based on things that have changed.

My 2 cents.

Navar
06-11-2013, 17:35
I agree this is an interesting topic. I don't have much to add though because I fully support the inclusion of Forge World products in every game.

IcedCrow
06-11-2013, 17:36
That's a good point. Obviously trying to say they were horrible 10 years ago is not a good reason to not use them today. The eldar in the past were also hideously broken but that codex is irrelevant today.

Camman1984
06-11-2013, 17:43
Their experimental rules are often broken on order to sell the minis but the proper released rules arent too bad. There are always going to be broken units, but for every dreadnaught drop pod in fw, there is a helldrake in gw. They also have plenty of rubbish units that have little point other than for collectors etc.

Barring the new riptide their recent stuff overall has been quite balanced and i am finding people are much more accepting of it. The badab stuff in particular i think is great.

Russell's teapot
06-11-2013, 17:43
They are still rubbish.

Sabre weapons platforms - why use heavy weapons squads when these are better and cheaper?

I'm sure that there's a load of overcosted stuff too, but that doesn't really interest me.

Vaktathi
06-11-2013, 17:47
Leaving aside the Superheavies, which are a horrid mess once you start getting larger than Stompas and Baneblades, honestly I can't say I've ever found FW units to be more "powerful" on average or less balanced than codex counterparts on the whole. Yes there have been a couple exceptions, but usually there are more mainline units that present greater balance issues than FW stuff.

Most of the time the poor balance perceptions come from one of three things:

1: Experimental rules, self-explanatory.

2: No rules on hand, people showing up with a model or a proxy and saying "yeah it totally does X" when it reality it does not. This really is the greatest nemesis and something I see all the time.

3: Wrong rules, either people using old rules, or using them inappropriately such as using units/rules for an FW list in a Codex list (i.e. trying to use DKoK Death Rider rules in a standard Codex list in place of Rough Riders).

A fourth thing is that people often make comparisons between decent FW units and poor codex equivalents and infer there's a balance issue. Just because one FW unit is better than a codex alternative does not mean there's an issue with the FW unit, quite often the problem is with the codex unit not being up to snuff.

daveNYC
06-11-2013, 17:47
Most fit. The ones I don't like are the tailored units, units designed to specifically counter another army (or armies) just as surely as an army list can be tailored against specific opponents. Land Raider Achilles and it's ignoring the Lance rule and the R'varna and it's pie plates that increase in strength and number of hits as the target gets bigger.

They may or may not be balanced via points, but their rules are just so blatantly trying to stick it to certain factions that I find them distasteful. Although the fact that statistically a Achilles could weather the fire of three Ravagers for an entire game and still not die is troll-tastic.

Camman1984
06-11-2013, 18:01
I wonder if rough riders and ogryns ever look up into the air at the vendettas flying overhead and think, "i'm glad there is no forgeworld here to screw up balance"

Lord Damocles
06-11-2013, 18:38
I wonder if rough riders and ogryns ever look up into the air at the vendettas flying overhead and think, "i'm glad there is no forgeworld here to screw up balance"
Rough Riders are too busy giving Death Riders the evil eye.

BrainFireBob
06-11-2013, 18:55
They are still rubbish.

Sabre weapons platforms - why use heavy weapons squads when these are better and cheaper?

I'm sure that there's a load of overcosted stuff too, but that doesn't really interest me.

Profile is a bit different. Largely, though, that's a matter of the core rules having changed since Saber Weapon Platforms were invented. It's blaming FW for an edition change.

Navar
06-11-2013, 19:26
They are still rubbish.

Sabre weapons platforms - why use heavy weapons squads when these are better and cheaper?

I'm sure that there's a load of overcosted stuff too, but that doesn't really interest me.


Profile is a bit different. Largely, though, that's a matter of the core rules having changed since Saber Weapon Platforms were invented. It's blaming FW for an edition change.

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it appears that Sabre weapon platforms cost MORE than the weapon teams. (Weapon teams with Heavy Bolters cost 62.5% of what Sabre weapons platforms cost.)

Also they are AV 10 Vehicles and any glancing or penetrating hit destroys the entire thing.

They are tall and hard to get into cover.

They are immobile (so your opponent can block line of sight to them.)

I mean they have the ability to fire at Flyers using their full BS, but I don't see how they are broken in any way.

Maybe I am missing something.

Singleton Mosby
06-11-2013, 19:39
Interesting topic and I like to hear more opinions about the subject. I am relatively new to 40K and only play FW DKoK lists (Siege and Assault). Most new opponents say "overpowered" and ask me to explain the units concluding "meh, that's not as bad as I though". At the end of the game they actually like the fluff of the list a lot and don't know why the breaching drill has the name of being OP, same as the thudd gun most of the time (I say most of the time as it can be devastating on occasion). In the 25 games I played I didn't have a single complaint after the game so I say, there's not really a problem with both of these lists (apart from them being a bit unclear on some respects).

Curious how the ideas are about the other FW lists and units used in addition to a normal codex.

Gungo
06-11-2013, 20:07
A fourth thing is that people often make comparisons between decent FW units and poor codex equivalents and infer there's a balance issue. Just because one FW unit is better than a codex alternative does not mean there's an issue with the FW unit, quite often the problem is with the codex unit not being up to snuff.

This tends to be my issue. FW does not have a ton of overpowered units, but they cherry pick armies that sell. Then create varied rules, some better some worse. People like to call this more choices and say its a good thing.

The problem comes down to FW creates so many options and choices especially for Guard and space marine lists. That by its own nature creates a stronger tailored army list due to those choices. Lists that include FW are better then a standard codex list. Because people are not playing the crappy units options from forgeworld. They are playing the stronger choices. They end up playing vanquishers with coaxial weapons increasing accuracy or just playing a destroyer, they play chimeras with auto cannons, they are playing death riders instead of rough riders, they are playing grenadiers instead of storm troopers (and using hades drills until FW had to nerf them), sabre platforms instead of heavy weapn squads, artilery platforms instead of mobile artillery, conquerers instead of leman russes, Thunderer instead of demolishers, they upgrade tanks to Aces and increase thier BS, etc. etc. You can claim these options dont make a difference but they do as a whole you create a stronger list for the chosen armies. And if forgeworld is completely accepted I will end up shelving alot of my normal guard choices and just taking a stronger FW option. Seriously why would i ever take a multilaser when for 5 points more i can make my chimera have an autocannon?

