Tauren Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 Ya but for us "non forge world" capable players, IE I live in the states and forge-world is a pretty penny... even more than the metal models, wouldn't that kinda suck for my class of player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted December 7, 2008 Author Share Posted December 7, 2008 Well, FW produces DKOK at about 6-7$ a model. Right now, a discount internet reseller can get sell PAGK at around 6$. So I figure its not that bad... Especially if we get updated rules and cool models! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tauren Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 New models sure, updated rules? Unless they are backed by GW the rules will be worthless... and any jerky player can just say "you play with the GW rules or not at all" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 And to them, I say that FW rules are GW rules <DELETED BY THE INQUISITION>. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 To which said buzzkill responds "Say hello to my little friend" Seriously, I don't have a problem asking for my opponent's permission, and I don't treat said opponent like a turd if he'd rather not. "sorry, but you have no choice but to play against my IG tank company" is hardly a reasonable position, and the guy with two missile launchers and three melta guns in his list is being entirely reasonable by declining to play. Anyway, I don't see DH/WH going IA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 You mean, as opposed to playing against an infantry platoon, command platoon, armored fist squad, nine sentinels, and three leman russ tanks... in a 1500 point game? Or if you prefer, Hellhounds and more infantry. I'd not want to face off against that either (especially not as a Sisters player), but it's legal under GW's rules, and it's essentially a small armored company. Face it, GW rules aren't balanced either, and comparibly speaking, FW rules tend to be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Tyrak Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 FW would be worthless compared to GW if (BIG if) GW actually operated to the same level of consistency, customer service, punctuality and canonicity control that FW does. But they don't. Thats why FW isn't considered to have the same level of canonicity as BL - FW make an effort to follow canon, BL don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted December 7, 2008 Author Share Posted December 7, 2008 New models sure, updated rules? Unless they are backed by GW the rules will be worthless... and any jerky player can just say "you play with the GW rules or not at all" Well any players that play by that rule can play without me. I'd be surprised at full-fledged new rules. But just ISTs with updated chimera cost (including the new "mystery" chimera rules!), a tooled-up inq. and retinue (in a TL-psycannon razorback!) and the GKLR redeemer rules would make for a nice change! Anything above that is gravy... Mmmmm resin-a-licious FW gravy. Look around the FW site (especially DKoK and Chaos sections) and imagine what kind of cool retinue models they could produce! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benmothershaw Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 FW would be worthless compared to GW if (BIG if) GW actually operated to the same level of consistency, customer service, punctuality and canonicity control that FW does. But they don't. Thats why FW isn't considered to have the same level of canonicity as BL - FW make an effort to follow canon, BL don't. It comes at an extra price though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaelion Hexis Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 And to them, I say that FW rules are GW rules, so they can shove that objection up somewhere. And that can be a good way to lose opponents. But hopefully most reasonable players will be ok either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakehunter52 Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 FW would be worthless compared to GW if (BIG if) GW actually operated to the same level of consistency, customer service, punctuality and canonicity control that FW does. But they don't. Thats why FW isn't considered to have the same level of canonicity as BL - FW make an effort to follow canon, BL don't. It comes at an extra price though. Depends....take for example the FW GK Dreadnought. For a full body, it is only 21.55 pounds. That is almost the same as a regular dread and the only thing you have to worry about it finding some arms for it (which IMO is not that hard for vets since they probably already have some Dreads or buy some cheap online). Totally worth it. The redeemer on the other hand is harder since even the conversion kit costs as much as the LR itself but if you do it right, you can allow yourself to swap out the weapons so you can get all three variants (Godhammer, Crusader and Redeemer), save in the longer run and allow yourself to run your army in different ways. I really hope they will redo some Grey Knight rules, they already have a great start with the Dreadnought. They are going to have to include rules for the Redeemer and Psycannon Razorback and if the focus is on daemons and Daemonhunters, they are going to have to provide more than just a couple of vehicles to properly fill out the new IA. But the question is, how will they do this? Thing with DKoK is that they provided unique models with unique equipment, not available via GW. So, if they do do PAGK, they will come up with something totally original with who knows what applications. But the point of this is that so long as they touch infantry GK, they will have to provide new rules for them because no way they are going to allow some outdated and broken ruleset is going to tarnish their new book. And that means good stuff for us all around because even if our local game clubs don't allow FW, this will provide insight into how they are thinking of redo our codex. But this is my speculation of course and I would have to examine it closely, I do think that FW does a better job of keeping updated and consistent but not all of their stuff is balanced in points and/or what they can do (Repressor being a prime example which is sad for me since I am a WH player :rolleyes: ). But overall, good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 And that can be a good way to lose opponents. But hopefully most