What’s Wrong with Imperial Armour?

Look at that thing. It’s the brand spanking new Necron Night Shroud Bomber, just released by Forgeworld. It’s a lean, mean, death-dealing killing machine, and like so many of the Forgeworld models it makes its standard GW codex peers look a little bit, well, ordinary.

The problem is, you won’t see that many of them around, and despite all the requests for army building advice and discussions around unit choices you see on this site, you’re unlikely to see it recommended.

Foregworld models are often gorgeous, and Imperial Armour units and rules come up quite frequently in 40k discussions, so I’d like to try tackle the subject head-on. From the point of view of someone who writes on a 40K Tactics blog and frequently gives people advice on army builds and force optimisation, here’s what’s wrong with Imperial Armour.

It’s not Balance

Balance is the most common complaint players have against Imperial Armour. If I had to guess I’d say up to 90% of the Imperial Armour units are probably weaker than or at best equivalent to their 40K codex equivalents,  and then the remainder are Over The Top, either insanely powerful or underpriced.

crassusPopular examples of unbalanced Imperial Armour units include the Lucius Droppod (that allows dreadnoughts to assault on arrival –including AV13 ironclads immune to most infantry attacks), the infantry-annihilating Vulture Gunship, the Deimos Predator Executioner or the Blight drones that became flyers with AP3 large blasts and reaper autocannons (squadrons of 1-3 flyers that fire battle cannons and twinlinked autocannons? Why thank you very much, I will take 9).

We often say that Balance is the objection, but the truth is if that was all it took to keep models from being used there are plenty of standard codex examples. The dirt-cheap Nightscythe, arguably the game’s best transport as well as one of the best anti-air and light-vehicle platforms, would have been shown the door long before the vast majority of FW models. That’s not to say IA doesn’t contain units that are even worse balanced, but it does mean we as players are not just ruling out models for ‘balance reasons’.

It’s not the Points Cost

Even more than standard 40K, Forgeworld unit prices are all over the place, as if selecting costs is left to some sort of random chance. At one end of the scale lie things like the AV11 Arvus Lander that gives you a single Heavy Bolter for an absurd 110pts, and at the other is the IA Manticore with its S9 AP2 Seven inch megablast that somehow costs 15pts less than the codex equivalent.

Most IA models are overpriced, possibly on purpose as an alternative to balancing them in other ways, but if it was really just points cost that kept models from being used and recommended for normal games the Vendetta would get cut before any FW equivalent.

It’s not the Models

It’s definitely not the models. The models are almost universally terrific, taking the quality of GW design a step further. With a few exceptions they have appropriate dimensions and are approximately the same size as codex equivalents. The weapons on the models are generally clear and easy to recognise.

It should be enough to say that most tournaments allow Forgeworld equivalents to be used in place of Codex models, so the models can’t be the issue. I have 10 Forgeworld vehicles, 4 Flyers with FW parts and 65 Forgeworld infantry in my Imperial Guard army, and routinely use them as Codex: IG without anyone raising objections. (Which hopefully also proves I am not a FW-hater!)

It’s not the rules

It should be the rules, but believe it or not, that is not the reason we can’t recommend IA to people who ask for army advice.

Forgeworld are criticised for their rule writing on several levels, and there are plenty of legitimate angles for attack.

  • Some of their rules simply don’t work, or don’t have an in-game effect. There are immobile units with Scout, Flakk Trakks that have flakk guns in photographs but don’t have them in their profile (seriously, it has two big shootas and can’t even upgrade to buy Flakka-Gunz!), an Aquila Lander that is a transport that cannot be disembarked from (supersonic) and a long list of similar examples.
  • Some of the rules seem to be written without a knowledge of the core rules of 40k – for example, recently released rules that “negate the increased scatter when firing ordnance while moving” which doesn’t exist in 6th edition. Or 5th. Maybe not even 4th. It would seem really important when writing an expansion to a set of rules to actually know the rules, and unfortunately FW fail on this repeatedly.
  • Some of their rules are poorly thought out. The Lucius drop pod is frequently used as an example of ‘broken’ rules, since it is a drop pod that allows Dreadnoughts to assault out of it on arrival. It’s extremely powerful, as anyone who has had AV13 Ironclads arrive and assault squads of Marines can testify, but at least it works.

