Torg Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 my list had several FW units… it was nice to get to play them. I will admit that my list kinda looked hard… but that didn't pan out in the games I played. I had a FW Eldar - Nightwing, Hornet Squadron (3) and the Wraithseer. I am pretty sure all my opponents had no problem with my army. I was something like 1 win… 1 draw (?) and 3 losses :). The Hornets got lots of talk - but they were simply shot off the table first thing lol. My weekend MVP would have been my Nightwing - but it really didn't dominate games - it was just solid for what it would do. The wraith seer… was really just another wraith lord with a d-cannon lol. The WraithKnight I took always drew all the fire at the start of games… but even that didn't dominate play. I am not sure why FW is the bad guy … I really liked having the chance to play them in an army - especially an event like OFCC where its just about having 5 fun / great games. -d 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intrizic Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 I really like FW being included. It allows some great models to be placed on the table. It also filled in some gaps in lists and allows for armies you won't ever see otherwise. I'd agree that the older FW stuff tended to be undercosted for what it does, but that trend is changing. You'd better belive anything I run will have FW allowed. If you're not OK with that, don't play. I don't play this game to win. If I want to feel like a champion I'll go home and sex with my wife. I'm a big big fan of the grot tank armies :D 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Angel Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 I don't think anyone claimed you needed Forge World to beat face. That you can win without Forge World is an argument against allowing it, not FOR allowing it. Ability matter If I didn't know better i could swear you just said because i use FW list/unit that my Ability to play is less then someone the doesn't use FW. But that can't be right. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted December 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 If I want to feel like a champion I'll go home and sex with my wife. Awww man, you can't set me up like this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted December 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 If I didn't know better i could swear you just said because i use FW list/unit that my Ability to play is less then someone the doesn't use FW. But that can't be right. I'm still parsing his statement. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swan-of-War Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 Awww man, you can't set me up like this. We're Eskimo champions 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgosaurusrex Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 We're Eskimo champions Hahahaha, best quote from this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generalripphook Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 If the main problem from FW is a few overpowered units.....istn that why we have a committee that reviews lists? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted December 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 If the main problem from FW is a few overpowered units.....istn that why we have a committee that reviews lists? BURN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted December 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 Also, I think the LRC should be a recurring position so that people can get used to it and get a feel for what they should be doing year to year. Just doing it one year is kind of hard, you have to learn the job as you go. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 Also, I think the LRC should be a recurring position so that people can get used to it and get a feel for what they should be doing year to year. Just doing it one year is kind of hard, you have to learn the job as you go. That would not be a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Except it requires getting geeks to commit to something. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 If the main problem from FW is a few overpowered units..... There are very few truly broken individual units/models in the FW books. They get broken when they get put into the lists and start working in concert with other units, not always FW. Part of this relates to FW almost always being an edition behind in their updates and FAQ content. Some of it is just the players making the units broken. And some is just a matter of the FW units being taking in games much smaller than they were intended. Revenant titan, in example, was a FW unit which is really broken at the point level for normal 40k, 2500pts is too small for this model. The model isn't broken in its intended 40k apocalypse role of 4000pts or more. Especially when used in conjunction with apocalypse formations and stratagems. Mind you, apocalypse itself isn't really intended for competitive play. There are also many perfectly broken combinations of units that don't use FW rules. In terms of obstacles to normal events, I find the biggest is that some of the FW rules are pretty complex or have odd rules interactions with GW rules. This makes games drag and makes opponents weary . The ones with simple rules should be allowed in normal games. Doesn't really matter how broken they are, so long as playing the game runs smoothly. This is no different than facing that new GW codex or dataslate for the first time - freaks you out, but then you get used to it. You should understand why you lost at the end of a game and it shouldn't boil down to cries of cheese. As for the ones with complicated rules, maybe 0-1 per army. It would be reasonable to impose a similar requirement on non-FW models/upgrades with far too complicated wording. Should not have to read several pages of text in every game so opponents understand what something does. Should be simple. And as for the FW ones with odd rules interactions, those need FAQs or bans. It isn't because the unit is inherently broken, but because odd rules interactions create problems at events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted December 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 That would not be a bad idea.Even a broken clock... :) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted December 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Except it requires getting geeks to commit to something.understandably a problem, but I think it's worth it. Even if you get 75 pct, that's better. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaktathi Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 In my experience, it's usually the ultra-competitors that want to ban FW because it upsets their meta, or people that think FW=Titans, or people that have had poor experiences against bad proxies with incorrect rules (usually some guy with a completely inappropriate model stating it has all sorts of ridiculous abilities and is from Forgeworld, but doesn't have the actual rules), and the like in most instances. Others may vary. I like FW because I like running my Death Korps assault brigade, using my Chaos Decimator walker and Rapier Laser Destroyers, and seeing units like Tantalus skimmers, Megadreads, and Hornets on tables. Between allies, Lords of War, Unbound, multiple detachements, formations that give free special rules and abilities for no points costs and ignore FoC's entirely, etc, it's very difficult to see where FW makes anything worse. Particularly when FW balance generally isn't any worse than GW's other stuff (it's actually probably better as they do actual playtesting, release experimental rules and change/update units based on player feedback). In every instance where an FW unit has been pulled into a codex, as far as I can recall its been dramatically improved. FW isn't perfect, but they're usually better than core GW, and besides, all these things exist in the 40k universe (many of them being former codex units like Rapiers or Griffons), the distaste some people have for FW stuff is always quite puzzling. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justjokin Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 I played against both Scott's Grot Tanks and Torg's Eldar w/Hornets. I thoroughly enjoyed both matches, and had much "better" games than against the 170 zombie / 3 Helldrake list that didn't have a drop of FW. Talk about F'd Up Meta! In all three matches I had great opponents. I also had fun, which apparently is towards the top of the rules list... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 If I didn't know better i could swear you just said because i use FW list/unit that my Ability to play is less then someone the doesn't use FW. But that can't be right. That's true. It can't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Even a broken clock... :) please dont find a way to piss on me when I'M agreeing with you. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted December 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 please dont find a way to piss on me when I'M agreeing with you. Sheesh. I'm talking about me. The phrase 'Even a broken clock is right twice a day'. Because you said you agreed with me. Geeze. Calm down there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torg Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Revenant titan, in example, was a FW unit which is really broken at the point level for normal 40k, 2500pts is too small for this model. The model isn't broken in its intended 40k apocalypse role of 4000pts or more. Especially when used in conjunction with apocalypse formations and stratagems. Mind you, apocalypse itself isn't really intended for competitive play. Where is the Revenant ok for regular 40k games? lol… it is "broken" because its not intended for "normal" games of 40k-. Further - of course apoc isn't intended for "competitive play"… lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobbitron Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Where is the Revenant ok for regular 40k games? lol… it is "broken" because its not intended for "normal" games of 40k-. Further - of course apoc isn't intended for "competitive play"… lol My memory might be off on this, but the Escalation book initially allowed it as a "Lord of War" option for 6th. In 7th I imagine it's still the same (getting the rulebook for Christmas so I can finally play a game!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torg Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 hmmmm don't have the Escalation book… I guess I need to get that one… -d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaktathi Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 It should also be noted that both the Revenant's current rules, and those allowing it in basic 40k games, are both products of GW's core design studio, not Forgeworld, the only hand FW has in the Revenant at this point is casting the resin. Same thing with the other Titans which currently have models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratrek Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Also, I think the LRC should be a recurring position so that people can get used to it and get a feel for what they should be doing year to year. Just doing it one year is kind of hard, you have to learn the job as you go. FWIW, I think when we had a few good years in a row for ratings on the Fantasy side of OFCC was when the team of raters was pretty stable over that time. There were some changes, but enough of the same insane-o's that the new people to the team didn't have to start from scratch with no help. It also allowed the team to see what was right or wrong the previous year and try to sort them out if possible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts