Forge World Preview

For those of you interested in the Forge World stuff:

We saw quite a few upcoming new models last week at Warhammer Fest, so for this week’s Forge World preview, we thought we’d take a look at some of the new Datasheets in the Imperial Armour Index books – one from the Forces of the Adeptus Astartes and one from the Forces of Chaos.

Let’s start off with a true relic of the Horus Heresy, the Spartan tank.

We’ve seen the Land Raider already, and this thing is even tougher, killier and carries more guys. Those quad-lascannons are going to be able to take down pretty much anything over a few turns of firing, and that’s without even considering the fact that these things usually pack a complement of Adeptus Astartes elite combat troops inside.

Next up, let’s look at the Brass Scorpion.

This enormous Daemon Engine is a terror at close range. If you can get it in amongst the enemy army, it will flip battle tanks, shred infantry and pretty much just crush anything it can reach! Snip snip.

So there you go, a bit of a taste of what’s to come in those books.

Both Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Adeptus Astartes and Imperial Armour Index: Forces of Chaos are available to order now.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

79 responses to Forge World Preview

Tournaments can allow or ban whatever they want. Just come up with a more sound argument than “Forge World is not GW!” when it objectively is.

GW can solve this anytime they want. They are the ones that choose to pursue a tiered pricing structure by selling "premium" models and rules. As long as it requires it's own book to be used in the game it will be an add on.

What makes a Forge World supplement (such as the new Indices) different from a GW supplement (like the codices that we know are coming)?

The same thing that makes Ford Fusion different than a Lincoln MKZ. A different cover and because FoMoCo says they are different. I don't really care one way or another, but long as GW separates the two, you can hardly blame people for also separating the two. I mean, Ford could just as easily badged that Lincoln as a Ford, but then they wouldn't be able to charge extra, would they?

So you are saying it literally is a matter of branding, and that you actually _believe_ that branding?

Well, the branding cost me more, although I haven't ordered anything since the Pound dropped. So in the sense that it cost me money, yes, I believe the branding. I'm not saying that FW is unbalanced. I don't know enough to make that judgment. GW is making the distinction between the two. Forge World is an add on. There isn't anything wrong with that, but GW is the one that made it that way. It will be interesting to see what makes it into the app. If the app includes FW and doesn't have an option to separate it out, then I would change my opinion. If there is a filter for FW or it is left out entirely, then I will still see it as an optional add on to the game.

Except, a four-door sedan with a Ford badge is going to be very differently built than a four-door sedan from Lincoln. That’s why they are branded differently and marketed to different customers. Likewise, Forge World model is built differently and designed differently than a Citadel model. Even the most strident of Forge World’s critics must concede that point and so must the fanboys: Forge World models are “luxury editions” compared to Citadel miniatures.

A Lincoln Navigator and a Ford Explorer are both big SUVs. But one comes with all sorts of luxury bells and whistles and commands a higher sticker price. A Space Marine Dreadnought from Citadel is much more plain than one from
Forge World, the luxury model bears a commensurately higher price.

But that doesn’t change the fact that Ford and Lincoln are both brands from the same company; or that Forge World and Citadel are both brands from the same company. Saying they aren’t is just silly.

Sure, they are the same company. I never said they weren't. What I said is that GW are the ones making the distinction. GW is selling it as an extra, and that is why people treat it like one. If I want to order from Forge World, I can't just drive to the tiny GW store on the outskirts of town and order it there. I have to go through FW and do it online.

In the end it's up to the people you play and the TOs as to what you can use, but saying there is no difference between the two when GW distinguishes between the two is just silly.

You, personal, might never have said “Forge World is not GW,” but plenty of others (including people in the very comment section for this article) have made that statement. There’s a definite distinction between the Citadel miniatures product line and the Forge Worls miniatures product line, there’s no debating that, but there are people who will actually try to argue that Forge World isn’t a division of Games Workshop.

I could list a bunch of reasons, and we could go back and forth all day. Let's just start with 3.

1)Historically, FW has been wacky, unbalanced (more often than not, weak, but sometimes game breaking OP). Mike Brandt tells me they've tested all the current models and they're fine, but he has no control on the future, I'd rather those floodgates not be open.

2)FW comes out with way more stuff for Imperial armies. (also a strange soft spot for Tau). It leads to a certain amount of bloat on one side of the equation.

3)It's just one more piece of info that competitive gamers need to be familiar with. And since it's expensive and exclusive, It's much more likely to take people by surprise. The whole point of this edition is to have all the rules out there in the open, no "gotchas".

1) Historically, GW has been unbalanced.
2) GW comes out with way more stuff for Imperial armies (also a strange soft spot for Khorne).
3) Competitive players are not the be-all and end-all of the player base.

So the Wraithknight and Imperial Knight are kosher, but the Great Gnarloc and Destroyer Tank Hunter break the game.

Same corporation, same employees, same printers, same distribution hubs, same everything…

You’re basically trying to argue that Ford and Lincoln are separate companies.

I think people are struggling to differentiate what FW use to be and what it currently is. At one point in time there were reasonable arguments for keeping FW out of competitive play. Those arguments started dissolving in 6th, completely evaporated in 7th, and our remnants of the past in 8th.

Can we just say that Lords of War are not allowed in matched play? The comparison between tactical marines and spartan tanks is just to wide.

This seems to be the most logical compromise. The bulk of FW’s output is just turret variants on Leman Russ tanks and fancy looking Dreadnoughts. Plus, there are numerous Lords of War found in regular GW-branded codices these days… I refuse to believe that a Imperial Guard Chimera with an autocannon turret is a disruptive element that competive players cannot figure out a strategy to defeat, but that an army of consisting solely of Imperial Knights is just hunky-dory.

Just a sidenote: an army consisting solely of Imperial Knights sucks in 8-th. Or at least struggles a lot with all that LCs and MLs dealing D6 damage on each failed 5++.

The Relic Spartan is ~460pts, to judge by its Power Level. A 5man Tactical Squad with Lascannon and Combi-Melta is 124pts. You can thus get about four Tactical Squads for the price of the Spartan.

All of the Lascannons will cause ~5.2 wounds per turn to the Spartan; the Melta (assuming no double-pen) will cause ~3.9. The Bolters cause about ~.5 at Rapid Fire range. Presuming neither party attempts to get into melee, the Spartan kills ~4 Marines per turn if they're in cover. So if both parties sit back at 36", the Marines will actually win the fight of attrition- and if the Spartan closes in, the effect only magnifies.

Nice mathhammer, ‘Puppy.

How about a comparison between another piece of “unbalanced trash” from Forge World – the Imperial Navy Vendetta – and a finely balanced unit from Games Workshop proper – the Khorne Lord of Skulls?

I don't know how popular the Vendetta will be if it hits on 5+. Statistically, that is more hits than it used to be, but it could be 250 points.

I just hope that the Vulture gets +1 to hit from its old strafe rule. And it keeps vector dancer. It is probably the best or 2nd best (behind a knight) paint job I have ever done, I want it to be good!

The debate really is: the Spartan Tank will be a Trygon Prime in melee……how?

I haven't gone through everything, but the "Lords of war" aren't nearly as crazy as they used to be. Looking at Tau, the Riptide is in many ways more durable than the Stormsurge (which personally, I do not think is worth it).

Much more concerned about whatever random stuff FW comes up with than LoW.

The Laser Destroyer doesn't seem to work, since you explicitly increase the Damage characteristic of the weapon after rolling for damage. I honestly can't figure out how the rule is supposed to work! I think the first line should just be "Each time this weapon is fired" or similar.

Mmm. It's weird and counter-intuitive, but I don't see any obvious reason it doesn't work the way it's described. You follow the normal process of shooting right to the end, and if any damage is actually inflicted on the target you roll an extra die to see if it can inflict more damage.

I'd say "If this weapon successfully inflicts damage" is a shorthand way of saying "If this weapon hits and wounds its target, and the target doesn't save". It's super clunky in its wording, but the intent seems clear enough to me – when you're about to roll damage, check to see how much you roll first.

The one difference I might add is that some models have abilities which can negate damage (disgustingly resilient, etc)- my assumption would be that such if you successfully negated all damage from the Laser Destroyer with those abilities, the "bonus" damage would not trigger, as you did not inflict any damage to the target.

"But one comes with all sorts of luxury bells and whistles and commands a higher sticker price."
The issue many people have isn't with the fact that FW make luxury models, its that they also sometimes make luxury rules.

Even if their rules were all balanced against GW, just some armies having more choice would be a luxury. In reality though, they've not been balanced in the past, and creating a tournament army with FW was often an matter of avoiding the overpriced/non-functional/underpowered/purposeless models and cherry picking the small percentage of models that were much more powerful than most of their GW peers.

Sticking with your car analogy, on track day me and my friends can drive whatever we want and have a great time, but if it's a Stock Car Race I can't show up in a formula 1 car.


The problem with the “balance” argument is that it rests on the obviously weak premise that GW’s other rules were balanced. There’s some room for debate here as to the current state of balance, but I think we can all agree that GW has had numerous issues here in the past.

The problem with the “too much Imperial stuff” argument is that it rests on the weak premise that there is a parity in Citadel’s Imperial / Non-Imperial offerings. That premise is INCREDIBLY easy to falsify… For god’s sake, how many Space Marine chapters have codices and supplements in Seventh Edition?

Both of these are stronger arguments than “Forge World isn’t GW!” so that’s a plus.

Historically, I think it has definitely been a matter of degree in terms of balance or lack thereof. GW's rules have never been balanced, but the more egregious examples from FW were on an entirely other level. There a difference between "overpowered" and "literally unbeatable", even though both demonstrate a lack of balance. The memory of that stuff is what most people seem to react against in FW discussions – that brand has been poisoned.

The "too much Imperial stuff" argument doesn't rely on the idea of parity in GW's offerings – exactly the opposite. The issue people have with adding FW to that equation is that it makes the existing problem *much worse*, not that it creates a new one. It's the "They've already got tons of stuff, where's my stuff?" inequality that causes the negative reaction. If FW produced significantly more xenos models than Imperial, I actually think there would be a lot more acceptance for it.

Finally, as much as people seemingly love to argue that FW is a division or a subsidiary and therefore "part of" or "not" GW or whatever, it doesn't really matter – GW has deliberately created a division between the market segments. They want their customers to treat those products differently, so is it any surprise that people do?

Mmm. In 5E or perhaps 6E, you might've had a point- but most of the strongest stuff of 7E was undeniably from Games Workshop, not Forge World. The top tournament tables were dominated by Battle Company, War Convocation, Librarius Conclave, Daemon psykers, Tau Monster Mash, Eldar/Ynnari, Barkstar, and Renegades. Only ONE of those things came from Forge World- in fact, most of those armies didn't even _use_ any Forge World models in them, because they simply couldn't measure up to the stuff that was part of the game already.

Tournaments have a right to create their own environments, obviously, and people can rergard FW however they so please- but if you're trying to make a rational argument for or against using particular supplements (whether they are GW supplements or FW ones) there needs to be a stronger impetus than "grog no like, make grog angry!" Gut reactions simply aren't a good enough reason because they are individual to each person- that's why we try to use rationales that can be accepted by all players.

With regards to the disparity of Imperial vs others: if that's the argument against FW, isn't it also an argument against GW? Couldn't you just as viably say "I don't think we should allow any of the GW supplements because they unfairly favor the Imperium"? I would like it if FW focused more on xenos races as well, but the economic reality of the thing is that the Imperium- and by Imperium we really mean Space Marines- sell better than anything else does, which means they are the most viable products to be released. Note also that the number of models available seems to have little or no translation into how effective those models are on the table- I think you could solidly argue that FW's Space Marine line is ten times the size of almost every other line of theirs, but how many FW Space Marine units did you typically see on the top tables compared to how many units from other armies?

One of the big things about this edition is that it's bringing back a lot of players who abandoned the game in earlier editions. Personally, I stopped playing in the middle of 5th edition, at the point where 40k became all-but-literally a Craftworld Eldar only game. So yeah… for context, I (and, I suspect, many others) have no idea whatsoever about 7th edition, because 40k functionally hasn't existed for the last few years. A lot of the comments about FW that are being tossed around now sound *very* similar to how it was talked about back then, so I'm just pointing out that's a likely source of those feelings.

Personally, I don't have any particular issue with FW models (they're actually pretty good to the Orks, so that makes me happy.) I'd just ban anything that seemed dramatically out of line or game-breaking, rather than eliminating the whole range.