Chaos Marines 0n the other hand get something superficially similar from IA; the Dreadclaw. This has an extravagant mishmash of rules; it must arrive via deepstrike, but does not have Drop Pod assault (so no arrival until turn 2 earliest). It has Assault Vehicle rules and even frag assault launchers, but no rule to allow contents to assault on arrival (so no assault until turn 3 earliest). It’s also unarmed and a Flyer (although any unit it carries can’t disembark from a Zooming flyer).

  • Most of their rules will be completely unknown to opponents. Most people who visit 3++ are 40K veterans, frequent tournament attendees and generally either very good at the game or too dedicated to care about their lack of success, and still most of the Imperial Armour rules will be a surprise. Would you have expected the Dreadclaw assault drop pod to arrive late in the game and then zip around at up to 36” per turn instead of have units, you know, assault out of it?

Many players won’t have a clear idea of the rules for hundreds of additional units Imperial Armour brings to the party, units like the Lynx, the Fire Storm, DX-6 Remora, Damocles, Warp Hunters, Hades Breaching Drill etc and it’s not entirely fair to expect them to work it all out in the moments before deploying forces at a tournament.

So it should be the Rules, but it is not.

The reason we can’t recommend IA in standard 40K is because it’s not standard 40K

The reason we cannot and do not recommend Forgeworld and Imperial Armour units is because they are not part of standard 40K. No matter how much FW’s fans may want it to be or how many times they point to a “40K Approved” stamp on some of the entries, it is not part of standard 40K and won’t be allowed at the vast majority of tournaments. I know this will really grate with people who love their FW and IA models, have bought them at great expense and painted and detailed them to a level above the average GW model, but it is the way it is.

If IA was part of the standard 40K game, we’d accept the points costs. We’d accept the balance issues of some models. We’d deal with the rules. Whether the rules were overpowered, contradictory, impotent, ineffectual or entirely sane and beneficial, we’d get used to them, develop counters, formulate tactics and learn to deal with them.

If IA was part of the standard 40K game, every time someone emailed in or asked in the Chatbox what they should ally or add against Cron air, flyer spam or Heldrakes, I might reply something like this,

“Ally with Guard and take 1 platoon. Take Sabre Weapons Battery for 30pts per model, and upgrade them to twin linked lascannons for 20pts, then add extra crewmen for 2pts more and free searchlights (because they are free duh). It’s 156pts for 3 Sabres and 6 men, but they are all toughness 7 artillery and scoring units! Set that baby up behind an Aegis line, and with a 3+ save on the gun and T7 infantry you are good to go. You’ll love the fact that it has both interceptor and skyfire, so unlike hydras it can take out enemy aircraft immediately on arrival.

Oh you’re worried your opponent may be bringing  too many flyers for 3 twinlinked lascannons to deal with? Don’t worry, a single guard platoon can bring 15 Sabres and they are all scoring. And you can have two platoons as an ally! Also available with twinlinked autocannons, heavy bolters or doubled up heavy stubbers if you like variety.”

But I can’t.

If Gamesworkshop were to say Imperial Armour units and rules are now equivalent to standard Codexes, and opponent’s permission is no longer needed, this would all change.

It would also dramatically change the game of 40K and the balance between armies, and if the IA rules were left as they are, then some changes would be for the better and some for the much, much worse.

I don’t mean to be overly negative, so watch this space for a follow up article, ‘How Forgeworld can Double their $$$Profits$$$ in 6 Months!’. Until then, we’re just kids gazing in through the candy-store window, and I regret the fact that some people who read this article will have seen the fancy model pictures and their first instinct will be to go order them regardless of what the words say 🙂

Just pause for a moment before you put it in your shopping cart and remember it is not universally-accepted, tournament-ready, standard-Codex 40K. Because like it or not, it isn’t.

And from the point of view of army buidling and list-creation advice, that’s what’s wrong with Imperial Armour.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

133 Responses to “What’s Wrong with Imperial Armour?”

  1. Matt-Shadowlord says:

    Author's note:

    In the comment thread for this article, Ish is allowed to post as much as he wants, saying whatever he wants, as many times as he wants.


  2. Chris says:

    In before Peregrine over at DakkaDakka gets all angry about Forgeworld not being part of standard 40k.

  3. Jasonc says:

    This is what I tell anyone who asks – be careful, as most tournaments won't let you use it.

    I would also add that even if a tournament does allow you to, I imagine I'd be annoyed winning a tournament fair and square only to be told 'oh but you brought forgeworld, so of course' – same with players who were running flamers/screamers or cron air etc.

  4. Kevv says:

    Honestly man, I wish fw would just get their act together and make rules that are good enough for everyone to be happy using them. I have some of their models and hardly ever get to take them out for a game.

    Beer and pretzels, meh

  5. _Garnet_ says:

    More than anything, I think it's the slightly confusing mishmash of rule books that makes it so hard to get behind wide-spread adoption of FW. If you're playing a 40K army, you have the rulebook (and everyone knows what the most recent rulebook is), and the codex (and everyone knows what the most recent codex is). FW, on the other hand, has a bad habit of not specifically ordering their books, and of reprinting the (slightly altered over time) rules for individual models in multiple books without that direct expression that "This Overrules That".

  6. Helpless Will says:

    Don't disagree with anything Matt-Shadowlord has to say here, though I think he may have left out a category best described as, "It's the monetary cost." Let's face it FW stuff is spendy, particularly on top of the normal 40k investment. There are a large number of our fellow hobbyists who can not afford, or are unwilling to spend that sort of cash. There's also those who play factions not well represented in the FW range.

    I am, however, a complete FW fan. So everything I buy from them is bought with an eye toward using it as something from a standard codex if my opponent has any objection to playing against a FW list.

    My Death Korp of Krieg work as Imperial Guard. My pre-heresy World Eaters can be run as Codex Marines or Codex Blood Angels. There are a number of models I've bought to run as Space Wolves, with no thought at all to their FW stats.

    Sure, there are some models I own that can only be used in Apoc games, or FW lists. I have friends that have no objection to playing either, but pickups down at the FLGS, or tournaments are their own environment, and adapting to your opponent, or the tournament organizers views on the subject is just courteous. So adapt.

    The entire world doesn't need to ascribe to my, or anyone's, viewpoint on anything, and I really don't begin to understand the absolutists on the whole FW debate.

  7. GMort says:

    Back before 6th edition when 40K was the main game locally we used to use Forge World units in Apocalypse games. We all played 40K quite competitively and used Apocalypse for our 'Beer and Pretzels' evenings and due to the massive points values we were playing at the odd unbalanced unit made little difference. Of course 6th edition has made Apocalypse virtually unplayable even as a 'for fun only' activity and Games Workshop stopped supporting it a long time ago…

    The few tournaments I've played in that allowed Forge World units became unbalanced because the only Forge World models people used were the 'broken' units you mentioned (or similar). The argument used by many people for their inclusion (Fluff, most of them aren't broken, etc.) become irrelevant as we all know that the fluffy, over-pointed models aren't going to be the ones that appear on the table-top opposite you.

    7th Edition 40K will probably have rules for Superheavies in it anyway…

  8. Scuzgob says:

    wait, people buy FW models for reasons other than the models itself?

    this craziness unfortunately is going to carry over into the WHFB version of forgeworld, by the look of it. k'daai fireborn are awesome models, but have terrible rules (55pts each for 2 wounds, and they kill themselves) or obvious mistakes (bale taurus has a rule that is probably meant to say it deals extra S4 hits to enemies in base contact at the start of the combat phase, but it left the base contact part out, so by RAW the bale taurus deals a S4 hit to every enemy model on the battlefield at the start of combat) or just blatantly overpowered rules (see the Marienburg Land Ship) or the absolutely pointless rules (the Mournghul has a separate, unique special rule just to explain why the model /does not/ have the large target and ethereal rules)

    dont get me started on the maddening insanity that is Tamurkhan's Possession Attack rule.

  9. Angrygnome says:

    I'm just happy my local league/tournaments are FW friendly.

  10. NamZ PamZ says:

    Author probably can't afford any Forge World. Being broke sucks.

  11. Ish says:

    If the reason you cannot recommend IA in standard 40K is because it’s not standard 40K, then I think we have a simple problem of definition. Namely, what consititutes "standard" Warhammer 40,000. To my mind, any products that Games Workshop designs, publishes, and markets as part of the Warhammer 40,000 game should be considered "standard" Warhammer 40,000… This includes IA, the codices, White Dwarf, and supplements like 'Death from the Skies,' but leaves out only those supplements specifically denoted as being nonstandard: Apocalypse, Cities of Death, Planetary Empires, etc.

    (My comment is too long for a single post, so I apologize for having to reply to myself.)

  12. bugsculptor says:

    The Bay Area Open 40k tourney just ran as a Forgeworld inclusive tournament with 140+ players. All players with forgeworld units had to bring the rulebooks and be prepared to explain how their units worked before each game. The majority of players coming out of the tournament thought inclusion of FW was fun.

    All it takes is one large local tourney to embrace forgeworld and then you have to deal with it. It isn't such a big deal, and it's more local convention than "all TOs are going to block it. Maybe this article is right in your part of the world, but in California it looks like Forgeworld is now a part of the game.

    It's not really a bad thing. Balance is still shot to hell with 6th edition, so why not make the 40k universe as big as it can be and give a few more armies good access to anti air units they're otherwise lacking.

  13. Tarrasq says:

    My personal problem with FW is the army bias. The stupidly good stuff is mostly Imperial. The addition of allies in 6th softens the blow though. Though anyone that can ally guard takes them in standard 40k, adding FW would shift the meta to be even more guard intensive.

    As for changing the mindset of standard 40k, this would only happen if GW decided to think in terms of competitive play and support tourneys, and force FW on us, or a majority of tournaments decide to allow FW. Both seem to be trending the other way.

  14. BS11 says:

    I think it is pretty clear that GW are different from FW and that GW at the very least do not intend for FW models in normal games from the BRB FAQ:

    Q: Land Speeder Storms, Stormraven Gunships and

    Stormtalon Gunships are all listed as Space Marine vehicles

    in the Reference section. Does this mean that every Space

    Marine Chapter now has access to these vehicles as well (i.e.

    Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Grey Knights etc.)? (p411)

    A: No – you may only select units and vehicles that are

    available in the army list section of your codex. The two

    exceptions are the Stormtalon and Stormraven Gunships,

    which are only available to armies chosen from Codex:

    Space Marines and Codex: Black Templars. The rules for these

    Flyers can be found in the Death From the Skies


    The pertinent point being: “you may only select units and vehicles that are

    available in the army list section of your codex.”

    GW could have said the following FW units are allowed but they didn’t. Instead they said the above. This should pretty much clear it up.

    Matt could have also added missing rules where FW forgot to specify which FOC a unit was in.

  15. Valtiel says:

    So nobody should build an army around FW models, and nobody should advise anyone to include FW models in their army, because Forgeworld isn't standard 40k and won't be allowed in tournaments? That last part isn't set in stone – tournament organizers get to choose whether or not to allow FW stuff, and "standard 40k" is really just shorthand for "the majority of organized events".

    Of course, tournament organizers won't start include Forgeworld stuff until the rules start to suck less and the more ludicrously overpowered crap goes away.

    So, it IS the rules, and it IS the balance, but not directly.

  16. BS11 says:

    I think what TOs allow should be up to them. They all do a great job in furthering the hobby and community. If they want to allow FW then that is fine.