FW's biggest issue is they ignore complete army lists. It is as if they basically do what GW has done to sisters and ignored them and left them with a list that still lacks.

Navar
06-11-2013, 20:18
This tends to be my issue. FW does not have a ton of overpowered units, but they cherry pick armies that sell. Then create varied rules, some better some worse. People like to call this more choices and say its a good thing.

The problem comes down to FW creates so many options and choices especially for Guard and space marine lists. That by its own nature creates a stronger tailored army list due to those choices. Lists that include FW are better then a standard codex list. Because people are not playing the crappy units options from forgeworld. They are playing the stronger choices. They end up playing vanquishers with coaxial weapons increasing accuracy or just playing a destroyer, they play chimeras with auto cannons, they are playing death riders instead of rough riders, they are playing grenadiers instead of storm troopers (and using hades drills until FW had to nerf them), sabre platforms instead of heavy weapn squads, artilery platforms instead of mobile artillery, conquerers instead of leman russes, Thunderer instead of demolishers, etc. etc. You can claim these options dont make a difference but they do as a whole you create a stronger list for the chosen armies. And if forgeworld is completely accepted I will end up shelving alot of my normal guard choices and just taking a stronger FW options. Seriously why would i ever take a multilaser when for 5 points more i can make my chimera have an autocannon?

How can a normal guard force take a Storm Chimera? (just to pick one of your examples.)

I thought they were Death Korps only.

Also Death Riders may be better than Rough Riders, but in the FA slot they still aren't all that great.

AND They can only be taken in the same list that allows for Storm Chimeras.

IcedCrow
06-11-2013, 20:19
Min/maxing and/or powergaming will always be an issue if that's the environment you play in though. Forgeworld or not.

Why I don't see that as an issue: min maxers are always going to min/max anyway. It doesn't matter to me if that means a FW unit is currently at the max, so that's what is always used... those players will consistently always take the max anyway no matter where its source.

Baragash
06-11-2013, 20:30
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it appears that Sabre weapon platforms cost MORE than the weapon teams. (Weapon teams with Heavy Bolters cost 62.5% of what Sabre weapons platforms cost.)

Also they are AV 10 Vehicles and any glancing or penetrating hit destroys the entire thing.

They are tall and hard to get into cover.

They are immobile (so your opponent can block line of sight to them.)

I mean they have the ability to fire at Flyers using their full BS, but I don't see how they are broken in any way.

Maybe I am missing something.

Sabres have been reclassified as artillery

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf

Navar
06-11-2013, 20:38
Sabres have been reclassified as artillery

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf

Fair enough. They are still more expensive, harder to get cover saves for, immobile, and only better at shooting flyers.

Gungo
06-11-2013, 21:00
Min/maxing and/or powergaming will always be an issue if that's the environment you play in though. Forgeworld or not.

Why I don't see that as an issue: min maxers are always going to min/max anyway. It doesn't matter to me if that means a FW unit is currently at the max, so that's what is always used... those players will consistently always take the max anyway no matter where its source.

I dont see it as really min/maxing and most people dont play that way. When people talk about min/maxing its heldrake spam, or riptide spam, or wave serpent spam, or necron flyer spam, or screamer lists. Its not the guy who chooses not to play penal legion or conscripts because they suck, he chooses platoons or vets from the troop choice in the guard list because they are more effective.

IcedCrow
06-11-2013, 21:08
I dont see it as really min/maxing and most people dont play that way. When people talk about min/maxing its heldrake spam, or riptide spam, or wave serpent spam, or necron flyer spam, or screamer lists. Its not the guy who chooses not to play penal legion or conscripts because they suck, he chooses platoons or vets from the troop choice in the guard list because they are more effective.

I was responding to this:

You can claim these options dont make a difference but they do as a whole you create a stronger list for the chosen armies. And if forgeworld is completely accepted I will end up shelving alot of my normal guard choices and just taking a stronger FW option. Seriously why would i ever take a multilaser when for 5 points more i can make my chimera have an autocannon?

This, or other variations thereof, I read a lot, and is saying "forgeworld makes stronger units, I will drop my codex choices and take the more powerful FW choices, hence FW should be banned"

Playing things solely because they are more effective is a form of min/maxing. You are bypassing the less powerful option for the more powerful option. It may not be as extreme as four helldrakes, but the philosophy is still at its core the same. If it comes down to making more powerful lists, it starts entering the realm of powerlisting, even if its not a gross example of powerlisting, its still the same basic philosophy of "unit A has power rating 50 and unit B has power rating 55 so I will always choose unit B".

Note: Heavy emphasis there is no implication of moral values with this clarification before someone comes swooping in to inject moral good/bad into what I just said.

Vaktathi
06-11-2013, 21:09
This tends to be my issue. FW does not have a ton of overpowered units, but they cherry pick armies that sell. Hrm, I dunno about that, they've made a fair number of things for many armies when they weren't at their most popular, they did lots of IG stuff for years when IG were almost nonexistent, likewise lots of Tau through 5th when they were at their nadir, they did their big Ork push a couple of years after Orks were released and had moved off the top tournament standings, as well as a huge amount of Eldar stuff too likewise at their lowest point of popularity and power in 5th.

They do do some stuff when they're just released and/or highly popular, they'd be stupid not to, but that's not the usual MO.



Then create varied rules, some better some worse. People like to call this more choices and say its a good thing. GW does the same thing, hence why we end up with stuff like Vendettas and Ogryn in the same book. I don't see how FW is any different/worse in this regard.



The problem comes down to FW creates so many options and choices especially for Guard and space marine lists. That by its own nature creates a stronger tailored army list due to those choices. Lists that include FW are better then a standard codex list. Because people are not playing the crappy units options from forgeworld. They are playing the stronger choices. In a competitive environment, yes, but they do the same thing with codex options.


They end up playing vanquishers with coaxial weapons increasing accuracy or just playing a destroyer, The vanquisher isn't usable without the coaxial weapon, the FW option makes it something you can actually field competitively as opposed to something that'll only ever sit on a shelf, and even then isn't by any means an exceptional tank hunter for what you're paying for it there.

The Destroyer honestly isn't a great unit for what you're paying for it, it's a single twin linked "ordnance" lascannon with no blast and no turret for the price of a Leman Russ tank. Not seeing how that's a go-to option for most people, it's very cost ineffective for what it does.


they play chimeras with auto cannonsNot seeing how that's particularly power-gamey, you're increasing the cost of the tank by ~10%, reducing it's anti-infantry effectiveness against most targets, in exchange for slightly better capability against light/medium vehicles and some extra range. There's certainly nothing about it that would make it an auto-take option or unbalanced or anything. I've owned 7 of these turrets for years, and I can't recall any time I've ever really used them in a competitive list for any other reason than I had 5 extra points left and threw it on my CCS chimera for cool factor, only 2 are actually painted.


they are playing death riders instead of rough riders, If they're doing this they're flat out cheating. Period. The Death Riders are only available to a DKoK Siege Regiment or Assault Brigade list, not to a Codex list. If you see someone try this, call them out for cheating.


they are playing grenadiers instead of storm troopers (and using hades drills until FW had to nerf them), Again, if they're doing this, they're cheating, flat out, period.

Also the Hades drills aren't even useable anymore they got nerfed so hard.


sabre platforms instead of heavy weapn squads A major part of this is that HWS's are bad, you generally won't see them in competitive IG lists without FW either, they're amongst the most expensive heavy weapons in the game for the guns the bring to the table as well as being amongst the least effective due to their mediocre BS, small unit size, ease of destruction, and low Ld. Seeing Sabre platforms instead of the HWS's shouldn't be much of a surprise as a result, because few are taking the HWS's anyway.


artilery platforms instead of mobile artilleryI've never seen the immobile artillery taken more often, while they are cheaper and can be made hardier if you're just talking about static shooting, they can't move, are Ld7 and very vulnerable to psychic attack, and crumble instantly in CC.



conquerers instead of leman russesWhy?


Thunderer instead of demolishers So you trade a turret and secondary weapons for an up-armored and way more expensive Vindicator. Not something I've ever seen anyone actually do, and it's not like the Thunderer is having its praises sung amongst the FW crowd as an amazing unit, it's not.



etc. etc. You can claim these options dont make a difference but they do as a whole you create a stronger list for the chosen armies. And if forgeworld is completely accepted I will end up shelving alot of my normal guard choices and just taking a stronger FW options. Except most of these, as I've pointed out, are either making an otherwise unuseable option useable, are flat out illegal as you're trying to describe them, don't have the major benefit over the equivalent you're trying to imply, or quite simply the codex equivalent is so bad as to be an irrelevant basis for comparison.

It's also not like Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Ork, etc don't also get tons of stuff too. Eldar get another Aspect, a new MC, another walker, an AA skimmer, a Vindi-skimmer, a light attack Skimmer, two flyers, and a pirate list with Dark Eldar built in. Tau get two flyers, a number of HQ's, a new MC (experimental), a new Suit type (Hazard suits), a couple light support skimmers, more Hammerhead turret options, and some stationary Turrets.


Seriously why would i ever take a multilaser when for 5 points more i can make my chimera have an autocannon?Because, as I noted above, you're increasing the cost of that transport by almost 10% to be less effective against infantry for a minor benefit against hunting targets that aren't the primary target of the Chimera (light/medium armor) and a range increase, at best it's a wash.

Navar
06-11-2013, 21:15
I dont see it as really min/maxing and most people dont play that way. When people talk about min/maxing its heldrake spam, or riptide spam, or wave serpent spam, or necron flyer spam, or screamer lists. Its not the guy who chooses not to play penal legion or conscripts because they suck, he chooses platoons or vets from the troop choice in the guard list because they are more effective.

Okay, but your examples involving people making illegal choices. A Player taking a Storm Chimera in a standard IG army is cheating. And there are only a handful of units in a Death Korps army that allow you to take one as well.

DoctorTom
06-11-2013, 22:06
You still see examples of overpowered things, but that seems more in the experimental rules. Now, if anything, I think that in general you're seeing more things underpowered than overpowered, at least on the non-vehicle side. On the vehicle side there might still be that going on too but it doesn't seem to be happening as much as it did back in 3rd/early 4th with the VDR rules underpowering everything. You get the occasional R'Varna, but even that's experimental rules now whereas in the early days it might have gone into a book that way.

A.T.
06-11-2013, 22:29
Fair enough. They are still more expensive, harder to get cover saves for, immobile, and only better at shooting flyers.They are twinlinked, so better at shooting everything, T7 and with a 3+ save. For 5 points over a heavy weapon team, plus another 2 points for an extra 'wound' each.

And twinlinked skyfire/interceptor lascannons deserve a bit more recognition than 'only better at shooting flyers' :p

Navar
06-11-2013, 22:37
They are twinlinked, so better at shooting everything, T7 and with a 3+ save. For 5 points over a heavy weapon team, plus another 2 points for an extra 'wound' each.

And twinlinked skyfire/interceptor lascannons deserve a bit more recognition than 'only better at shooting flyers' :p

They are 50% more expensive than a Heavy Weapons team unless I am looking in the wrong book.

They are also 50% more expensive when equipped with Lascannons.

They are 70% the cost of an Icarus Lascannon for 1/2 the range and twinlinked.

Maybe I am being obtuse here, but they don't seem "broken" to me.