The disparity argument can be made against GW, but only fruitlessly. The game is as it is. But since GW have decided to treat FW as a separate line, people feel like that's more fuel for the fire, and it's something they can exclude based on the existing differentiation. Adding more disparity to an already unbalanced situation increases the feeling of unfairness.

At the point where most people get into the game, they're basically aware of GW's existing disparity of attention between Imperial and other. They choose a team with that knowledge in mind – there's a certain amount of sacrifice everyone is prepared to make in order to play what they're drawn to. FW tends to enter the picture later… and now, if you picked the wrong team, it turns out your sacrifice was *way* bigger than you initially thought. People perceive that as an affront, they resent FW for it, and they carry that resentment through the rest of their time with 40k.

I'm not saying it's a good or sensible mindset, but it's easy to understand how it happens, no?

Oh yay…here we go again….

To be frank no one knows shit till FW release their books in entirety.

Until then, can we hold off on the "I dont wanna play FW cause its broken BS".

The 3 FW models are solid, but with out the actual points costing we wont know just how solid or broken they are.

Lets keep it to the facts, not the, oh I dont play that I dont want others to too rhetoric.


If nothing else, we can compare Power Levels… PL 32 for that Brass Scorpion is the highest PL that I can recall seeing so far. The Relic Spartan is PL23.

Amongst the “big guns” we’ve seen so far we have Imperial Knights we’ve got a range of PL 27 (Crusader) to PL 21 (Gallant); the Necron Tesseract Vault is PL 24; the Eldar Wraithknight is PL 27; the Imperial Guard’s super heavy tanks mostly cost less than the standard Baneblade which is PL 30, although the Hellhammer PL 31.

So based on these numbers, these two Forge World models seem to be pretty fairly costed.

Lord of Skulls is PL39, so that tops out the Scorpion there. I vaguely recall there was another one in that realm, but I could be wrong.

But yeah, I think that the FW stuff we've seen so far is pretty fairly costed. The Chaos Leviathan Dread had weapons that I didn't particularly like the way they handled, but the chassis itself wasn't problematic and the cost seemed to be proportional with what it could do.

I want usable contemptor dreadnought talon, are they broken when gw has a model but fw has more options

Locally (in South Australia), Forge World was initially completely accepted without a second thought, until they released the Lucius Drop Pod. This originally allowed a Dreadnaught to assault straight out of Deep Strike, an ability that had never existed before. (In 4th ed Dreadnaughts were very good in assault). It was extremely powerful and unlike anything else in the game, leading to a lot of bitterness and Forgeworld being “TO Approval Only” or even banned outright for a long while.

(Flyers also caused some consternation, not overpowered exactly, but the rules were badly written and confusing).

FW got a reputation as “not real rules”. It started gaining acceptance again as they fixed the broken stuff, then they released the.. Hornet? Some Eldar thing covered in bright lances for super cheap, when Eldar were already the top army by far, and it started being banned again.

GW have released worse undercosted metagame-warping models of course (Vendetta, Riptide, Coteaz, Wave Serpents etc etc), but they are very much “known quantities” and the sort of things everyone knew they had to deal with. FW has more of a reputation for taking people by surprise and generating excessive salt.

Yes there’s a heap of fluffbunny stuff, but that’s not what gets brought to tournaments, and thus, not what tournament players get exposed to.

(Clarification, the Hornet was in 2013, early 6th edition. Tau and Eldar were the top two armies, often played together as “Taudar”.)

Well, I know that a lot of the people who comment on here have been out of the game for awhile, and this site for that matter. So, I'm not as surprised to see the FW argument coming up again as I would be on other sites. The argument was put to bed in the ITC and other majors in the US at least. FW is legal, unless an individual model or weapon set up has been banned..which did happen in 7th. It will probably happen in 8th, but there will not be a blanket ban. In the ITC it will be voted on as usual, and good luck finding a tournament that isn't ITC. There may be some that ban FW, but it won't be any major tournament. Whether you like it or not, expect to deal with it.

I am not worried at all about the big models or vehicles like the Hornet, I expect them to have a high price tag and not be game changing. My worry is Renegades shenanigans and cheap Quad mortars, rapiers, etc.. Being blown off the table by mass artillery was my least favorite experience in 7th, looking at you Renegades.

Not quite, ITC is all over the world now. GW did use FLG, Nova and Adepticon people as major playtesters so I would expect they had some influence. GW is also taking a much more active role in tournaments now than they have for a long time. In the US that has mainly been on the AoS side of it, but I would expect that to change with the new edition of 40k and to see them more active in it.

FW will probably screw up some units, but the new system is supposedly designed to fix anything that is totally out of whack in a timely manner. I never trust them on 40k rules, but it would make good business sense for GW to keep a tighter rein on the FW side of 40k rule writing now, and they seem to have gotten much smarter lately on 'good business'.

I haven't been keeping track, but I thought that there was no love lost between Nova and FLG/ITC. I can't remember details, but I recall some east coast v west coast stuff where people were taking shots at ITC's "tampering" with the rules.

I'd also be careful about how much you buy the play testing claims. While balance between factions remains a question, individual entries appear to be all over the place.

It does sound a bit too much like a company line at this point. And then the FLG peeps praise the devs at Geedubs you know something is cooking.

I'm not sure how much of a "claim" it is. The top tournament organizers and players have been play testing for awhile now. It's a fact.

That doesn't mean things will be perfect. No system is. But the fluctuations will be substantially dampened, and I don't think anyone who has really looked at anything can argue that point.

Those days are long over, if it ever existed. ITC is a framework, Nova and Adepticon both had different formats and missions but are ITC events. All 3 types of missions were actually in the 2017 ITC Mission pack, although all of that is out the window right now of course.

I'm going to buy the playtesting, did they catch everything? have said so themselves. Considering the various potential combos that would be impossible. They have stated on numerous occasions that they DID playtest FW. Right now, they won't comment until the books come out from FW though.

Ah, ITC was coming in right as I was going out. I do remember some people being very critical of ITC, but I might be falsely attributing that to an east coast mentality. I respect what Reece and co have done for 40k. I worry now that GW is name dropping to give 8th more legitimacy among people frustrated with the game. We'll never know because NDAs will keep the FLG crew from talking.

I find it's best to be a bit skeptical when it comes to GW. For every two steps forward they take one back. Even with 8th they do a much needed revamp of the rules and simultaneously introduce Numarines while many factions have seen only a couple of new models for years, if any at all. Whenever you think they have really turned a corner, they find a way to remind you that they are still GW.

Out side of Sisters, who hasn't gotten new models in the last 5 years? Dark Eldar. Necrons, Daemons and Tau got almost entirely new model lines. Eldar, Chaos, and Orcs got big stuff and flyers.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just honestly can't point to a faction outside of Sisters that has really been neglected, and even they got the new hotness Celstine and company a few months ago.

Wait Necrons got new lines in the last 5 years? I'm pretty sure mine are up to date and older than that.

It might be a tad older, now I think about it. The 5th edition codex and their new line came out about 6 months before 6th edition. I think it was near the end of 2011, so a bit older then 5 years.

Still feels pretty fresh, though. Nothing like the post 3rd edition drought.

From what I can easily find, from to June 2012 to August 2016 (the weekly releases were to hard to track down):
AdMech – 9
Astra Militarum – 8
Blood Angels – 7
Chaos Demons – 15
Chaos Space Marines – 15
Dark Angels – 12
Dark Eldar – 5
Eldar – 15
Imperial Agents – 4
Imperial Knights – 2
Necrons – 5
Tyranids – 16
Orks – 9
Space Wolves – 7
Tau – 16

Space Marines – 37

Now, I know some recent stuff is left out, but not enough to make a huge difference. If you can't see why some people are annoyed that the next couple of months are going to be almost all Space Marines, I don't think anything I say is going to make any difference.

Heh, yeah, I really can't see that at all. Most people have gotten double digit new units in the time frame mentioned. (and, as I just mentioned, Necrons and DE got entirely new lines just 6 months before June 2012) Why in the world would anyone care if the Space Marines got more then that?

I play both DE and Necrons primarily, and I couldn't possibly care less that Space Marines are getting more new units. Now, granted, when the two armies I play had to wait more then a decade for an update, it kind of sucked. Since 5th edition I think GW has objectively done a pretty fair job of giving each faction some love.