    My point is that FW cannot, like anyone, self authorise themselves to be valid. I.E. they cannot just put a 40K stamp on it without GW approval. For GW to approve this it would have taken a sentence in a FAQ to say they are approved but they didn’t. Instead they went the other way and explicitly stated that only codex units are allowed. Why? We can only make assumptions. But the end result is they said no.

    My view is that FW units are like house rules. Non standard but fine if your opponent agrees, or it is approved for the tournament.

  17. Kevv says:

    Btw I might order the new necron bomber. Sorry I can’t help myself.

  18. Anon says:

    I usually crack photoshop in order to lose weight too. And I find that doctors all agree that Forgeworld is the best way to cure testicular cancer.

  19. Crynn says:

    Great article Matt, very well written and constructed arguements. Now I can jsut direct people to this instead of explaining why forge world would not be good for competitive 40k. You're articles are always wel formulated and clear in their purpose. You are one of my favourite writters mate. Keep up the exceptionally high standard of your articles


  20. rexscarlet says:

    How about;
    Allowing FW leads to a Slippery Slope Fallacy;
    Proxy, Counts-As, and not having the actual FW book?

  21. Hellgore says:

    It's a hate or like thing and it won't change as GW can't be bothered.
    Just came off from my first 6th tournament this weekend allowing FW and it was all a blast. To see Eldar putting finally up a good army and Black Templar standing a chance againt 6th ed Codice and seeing those players models again on a table was a relief from those dull Necron/GK/BA/IG-times of last year.
    There were no misunderstandings or -interpretations cause players knew FW would be there and they "dared" to ask their opponents "What's that cool looking dreadnought there? A contemptor? Okay, you have the rules for me?"
    The winner of the tournament went 3-1-0 (w/t/l), noone went undefeated and only some beginners from our club made too many mistakes and were tabled in one or the other game – some of the top games were really close calls. Only tyranids, dark eldar and sisters weren't present at this tournament. Tau, GK, CD/CSM, DA, Eldar were the first five placing players. Nobody complained about FW-units.
    So what does that tell us? Nothing at all concerning this page. The position about FW here is concrete and won't change before GW says so or US-tourneys allow FW and thus enforce it on the writers here. This lame try of an excuse for this view above just made that clear. Matt-Shadowlord could also have just said "Cause I sez so" – it wouldn't have changed anything about the outcome as this is not about discussing the viability of FW.

  22. aarondembskibowden says:

    This article (which is in-depth and awesome in a bunch of ways) gets two things powerfully wrong. I'll state why, without any personal opinion, just objective fact.

    Firstly, opponent's permission isn't needed. Not in the context that has become the meme's commonplace interpretation, like Oliver Twist humbly begging for a little more, please, sir. That's a lingering meme (malingering, even) and hasn't been true for many, many years now. As far back as Imperial Armour II, Forge World redacts the "asking opponent's permission" system as an unsatisfactory solution. Since then, especially in recent years, every Forge World statement – and the point of the 40K-approved stamps – has been to focus on the fact that they *are* acceptable baseline units in games of 40K. Even the wording has changed significantly in recent years. It's no longer "ask your opponent's permission". It's now "Tell them what you're using in case they're unfamiliar with it." This is as bold and obvious as Games Workshop gets. This is them saying "Use whatever you like, but be nice about it because some people may not know the rules."

    Secondly, it doesn't matter what tournament rules say or allow. Tournament rules have nothing (literally, nothing) to do with how GW and the hobby rolls out their game lines. It's not even a consideration in design or release. It shouldn't be clinged to as an inviolate defence, like "Forge World is banned from tournaments, that must mean something". It means nothing. It means tournaments, the staggeringly little niche of the hobby that gets disproportionate airtime on online forums, and are run by guys who have next to nothing to do with the company, don't like how Games Workshop chooses to present about half of its rules in different books, and chooses to ignore them. That's all it means.