Nazguire
07-11-2013, 00:39
I can't think of a single FW unit that could be called over powered. Every unit I've seen that has far out stats also has a points price to match it. The only one that I could think of that fits under the Over powered category could, maybe, be the R'varna. Even that is hefty in points and still in the experimental phase of rules testing.

-Totenkopf-
07-11-2013, 01:29
I have always loved forgeworld models.. To me, they have always been about the models.. It wasn't until recently that I started looking at the models and liking some of the rules.. I play Eldar and lots of fantasy and until the recent Eldar book came out, I like what they had to offer (corsairs etc..) and none of that line is overpowered and it was all nice and fluffy.. It is just bothersome that one GW book ruins multiple books for FW.. I really think they need to stick to downloadable rules sheets online.. As for fantasy, I LOVE LOVE LOVE what they do... No complaints about the rules there.. That being said, my friends called cheese on a pimped Dread Sauran, I say so is a gutstar..

Back to 40k though, I play my buddies 30k chaos army and there are some really "neat" things going on there and they can do some cool things but none of it screams cheese.. Just different..

Nazguire
07-11-2013, 05:43
I have always loved forgeworld models.. To me, they have always been about the models.. It wasn't until recently that I started looking at the models and liking some of the rules.. I play Eldar and lots of fantasy and until the recent Eldar book came out, I like what they had to offer (corsairs etc..) and none of that line is overpowered and it was all nice and fluffy.. It is just bothersome that one GW book ruins multiple books for FW.. I really think they need to stick to downloadable rules sheets online.. As for fantasy, I LOVE LOVE LOVE what they do... No complaints about the rules there.. That being said, my friends called cheese on a pimped Dread Sauran, I say so is a gutstar..

Back to 40k though, I play my buddies 30k chaos army and there are some really "neat" things going on there and they can do some cool things but none of it screams cheese.. Just different..

30k armies aren't designed to play against the regular 40k armies, are they? I thought they couldn't due to being too OP or something like that, and were designed specifically to fight other 30k armies? Not that it would take much to get them to fit the game of course.

The Warhammer Forge is going great guns in my eyes, apart from abandoning the four Tamurkhan books or whatever they were called. An alternate history of Warhammer world without actually advancing the timeline whilst releasing awesome models that can be used in a regular game sounded like a great idea!

I also agree that the Corsairs list looks awesome and doesn't seem to be even remotely overpowered...though the new Eldar Codex sorta diminished the release a fair bit.

The Marshel
07-11-2013, 05:58
You can claim these options dont make a difference but they do as a whole you create a stronger list for the chosen armies. And if forgeworld is completely accepted I will end up shelving alot of my normal guard choices and just taking a stronger FW option. Seriously why would i ever take a multilaser when for 5 points more i can make my chimera have an autocannon?

Note that this isn't exactly a quote from icedcrow, see post for proper context

Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't multi lasers roughly as good as autocannons at most everything mathhammer wise? so its really a rather poor upgrade in the end. A lot of forgeworld hate comes down to misconception i think

Vaktathi
07-11-2013, 06:52
Note that this isn't exactly a quote from icedcrow, see post for proper context

Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't multi lasers roughly as good as autocannons at most everything mathhammer wise? so its really a rather poor upgrade in the end. A lot of forgeworld hate comes down to misconception i thinkThe Autocannon is better against 4+sv infantry (specifically just 4+sv) in the open, AV12 (mainly because it can penetrate it) and 13 vehicles (not that you're doing much to AV13 with an Autocannon), T8 MC's (just T8 specifically), while having a very minimal advanteage, but close to equal capability vs AV11.

Both weapons are equal against 5+sv infantry in the open.

Meanwhile the Multilaser is better against AV10, is better against 6+/3+/2+sv infantry and is better against 4+ and 5+sv infantry when they're in cover, and is equal to or better than the AC against T5/6/7/9/10 MC's.

What you're really paying for with the Autocannon is the extra range.

While the Autocannon also gives you the ability to engage AV12 and 13 vehicles more effectively, it's really not a good use of the vehicle, being very cost ineffective for that role, at 60pts minimum for two S7 BS3 shots and hoping for 4's/5's/6's while the secondary weapon does nothing, while against infantry with the multilaser you can getting up to 6 shots that are wounding infantry on 2's or 3's at worst for 55pts (assuming no other upgrades).

Hence, why the Autocannon is not the "zomg auto-take" upgrade many see it as for some reason.

ehlijen
07-11-2013, 06:54
Note that this isn't exactly a quote from icedcrow, see post for proper context

Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't multi lasers roughly as good as autocannons at most everything mathhammer wise? so its really a rather poor upgrade in the end. A lot of forgeworld hate comes down to misconception i think

The multilaser is better T4- Sv3+/2+ units. The AC beats it vs 4+ or 5+ and wounds more vs T5+. The big difference is that ACs can penetrate AV12 and glance AV13, an ability the chimera otherwise lacked apart from HK missiles. In and edition where vehicle resilience has been reduced, I can see people being worried about that. Don't know if that makes them broken, but it is a change.

Ironbone
07-11-2013, 08:16
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it appears that Sabre weapon platforms cost MORE than the weapon teams. (Weapon teams with Heavy Bolters cost 62.5% of what Sabre weapons platforms cost.)

Also they are AV 10 Vehicles and any glancing or penetrating hit destroys the entire thing.

They are tall and hard to get into cover.They fit behing Aegin that's all I need :p

They are immobile (so your opponent can block line of sight to them.)Well, not so big deal as HWS also tend to sit in one place for entire game:p

I mean they have the ability to fire at Flyers using their full BS, but I don't see how they are broken in any way.

Maybe I am missing something.
In fact yes, you are missing that artilery is no longer Av10, but now gun is T7, W2 model :p + guardsmans crew. Yeah, as HWS are overpiced ( or at least way too fragile, even for low guard standards ), so the are not best unit to compare to. If unit A ( in this case HWS ) is bad, then it automaticly makes better unit B ( sabre platforms ) OP :p, or just usable ?