I can't tell if I'm impressed by your patience or disturbed by your fealty. I'll call it a draw.

I've got armies full of models I like for the factions I like. I guess that makes me a vassal of GW.

GW has said in the past, and anonymous sources have implied/confirmed as well, that almost 50% of their sales of the entire 40K line are from Space Marines. It really shouldn't be surprising that they do releases in accordance with what people are buying.

Well, of course they are. 50% of the model line are Space Marines.

The other problem with that is that people buy Space Marines because they are the new release, which causes GW to make more Space Marines, which are bought because they are the new release….

Every single other major faction has had a pretty big new release in the last 6 years. Why would they be magically immune to that purchasing cycle?

I was going to say what Alastores said (I thought the 50% included Space Marines of any type as well, which makes sense given the release numbers).

You definitely can't argue that it's a bad business decision. The miniatures market is saturated with space marines (because GW keeps releasing more), so redo Space Marines and replace all the fairly new models with new models. To me though, this feels a bit like Apple's aggressive planned obsolescence. A practice that is profitable, but on the shady side. So to me, releasing three Sisters models and then re-doing the faction that they've given the most attention to over the last few years seems the epitome of flowing up a move forward with moving backwards.

I also feel that it's missed opportunity. Bigger and badder they might be, but Numarines are still rolling with a very 90's asthetic. Xenos or even Guard models give GW a lot of creative space to draw in new customers. I guess I'm just bored with space marines, but that's just like, my opinion, man.

Oh, I totally agree- I have essentially no interest in Marines at all, except where they diverge from the standard so far as to be unrecognizable. But they obviously have a lot of resonance even outside of GW's marketing- space marines are a big thing, even in other media, and they consistently sell well.

People have been complaining about the amount of attention Space Marines receive since Rogue Trader, when they had the only decent plastic infantry and Rhinos came in three-packs. After a certain point, I think most veteran 40k players just come to accept that that’s the way it’s gonna be.

They accepted that's how it's going to be and bought some Space Marines. Pretty much everybody that plays this game has a SM army of some sort. It does make me wonder just how popular Sisters would be if they had gotten 37 new releases in a little over 4 years. Perhaps everyone would have a Sisters army.

It's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure if that's how demand actually works.

I've never bought a Space Marine army, and started collecting Necrons when there was literally like 3 models in the entire line up. I just think generations of people growing up on Heinlein and the like just tend to gravitate towards Space Marines.

I really don't think people are looking at the model lines and going "I would totally by Orcs but there are only 56 different products where as Space Marines have 110, so I'm going to buy them instead." The amount of different models for all but the newest of armies significantly surpasses the average persons monthly budget for such expenses.

I really think it's just as simple as AP suggested. They design towards demand.

Actually that's exactly how demand works. GW's releases act like a showcase for that faction. This is the same as a display or an end cap at the store. These have a big impact on sales, which is why companies fight over shelf space at the store. Even having a product moved from eye level to the bottom shelf has quite an impact on sales.

Yes, but every other faction has had those opportunities.

People aren't playing Space Marines because they couldn't see the Tyranids.

That's not how marketing works. I don't think you have any interest in understanding where I am coming from, so we can leave it at that.

I understand your theory perfectly well. I just think you are willfully ignoring the various external factors that make Space Marines popular that are 100% independent of GW or any of their marketing. You almost seem to be implying that GW doesn't even want to sell it's other factions, which is absurd.

Out of the over 1000 40k products offered currently on their website, 600+ are non Space Marines. They aren't making all those models just to not try to sell them. They also don't have a "hard on" for Space Marines.

Ford doesn't make more trucks because they have a hard on for selling trucks. Ford makes more trucks because that is what the market demands.

To play devil's advocate for a second: keep in mind that Ford also sold big, expensive boatcars to people for several decades under the presumption of "that's what they want" and ignored evidence otherwise, which eventually allowed many foreign manufacturers to carve out sections of the market and leave Ford (and other American car manufacturers) struggling to catch up.

In other words, demand can be created artificially through marketing and selective control of the supply. We obviously can't say for certain that's what happens with Space Marines, but it's not an utterly implausible theory, either- surely GW's focus on selling Marine kits has _some_ effect on the market demand.