    Asking Games Workshop to come out and make a statement is futile, because that's not how Games Workshop operates. They don't just say "Dear Gamers who are missing the point. It's X, not Y." Their way of making a clear statement has been done to death already: Games Workshop keeps repeating that their Forge World books and units aren't optional bolt-ons that any gamer can just deny the use of – but you have to bear in mind that GW is specifically not aiming to tell any players how they can use their toy soldiers. That's vastly against their policy. So they don't make clear, outright statements like that. They release rules, and let people follow them or ignore them as people choose. Forge World units are just as valid as anything in a codex or a late-published e-book like the recent Flyers update, Death from the Skies. Forge World say it themselves, countless times. Denying it and clinging to old memes will keep working, though, because the average player believes the weight of history, and doesn't see/like/respect the relatively unclear nature of how GW implements changes like this over time, without blowing all the horns about it.

    Forge World isn't a parasitic add-on separate from GW. That's another overdone meme. Their top brass sits in on most of the same meetings as Black Library top brass, and Design Studio top brass. They all share notes and minutes. It's one company. They're separate teams, but not separate companies.

    This, like the ancient "Black Library isn't canon" meme, is something that makes contributors involved with the license just sort of shake their heads and sigh. When official or unofficial statements are made, if they go against the weight of memehood, they're immediately shot down or ignored, anyway.

    EDIT: It's probably even easier to distil it down like this: GW publishes rules in a variety of ways, not personally caring what's considered canon or not by "the community". They're not the Fun Police. They just publish the rules. In this case, an old meme has become considered law by "the community".

    I'm not saying anything controversial or new. This is all already in plain sight. Every hobby has its legends and myths and scandals that endure despite everything else. Ladies and gentlemen, here's one of ours. It's a 'sound in space' kinda deal, where you hear the spaceships' engines revving and guns firing. It's been wrong for so long, that most people just accept it as right.

  23. That Guy says:

    "Firstly, opponent's permission isn't needed."

    >> I stopped reading here, because this is incorrect. From the latest Forge World book, Imperial Armour, Volume 1, Second Edition (Vehicles of the Imperial Guard), pg 7 "Warhammer 40k Units":

    "…these should be considered 'official', but owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

    key things – they say "should be considered", instead of simply saying "are". they also still think you should ask for permission. so the fact that FW are NOT claiming official status with any type of conviction, and that the masses aren't using them in their normal or tournament games leads me to believe they still aren't a part of standard 40k.

  24. dzer0 says:

    I am glad you took the time to write a reasonable article on this subject. I am happy that you even somewhat agree that FW units are not that powerful or undercosted which goes against popular opinion. I enjoyed this article but offer the following critique:

    I think the final conclusion you gave is weak.

    The majority of tournaments in the world are not run by GW employees, and a general format has not emerged. If we were all playing something called “Type II: GW Standard” or another similar name this would be a perfectly logical conclusion, but we do not. We play a fan based amalgamation of edition rules and mission types with cherry picked ideals from the fan base that screams the loudest. If this is “standard” 40k than why is the Skyshield Landing Pad and Fortress of Redemption not allowed at every tournament? Why do we see 1999+1 tournaments to avoid double force org, and what about hidden objectives and terrain? The tournament scene, around the world, does not play “Standard 40k.”

    The idea that we are waiting for GW to say something even more official than what they already have is a lie. What more do you really need? The giant label you mentioned inside the book that GW makes that says “40k Approved” already exists and people want more proof that GW (the company that stamped the label) is approving such models for 40k? Are we waiting on a love letter to show up at the Adepticon P.O. box to give another level of consent? What made the White Dwarf rules any different if you think about it? Why are Sisters of Battle even allowed at tournaments if they do not follow the traditional codex model?

    The real reason we cannot play IA in major tournaments is because the community is filled with a bunch of babies that need something to cry about. A heldrake is reasonable, but a Lucius Pattern is OP?

    40K is a game; it is not balanced now, nor will it never will be (with or without IA). If people are worried about IA spam (9 platforms, drones, etc.) make all IA unique 0-1 options and quit crying. We (not GW) run the tournaments, we (not GW) decide which rules to use, and we (not GW) define what “standard 40k” actually is.