reasonable players will be ok either way.Honestly, I may not even want to play some of those people regardless of their opinion on FW rules. I do not claim to be the most reasonable person myself, and therefor I have standards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honersstodnt Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 anyone who says I can't use forgeworld approved rules in a game is not someone i'd want to play with anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auedawen Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Really? Most forgeworld items (super heavies primarily) aren't balanced for a standard 40k game. I daresay anyone denying you just wants to play a fair game they planned for ahead of time. Seems pretty decent to me. For all intents and purposes, even the standard 40k unique characters they make are nothing more than if someone had just gone and made up their own special character. Would you allow that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honersstodnt Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 the difference between someone making up their own rules and forgeworld rules is that forgeworld rules are published and more widely accepted, and NOT made up just to make some sort of combo with my opponents army. so yes, i'd allow my opponent to use any forgeworld unique characters. however, super heavies are a different story, and not something I was talking about. there is no super heavy slot in the force org chart, so i'd say that they are not allowed in the army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tauren Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 The rules are widely accepted in Europe, but in the states that is far different. Here the models are whispered about, and simple referred to as costly but beautiful. It's a modelers dream, not a gamers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Tyrak Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 FW do make a point of saying in the IA series that super-heavies are balanced for standard 40k games, but not intended for games under 2,000pts. They say it a good solution is it is allowed under 2,000pts, but only with opponents permission. I regularly face an opponent who includes a Stormblade in his Armoured Company in 2,000pt games and I've never had a problem with that. Its probably best to warn your opponent know, though. Just treat it as if it were normal army recon. How could your army commander know that you were facing an Armoured Company, but fail to notice the massive Baneblade at its centre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
march10k Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 You mean, as opposed to playing against an infantry platoon, command platoon, armored fist squad, nine sentinels, and three leman russ tanks... in a 1500 point game? Um...yeah. I'd much rather face that than ten tanks. The only thing that scares me about your list is...three tanks. An entire army of AV14 with battle cannons isn't something I can reasonably be expected to prepare for. Sure, I can maneuver to get flank shots, or come in from the flanks on reserves, or deepstrike to get side and rear shots...but unless I do that with my entire army, the rest of my army is eating TEN pie plates per turn, minus the one or two that I can reasonably expect to prevent from shooting in a given turn with a normal army. Thanks for helping me make my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 More like eight (due to points cost and FoC chart restrictions). It's similar to facing off against a nidzilla army really. And rumros say that they'll be able to put nine russ tanks in due to them being in squadrons. And a vulcan mega-bolter leman russ apparently. All this being legal under GW rules, not FW ones. GW most assuredly not better than FW at balancing. :nuke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragons Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 GW most assuredly not better than FW at balancing. :nuke: /agree -Dragons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Tyrak Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 And a vulcan mega-bolter leman russ apparently :cuss? Even FW had to mount that on a super-heavy chassis (its a Malcador variant in IA: Apocalypse if anyone's interested). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 And a vulcan mega-bolter leman russ apparently :cuss? Even FW had to mount that on a super-heavy chassis (its a Malcador variant in IA: Apocalypse if anyone's interested). Well, the rumor was based on the fact that at the "design studio open day" there was a 3d model of a leman russ demolisher, with a vulcan mega-bolter instead of the demolisher cannon. The Malcador version is a twin-linked VMB, this one is just singular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Master Tyrak Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 The Vulcan Mega-Bolter with two barrels is not twin-linked. ^_^ Perhaps a toned-down Mega-Bolter/Souped-up Assault Cannon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissia Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Dunno then. It could definitely be an advanced assault cannon, which would be pretty neat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Honestly, I may not even want to play some of those people regardless of their opinion on FW rules. I do not claim to be the most reasonable person myself, and therefor I have standards! mel not everywhere in the world do people have same access to FW stuff . also while many people are willing to buy FW models fewer [and the poorer the country the fewer group becomes bigger and bigger] buy the actuall IA books with the rules . Also while it was ok to allow someone access to FW units for bizzar stuff [ troops transporters , no combat tanks , flyers , my good old nids mines etc] , right now for some players it is a problem when people start playing with FW stuff[aka rules] but without the actuall FW models[you know all that counts as stuff GW is promoting]. thats why a lot of people bann FW stuff from normal games and tournaments . among friends its as always a free for all. again I know that you are looking at FW stuff thourgh the eyes of the updated sob stuff , but not everyone plays sob [and to make it a bit clear most of my FW stuff that I didnt sell is IG and nids . and most of the stuff is totally unplayable now]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.