Because people are not playing the crappy units options from forgeworld. They are playing the stronger choices.
Duh, exactly like in GW Codieces :p.


conquerers instead of leman russes, Thunderer instead of demolishers
Uh, thats units are actually worse than codex counterparts :p. Conqueror have better mobility, but seroiusly worse firepower than leman BT, and paying extra +25 pts for gaining turret mount and adictional gun it's not that much.


How can a normal guard force take a Storm Chimera? (just to pick one of your examples.)
Well, IA1,2nd ed allows generic chimera to replace mulitilaser with autocannon for psybolt price :p ( why only GK pay 5 pts for upgade easily worth 3x this :shifty:?). Storm chimera cost extra +15 pts to that, but gain track guards as well ( 4+ save against immobile, but still lose HP ).

duffybear1988
07-11-2013, 08:48
I think half the GW units are over or under powered (they can't do balanced), so really by that point who gives a damn what the FW ones are like?

Baaltor
07-11-2013, 09:39
There's a whole thread prior about who gives a damn. XD

Frankly I'm okay with units being taken from FW, and I'm also okay with my friends swapping whole units from their book like Deathriders for Roughriders, but when it gets really deep, and they start getting lots of options, so many that it shifts the balance, I expect them to reciprocate. As long as I can use homebrew rules, and they have countermeasures to any buffs they might have in terms of points or whatever I'm fine.

What it comes down to is people can use FW to break the game easier by way of what others have highleted in this thread. If that's going to be a problem because your mates ARE going to given the option, the issue lies with them, not the rules; even if the result is the same.

Camman1984
07-11-2013, 09:46
I enjoy having forgeworld units in my army because they are a bit unusual and can give armies a bit of different flavour. I use a couple of badab bits and a command rhino. Its not a lot and its not hugely powerful just gives more flavoured options that i enjoy.

I think its also good cos its nice to have an unusual talking point at the club if someone brings something we havent seen before as most people still dont use forgeworld despite wider acceptance and a level of price convergance with GW.

A.T.
07-11-2013, 10:00
They are 50% more expensive than a Heavy Weapons team unless I am looking in the wrong book.Imperial Armour Aeronautica. The basic platform cost 5 points more than a heavy bolter armed heavy weapon team.



Maybe I am being obtuse here, but they don't seem "broken" to me.It's a 'best of all worlds' situation - you get 6 of them for the cost of 9 lascannon teams but the twinlinking means that you aren't losing any firepower. You get the anti-air without losing the ability to shoot at ground targets (unlike hydras, stalkers, etc), you get high durability (those 6 would have 24 T7 3+ wounds between them), the scout move is tactically very powerful, and they are scoring units that don't eat into your FoC.


They aren't IA1 infernus shells broken, but they are a very obviously good choice over the unit they replace.

daveNYC
07-11-2013, 10:42
What it comes down to is people can use FW to break the game easier by way of what others have highleted in this thread. If that's going to be a problem because your mates ARE going to given the option, the issue lies with them, not the rules; even if the result is the same.

I disagree with that take. If your rules are written in such a way that you're depending on the player to not be a dick in order to keep the game fair (or just unbroken), then your rules suck. Seriously. Rules are there to provide a common framework to play the game in such a way that both players have a reasonable chance of winning, if they don't do that then the rules writer has failed.

duffybear1988
07-11-2013, 12:04
I disagree with that take. If your rules are written in such a way that you're depending on the player to not be a dick in order to keep the game fair (or just unbroken), then your rules suck. Seriously. Rules are there to provide a common framework to play the game in such a way that both players have a reasonable chance of winning, if they don't do that then the rules writer has failed.

Agree 100%.

IcedCrow
07-11-2013, 12:39
We already realize how the gw rules are in regards to balance there is no need to beat that horse anymore.

The reality is the rules do require your opponent to not be a dick. Whether those are good or bad rules is irrelevant, thats what we have to deal with.

El_Machinae
07-11-2013, 13:00
I disagree with that take. If your rules are written in such a way that you're depending on the player to not be a dick in order to keep the game fair (or just unbroken), then your rules suck. Seriously. Rules are there to provide a common framework to play the game in such a way that both players have a reasonable chance of winning, if they don't do that then the rules writer has failed.

Naw, I disagree. The rules can become a bit more complicated, and that's more fun. If I wanted iron-clad rules, I'd play checkers. But, I find checkers boring as a war-game. By increasing the complexity and the ability to have gamefluff, you increase the need for fun opponents vs. jerk opponents.

daveNYC
07-11-2013, 14:08
Alternate take: Why produce rules if you're then forced to hope that most people won't use them as written?

IcedCrow
07-11-2013, 14:17
That's just it. There is no way to quantify what "most people do".

They write rules for a narrative system to enact wars in their universe. If you want to powergame with them, they told you to feel free. If you want to try to make a tournament out of it, they told you to feel free. If you want to tone back the abuse and play the game laid back, they encourage that.

They don't write balance into the rules, they write the game how they themselves enjoy it in the ivory tower, where people aren't running rough-shod over the rulebase bringing 4 baledrakes and the 9 necron flier armies and everything else that can be busted about the game, but they are saying if you want to do that feel free.

The big problem comes in when you have a powergamer mixing it up with a non powergamer. The rules support both, but both won't have fun playing each other because the two styles are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Other wargames suffer from this to some extent as well. The only game that I can think of that does not is chess. Even warmachine has preferred tournament lists that mathematically will do better over others that are non "optimized".

Then again some people will scream foul whenever they are beat and accuse your list of being "broken". I've seen things like eldar hornets be used, I don't find them to be over powered at all, but I have seen people beaten by eldar that used them that blamed it on the overpowered forgeworld hornets being in the game that cost them the win.

(they don't mention it was the half dozen blunders they made during the game... its all the fault of the opponent's army list)

El_Machinae
07-11-2013, 15:09
Alternate take: Why produce rules if you're then forced to hope that most people won't use them as written?

Oh, that's reasonable. It's the players who insist on non-intuitive parsing or hyper-literal parsing that end up being the problem. Or, players who don't conform politely to local house-rules.

daveNYC
07-11-2013, 18:00
GW's rules can't fail, they can only be failed?

Ssilmath
07-11-2013, 18:25
It'd be like people being upset at a minivan company not selling high performance race cars. Sure, you can try to race those minivans, but that's not what they're made for. 40k has far more in common with a loose ruled RPG than it does with a competitive wargame. People trying to force it to be the latter are of course going to be disappointed, but it's not GW's fault.

daveNYC
07-11-2013, 18:43
I'm sorry, what exactly does the 40k rule set have in common with your average RPG rules?

IcedCrow
07-11-2013, 18:48
If we want to be pedantic we can say
* it has to hit rules
* it has save rolls
* there are swords and magic involved

Not being pedantic:

* both are platforms to tell a story (40k: forging the narrative). In the RPG you are typically taking the role of a hero in a group of heroes. In a game of 40k or fantasy you are taking on the role of the commander. In either you can be opposed by other players, or you can play cooperatively.
* both can be taken to extremes and busted by powergamers
* both require a set of like-minded individuals to achieve the most enjoyment out of it. Powergamers mixed with non powergamers at an RPG table produce the same issues as a powergamer vs a non powergamer playing a tabletop wargame. Two different goals and mindsets trying to do two different things and getting burnt because the other is not cooperating.
* both can be played "competitively"

There are also obviously a lot of differences, but then you have some RPGs that are hybrid miniatures games in and of themselves. Playing a game of 4e D&D is kind of like playing skirmish warhammer fantasy with uber heroes albeit with different mechanics.

Why 40k fails as a competitive game is that it is not balanced to be a competitive game. If you truly wanted to prove skill in 40k I think you need everyone to be using the same army. That would come down largely to skill as opposed to who has the most busted army list.

Navar
07-11-2013, 21:47
So, what i have gotten from this thread is that the entire Forge World library currently has 1 overpowered unit.

The Sabre Platform (I am not quite sold on this, but will concede it because it proves my point anyway.)

It will be interesting to revisit this thread when Codex: IG is released to see if the opinion of Sabre Platforms changes.

Bubble Ghost
08-11-2013, 00:44
I think "do they fit?" is a slightly misleading question. I have no problem playing against FW units in any competitive sense, but it's undeniable that FW authors have much itchier trigger fingers when it comes to stat hikes, and seem to have no problem ignoring precedents and unwritten rules that codex authors adhere to. The result is that FW units have a conspicuous, glamorous otherness about them, which often contrasts with codex units - and is nothing to do with how "powerful" either may or may not be. Once you've seen the glittering cities and bright lights of Forge World where the women have 6-shot assault cannons and the tanks are paved with gold, how can a vehicle with a rear armour value of only 10 ever satisfy you again..?

So no, I don't think they fit particularly well - which isn't the same thing as whether they're fair or balanced. People often cite "fluff" as a reason to use Forge World products, but I admit the narrative gamer in me often prefers the consistency you get without Forge World's zanier output to the superficially fluffy detail you get with it.

Gungo
08-11-2013, 02:53
So, what i have gotten from this thread is that the entire Forge World library currently has 1 overpowered unit.

The Sabre Platform (I am not quite sold on this, but will concede it because it proves my point anyway.)

It will be interesting to revisit this thread when Codex: IG is released to see if the opinion of Sabre Platforms changes.
I only brought up examples of the issues with choices in the ig lists from forge world. But it's not about individually clear overpowered units. It's about choices as a whole added to ig and space marines and now to a degree tau that caused forgeworld to make those lists stronger. But we can go on and on about fw choices that improve those lists more then they should. Tank aces, coaxial weapons etc. But it's pointless talking about this on the forums because anyone who is being unbiased clearly sees fw choices by nature as a whole will make armies they cherry pick stronger. The only people arguing on the forum are just trying to obscure that fact and arguing about individual op units and gw overpowered units. So you just end up in circles with the same argument. But if you really want I can sit here and list every space marine choice and every ig choice that is a slight improvement over similar codex choices or give cheaper specialized options that make lists by nature better. So you can say this about ig, space marine, and to a degree tau and eldar. While armies receive significantly less attention. It's like everyone else is playing sisters compared to fw armies

IcedCrow
08-11-2013, 02:55
I have been playing pretty much nothing but forge world inclusions for many years. I have never ever ever once seen it like everyone else is playing sisters of battle compared to any army that has forge world in it.

Ever.

I have seen tournaments run that allow Forge World. This year, the US grand tournaments started letting FW in.

It didn't break the game one bit.

Camman1984
08-11-2013, 07:29
The only real problem i have found with forgeworld is keeping up to date with the rules. With GW, if 'codex space marines' is released i know quite clearly that all my rules are being updated. But, for a personal example, i use a damocles command rhino, and if i hadnt flipped through a friends copy of fall of orpheus, i would still have been using the previous rules for it, and i am pretty sure i did use it at least 3/4 times between orpheous coming out and me reading it. I have no desire to cheat my friends or use out of date rules.

I did that completely by accident so how easy would it be to do it on purpose? I know a person who says he would just pick the best version and stick with that. I wonder how many players of the tau r'varna 'wont realise' they nerfed the experimental rules in its IA13/14 release.

m1acca1551
08-11-2013, 08:37
I don't think they are out of sync at all, except for super heavies, but they are designed for the really big games and collectors, if your rocking a Titan at 5000pts or less your probably the reason as to why so many people are put off FW in normal games haha

I think FW does have a scale issue, they don't really scale down to well but that is because they are designed for larger scale games.

They are pretty good currently, I love fighting them as it is something different, just don't bring titans to smaller games :p

Gingerwerewolf
08-11-2013, 08:51
The only real problem i have found with forgeworld is keeping up to date with the rules. With GW, if 'codex space marines' is released i know quite clearly that all my rules are being updated. But, for a personal example, i use a damocles command rhino, and if i hadnt flipped through a friends copy of fall of orpheus, i would still have been using the previous rules for it, and i am pretty sure i did use it at least 3/4 times between orpheous coming out and me reading it. I have no desire to cheat my friends or use out of date rules.

I did that completely by accident so how easy would it be to do it on purpose? I know a person who says he would just pick the best version and stick with that. I wonder how many players of the tau r'varna 'wont realise' they nerfed the experimental rules in its IA13/14 release.

This is one of my problems with Forge World units right here. Knowing which book to use.

I have no problem what so ever with the models - they are gorgeous and I regularly buy from them, so this is not be just bashing FW. When they release a model I like, most of the time I use it as a counts as, with of course my opponents permission ;-)

However after being picked out in post number 3 I feel a little need to explain myself.


I think most of the hate is legacy hate. Gingerwerewolf is a vocal opponent of them in the legality thread. He also mentioned "when I used to play" and then alludes to returning to the game after a gap of years. I don't think he's that familiar with "current" FW.

It's like the guys who go on about how awesome 2nd Ed was, and how superior to the current game- and haven't played since late 3rd. They formed set opinions of things that are dynamic and fluid. Things have evolved since then, and frankly, the judgments are based on things that have changed.

My 2 cents.

Its a fair point about me being vocally against them - however while Ive been playing 40k since 1st edition, I never stopped playing. Yes 2nd edition is iconic to me, and Necromunda was one of my favorite games ever produced, but, I do not wish that we were still playing 2nd. Far from it, 6th edition is the best version of 40k they have ever produced in my opinion.

Im not just an old Beardie. I was working for them up until 2003 and playing all the games very regularly. Ill admit that with 4th, I did not play as many games as when I used to work there, but I still played games regularly. When 5th came along I was an avid player, playing countless games and even started playing tournements, something Ive kept up with in 6th. My Regular opponents are Guard, Chaos of all types, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau and of course Space Marines and all of those players have had armies from year dot... (I say this so you know which FW units Ive faced)

Back on topic, during that extensive time playing against those armies it was obvious that while the codex units were pretty well thought out, the FW units were not. They have got better, Ill give them that, but they are not like the Codex Units. Mine is not legacy hate. I'll admit I have yet to play against a FW unit from any of the Imperial Armour 2nd edition books in 6th edition.

I have a theory why though - The Majority of units in the Codex's have been there for AGES. The Humble Tactical Marine has been through 5 incarnations, and they are still tweaking it, though less and less each time. The Unit has been refined into the balanced unit it is today

When a Codex unit is considered to be overpowered it tends to be the new units, or the units with a shedload of options. Going back in time, from the 4th edition Chaos Codex with its ultimate unlimited combos, to the Baledrake in the latest all the mistakes have been when they have changed lots suddenly (which inventing a unit from scratch tends to be). They dont have the testing resources to break it like we can, and GW's refusal to use FAQs to balance the game hurts them. (Not FW)

Forgeworld's rules team is smaller, but with one very important difference - they have SHEDLOADS of units that need rules and they are only up to their 2nd edition. They have a long way to go to get to the balanced stage that the current hardback 6th edition codecies have today (which are not perfect but a damn sight better!)

I think that FW do a brilliant job with their models, and some of them are so breathtaking that I have to own them. Rules or using them in a game be damned.

I dont want FW to die, far from it. I just want their rules to be put under the same scrutiny that the codex ones are. In fact I would like their rules to be written by the same team - Get the FW Army writers into the same design Studio as the GW Game design team and get them all working together.

This has been my argument all through the other thread - Not that we Ban FW stuff, just that rules written by them are not official till the 40k Game writers say they are.

agurus1
08-11-2013, 09:00
this is purely from personal expereince and feedback from playing opponents at my local GW, but a couple of months ago I started using a FW Legion list for all of my games. CSM was just not doing it for me at all and I thought what the hell I'll give it a shot and convert over my entire collection to become Horus Heresy legal (much resin was added to my model collection). The result, much more enjoyable games for me (win or lose) and for my opponents (who aren't using 30k lists) an interesting new army to play against. All of the people I have played with it so far (necrons, SM, DA, Nids, daemons) have (win or lose) applauded the army for its flavor and balance (and look with envy over the range of options the list gives and the balance it has internallly). I think that as many others have said, FW's reputation for OP units and lists is a thing of the past, and something that has now been passed onto GW proper in spades (baledrake, most of the last 5th ed codecies, ect...). Nowadays FW is the province of dedicated veteran players and players looking for flavor+fun over min-maxing and power gaming. I can't see how anyone could see it any other way, or else FW sales would quickly exceed GW's as all the powergamers bought up new FW armies lol, and we know thats not happening.

A.T.
08-11-2013, 09:23
I have never ever ever once seen it like everyone else is playing sisters of battle compared to any army that has forge world in it.

Ever.The context of what he said was that some armies get many many choices when forgeworld is used while others get few - in the same way that the sisters of battle are playing with only a handful of unit choices compared to the other armies in the game.

And this is entirely true - if you were to put together a chart of how many units each army has available to them with and without forgeworld it would be hugely skewed towards some factions, far more that it is without.

IcedCrow
08-11-2013, 12:44
The context of what he said was that some armies get many many choices when forgeworld is used while others get few - in the same way that the sisters of battle are playing with only a handful of unit choices compared to the other armies in the game.

And this is entirely true - if you were to put together a chart of how many units each army has available to them with and without forgeworld it would be hugely skewed towards some factions, far more that it is without.

To that I agree. But that is not a "thing" for me. I don't play the game and go "damn, my codex only has 12 entries, and yours has 18. That's not fair" I cannot wrap my head around that no matter how hard I try.

That's also why I don't jump aboard the chaos space marine hate when the people that complain about them compare the space marine book, and all their entries and sub codices. This issue already exists in GW main. To also exist in FW is to me a non-issue.

Bubble Ghost
08-11-2013, 13:24
Iced: I think you're quite lucky not to be able to wrap your head around it. It's a feeling that does exist and does niggle away at people, and they're not wrong to feel it. I can't think of a better way to illustrate the sense some people get from Forge World than this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK5d64DZB8).

Throwing a strop about toy soldiers as though you're owed something by the company crosses a line - that's when you become childish - but I think it's only human to feel some annoyance with the whole thing.

A.T.
08-11-2013, 13:24
To that I agree. But that is not a "thing" for me. I don't play the game and go "damn, my codex only has 12 entries... (snip)Trust me, it gets annoying real fast. Bloody Cruddace.

Speaking more broadly though the books with larger numbers of units are advantaged in terms of being able to mix together a wider range of rules and special abilities to their advantage, and also to mitigate both deliberate and unintended weaknesses in their army - for instance a book might be limited to anti-air weapons in heavy support only, competing with it's long range options, but then forgeworld might go ahead and give them anti-air in elite, fast attack, and troop slots.

Breaking game balance isn't just about making something powerful as removing drawbacks can have a far more significant effect - the option to throw a ministorum priest into a landraider with a squad of red hunter terminators for instance...

IcedCrow
08-11-2013, 13:28
I get that too (that more options means more builds and more dimensions that you have to deal with) but I also don't have a problem with that. The only things I have a problem with would be game breaking items that can be spammed en masse... like the helldrake. Or armies like Grey Knights when they were released. Those things wipe out any fun to be had in the name of winning, but facing different combinations to me is actually better because I get burnt out on facing the same builds over and over and over again. Forge World throws new builds to have to deal with so that is something I enjoy (and look for).

A.T.
08-11-2013, 14:15
Forge World throws new builds to have to deal with so that is something I enjoy (and look for).They are combinations without counterbalance - a guard player who takes the afore mentioned sabre platforms for instance is not restricted in any way by their choice, the anti-air capabilities of the codex get stronger but nothing in turn gets weaker.

-----

Having more combinations was one of the core balancing aspects of an old online game, sony's planetside. Both high and low 'rank' characters had access to the same equipment and so were balanced in an absolute sense (a newbie with gun 'a' would do exactly the same damage as a long time vet with gun 'a' for instance).

However the low rank characters could only use a subset of it at any given time - if they wanted to drive a heavy tank they might have to sacrifice the use of medical gear, if they wanted to have a rocket launcher they might have to give up aircraft. Veterans on the other hand would have the tank, and the medipack, and the rockets, and the aircraft, and so on - and the result was that high rank characters had a substantial advantage in the game, even though they were no 'stronger'.

tl;dr - more options = more power, even if those options are not themselves unbalanced.

Warsmith Tharak
08-11-2013, 14:27
In the hands of a min-maxer, Forge World gives him new tools to be a tool. In the hands of a bear and pretzel player, Forge World opens up a new world of intresting units, new army list and alot of fun.

Since I do not play min-maxers (they ruin my game experience), I love Forge World. I like using my Giant spine beast next to my 12 spawns (spamming, I know) to make a more "real" daemon world army, and my Deciminator next to 2 hellbrutes, 2 maulerfiends and a forgefiend to make a more "real" dark mechanicum army. It is not for all gaming grups, and I understand that WAAC players gives Forge World a bad name, since those who meet them only meet the few broken stuff.

IcedCrow
08-11-2013, 14:45
That's probably also the next central pillar for me. I do not play in an environment where those things matter. That seems to be an issue solely on the shoulders of competitive minded players playing the game as a competition. If I played in those regards, I may agree with the stance then.

I also wonder just how many non apoc imperial FW units / models exist for IG, and space marines, compared to the other factions and how big the disparity really is or if its just blown up by the internet as a giant chasm when it is not really that big a deal.

A.T.
08-11-2013, 15:17
I also wonder just how many non apoc imperial FW units / models exist for IG, and space marines, compared to the other factions and how big the disparity really is or if its just blown up by the internet as a giant chasm when it is not really that big a deal.The book I have to hand is aeronautica -
Guard & marines (loyalist and traitor) - 21
All others combined - 9 (plus one that the daemons can borrow from the CSM)

I don't have any plans on trawling through the FW site, but there is the 6th ed vehicle update pdf:
Guard & Loyalist forces = 50 units
Chaos Marines = 9 units
All xenos forces combined - 28 units


There are more named forgeworld marine characters than there are units in the entire 6th edition tau codex.

IcedCrow
08-11-2013, 15:31
Cool. The imperials have a lot more options to pull from if Forge World is legal.

Camman1984
08-11-2013, 16:30
A lot of the imperial stuff are multiples of the same thing though, like the different patterns of each vehicle based on where they are built so the number of options drop.

I understand the envy of non marine players for marine characters though, there are loads of them. As a marine player i feel spoilt by my choice and would love other forces to get the options. Like rules for different tau septs, dark kabals, chaos legions, eldar craftworlds, ork clans etc. I think chapter tactics is a great mechanic to represent loads of factions with one book. I want more of that.

Navar
08-11-2013, 16:37
[I]f you really want I can sit here and list every space marine choice and every ig choice that is a slight improvement over similar codex choices or give cheaper specialized options that make lists by nature better.

Please. I believe that that was the point of this thread to begin with.

IcedCrow
08-11-2013, 16:40
A lot of the imperial stuff are multiples of the same thing though, like the different patterns of each vehicle based on where they are built so the number of options drop.

I understand the envy of non marine players for marine characters though, there are loads of them. As a marine player i feel spoilt by my choice and would love other forces to get the options. Like rules for different tau septs, dark kabals, chaos legions, eldar craftworlds, ork clans etc. I think chapter tactics is a great mechanic to represent loads of factions with one book. I want more of that.

Chaos players already do this comparison, upset that the CSM codex is vastly inferior to the SM codices (multiple) and their choice of options.