  25. Indarys says:

    Honestly, this feels like a very disingenuous post, not an attempt to "put the final word" in FW arguments, but in listing a litany of reasons to not allow it to fall back on if the main reason is put to bed. A laundry list of "why forge world is bad", with all the bias and fuzzy logic inherent in such a post.

    To start off, the main point that "FW requires opponents permission" is frankly ridiculous. In a hobby where the letter of the main rules is read so directly that no inference is allowed, it's amazing that the same people can read a line like "It's best to make sure your opponent is happy" and get "You must ask permission". It's not the same thing at all. It's best (but not required!) to make sure your opponent is happy playing FW (What if he isn't?). There's two failings there for the "Permission is required" crowd–one, that "It's best" is hardly a mandate, and not a rule to follow, and two, that "your opponent should be happy" isn't really "he must accept". I'm not happy playing Necron Air Force, but that doesn't mean the rules state I need to give my permission for it.

    Second, the rest of the article is full of half truths and tired slander against FW. Working backwards, yes, FW has rules issues, but so does the rulebook and codexes. We have things called errata and FAQ to fix those, the only real issue is that FW tends to be really slow releasing said errata. Second, the "points cost" section with the manticore really neglects to mention the increase in minimum range (a huge 12 inches) and the lack of cluster technology AND the loss of barrage, meaning it must be fired directly that comes with the missiles, explaining why they have points cut compared to the SE rockets–the increase in blast size and the lowering of the AP is not worth losing 1-2 extra blasts, limited use thanks to a increased deadzone, and the logistical pain of not being able to fire directly and also losing out on the cover save denial provided.

    In addition, the Lucius Drop-pod was nerfed ages ago, you must take a difficult terrain test to leave, and it takes up a FOC slot all by itself.

  26. Yodhrin says:

    Point of fact; tournaments are even less "standard 40K" than Forgeworld.

    I've never understood how tournament types can stand there with a straight face saying "No FW, it's not standard 40K, oh and here is our vast trove of jumped-up house rules which you must follow to play in our event". If you want to ignore parts of the game because you don't like them, that's your prerogative, but don't pretend you're basing your conclusions on an objective standard.

  27. Matt says:

    Tournaments don't allow FW because nobody knows the FW rules because tournaments don't allow FW. (??) In an age where Death from the skies (an online-only supplement) and Farsight Enclave (An online, currently digital-only supplement) are accepted as okay in tournies, not accepting FW because it's not accessable, or not standard, it crazy. I can walk into my local GW and pick up IA:Apoc, or Aeronautica (they stock them), but I can't pick up the supplement codexes or death from the skies. Don't even get me started on the "40k legal" fortifications that only have the rules in the box for the model. How is that more accessible than FW?

  28. Zion says:

    I know I'm really late to the party here but this just got linked to me and I was with the author until I saw the "standard" 40k arguement. Are we really trying to claim that?

    I see two issues with that honestly: first is the Spirit of the Game (which is in every rulebook, in the rules section which means it's not some hobby stuff to brush off) says the rules are a framework and they encourage us to add to them all the time. This basically means that the "standard" game already doesn't exist because the game itself is saying "do what you want" with it.

    The other issue I have with that is there is a little section on page 108 that covers "Army Lists" and where you can get them. If you look at it you see there are 3 options mentioned. Yes 3, and it doesn't say "codex" three times. First we have the traditional army list from a codex, second we have the altered army list (yes altered, just like how FW normally works not to mention how dataslates and codex supplements, by altering the army list. Not a single one of those is mentioned by name so we run into a serious hypocrisy if a person claims FW doesn't count there and doesn't also throw those out as well) and then we have "your own system". Yes GW put in the actual rulebook the fact that you can play homebrew as you army.

    So if, and I mean if you really, want to try and say there is a standard game based on what GW has solely put in rulebook as what is "legal" then there are two big things that kill the "FW isn't standard" arguement: the fact that GW says the rules aren't written in stone (despite players acting like they are), and the fact that they give you the freedom to pick what you want to play instead of holing you into just playing codexes.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress