Forgeworld – Tau Y’vahra Battlesuit, Malanthrope and Meka Dread

Another set of Forgeworld datasheets.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

83 Responses to “Forgeworld – Tau Y’vahra Battlesuit, Malanthrope and Meka Dread”

  1. abusepuppy says:

    There's a lot to note here, but the big one that jumps out is that the Y'vahra is now down to hitting on 4s like the rest of the Tau army, rather than 3s like before. Not a huge issue with its main weapon being the flamer, but worth remembering.

    It got the same big price increase as the Riptide did, and presumably the R'varna will as well. T7 is an interesting upgrade, since it was actually more fragile than the Riptide was last edition.

    The profiles on its guns look scary, but running the numbers they aren't nearly so bad as they seem. Plasma flamer doesn't ignore cover anymore, so even its overcharge mode is only killing ~6 Marines (or 4 in cover.) Ironically, I think the flamer is almost as good as the Ion against most vehicles, just due to the superior number of shots.

    Can it fire both weapons with the Nova profile if it activates its reactor? The text doesn't really specify at all.

    Being able to take two Support Systems… hmm. A Target Lock is basically 100% needed for it, and that leaves you with one other slot. Multitracker? Stims? Advanced Targeting? ATS feels kinda like the default good choice, since it wants to be firing at big targets and its weapons have good-but-not-amazing AP values.

    Feels like it's probably gonna come in at the same price as the Riptide, ~350 or so without drones.

    • Prometheus says:

      It's just about 20pts, max equipped, per Power Level. This appears to be fairly consistent across models. So if it's 20 Power Level, it's at least 380 and probably closer to 400 pts fully loaded, without drones.

      You probably can fire both weapons with Nova, as Nova Reactor used to affect the Riptide's secondary, too.

      Not sure why the Nova Shield is 3+ in melee only. Yes, it's a close in drone but there was no need to complicate things. Also not sure what is the point of it's "pistol" since in all cases you'd rather fly away and just shoot them in the face normally.

  2. Kirby says:

    The Malanthrope being a character with Venomthrope clouds is awesome but very expensive (looks like the cost of 6 Venomthropes?).

    • abusepuppy says:

      If it's a character, price is almost not an issue, especially since it affects other units as well. Being able to hid behind some Termagants is _clutch_.

  3. Tyranic says:

    Uhm malanthrope is good that shrouding rule is for all tyranid models not just Infantry like the venomthrope have.
    And the character rule with W9 yay.

    • Kirby says:

      Ah keep missing keywords like that – yes that's a big change then.

      • davethegamer says:

        A first glance, this thing looks good – I noticed right away that it did not have the infantry keyword for its cover bonus……then some things started to not make sense.

        It feels like a model that is confused at its role.

        * back field – good at protecting MC's in the back
        * back field – has backfield synapse
        * front lines – the toxic miasma
        * front lines – prety adaptation.

        However, with only T5 and a 5+ save….those nine wounds will be gone quick.
        Then I thought about the prey adaptation – if the defender picks casualties, how is this thing ever going to be adjacent to the last model? charging a single tau drone?

        I LOVE the idea of this thing, and absolutely love the model (have had one for years).

        But it feels like it was designed by two different people, who did not talk to one another.
        I mean sure, its great I can grant an exocrine a +1 cover save….but for 1 more power level, I could just buy another exocrine.

        I will still use mine in really big games – but otherwise….feels like there are a lot better units to spend that many points on. not sure….
        Your thoughts?

        • No One says:

          It's a Character with <10 wounds – 9 wounds, even with only a 5+ save, should be plenty. Unless you end up in combat…which is probably unlikely to happen with 5" move.

          Prey adaptation…yeah, really tricky to trigger. Single (ish) model units that it can get within 1" of everything, I guess…
          "I mean sure, its great I can grant an exocrine a +1 cover save….but for 1 more power level, I could just buy another exocrine. "
          Everyone says this. And…it's Synapse. Your exos will need Synapse from somewhere – why not mal, rather than warriors? ("Because 100 pts is too much for -1 to hit for 1 model is an acceptable answer 😛 " But if scaling up, or you really want that survivable fire-base…while not the auto-pick it was, remains worthy of consideration for some builds I think.)

          • abusepuppy says:

            Remember, it's not +1 cover save, it's -1 to hit. The one is not like the other- it reduces Space Marines to being Guardsmen, Guardsmen to Orks, and Orks to Snap Shots. -1 to hit won't always help (that's the nature of dice), but it is a HUGE swing in damage taken.

          • J.D says:

            Does someone know how much piont the Malantrophe costs in matched play?
            I think this thing is kind of an auto hq pick for me. Giving -1 to hit to the enemies could protect nearly everything in your deployment zone (Tervigon on objektive, Exocrines, Tyrannofexes). Beeing a Synapse is very usefull. 2 in a team for 1 slot is usefull too.

          • J.D says:

            And having 9 wounds so it can’t be targeted….nice

    • EricT says:

      Although it is all Tyranid models, the flip side is that it says "models within 3"," not "units" like it does on venomthropes. Hopefully that's just an oversight and doesn't just mean that only the 1 gaunt in your 30-gaunt unit within the bubble benefits.

      • Tyranic says:

        Yes it is Models within 3" its only good for big monsters and venomthropes for all other infantry units within 3"

      • Kadeton says:

        Yeah, I noted that too but couldn't figure out how it should work, since you don't target models – you target units. Would you only get the effect if *all* the models in the unit were within the aura, like with cover?

      • No One says:

        Someone in some playtesting group (FLG?) has said it's supposed to affect the entire unit. Because having a to hit on a model by model basis…really doesn't work. At all.

  4. Prometheus says:

    Kirby! Let's talk about Tau guns. You're holding out.

  5. Ish says:

    So, once again, Games Workshop is previewing units from the Imperial Armour indices, telling us that these books and models “designed to be used with the new edition of Warhammer 40,000.” But, sure, let’s continue to pretend that Forge World isn’t part of the game…

    • Prometheus says:

      I'm not sure why you don't get that what GW says about it isn't actually the important bit. Historically, FW has been random as fuck and had a lot less quality control on their rules (which is really saying something).

      Play it in your narrative games, if you want.

      • Ish says:

        You’re right. How silly of me to believe the people manufacturing the product know anything about the product.

        • Prometheus says:

          Historically, they often haven't. But regardless, it isn't just that, it's that they have an ulterior motive. They want you buying ridiculously expensive premier resin models and rules. That probably isn't great for tournaments, though, having that one model come in that basically no one has heard about.

          • Ish says:

            Games Workshop wants us to buy their products? That’s not an “ulterior motive,” it’s the goddamn mission statement of the company.

            • Prometheus says:

              Yes, it is. GW cares about selling models, not necessarily what is good for their game. (though many would argue they're short sighted in that) People probably shouldn't have allowed Super Heavies back when, either, relegated them to Apocalypse like always. (Then, they seem fine now). But GW said "these are part of the core game now!" Because they wanted to sell models, and the game sucked, and a bunch of people, including myself stopped playing for a few years. Their desire to sell models was actively in opposition to a good game experience.

            • Matt-Shadowlord says:

              He probably meant they have a 'vested interest'.

          • Ish says:

            You seem unclear on what the definition of “ulterior” actually is. Games Workshop is quite open and obvious in their mission: sell miniatures and related accessories to as many people as possible for the greatest profits feasible. If this is somehow shocking to you, I’m sorry.

            • Prometheus says:

              Now you're just shifting the goal posts on the argument. I explained why GW should not necessarily be heeded on whether certain models should or should not be allowed in games. Whether that is or is not "ulterior" is completely dependent on what it is *ulterior to*, in this case, as I alluded to, it's ulterior to "a good game". So yeah, it's fucking "ulterior".

              And now you have made me argue semantics with you, which is sorta like mud wrestling a pig. You have lessened us both.

              • Alastores says:

                Ulterior doesn't mean secondary, it means hidden.

                • Prometheus says:

                  I would argue about how it is "hidden" as they want you to think it's for the good of the game, but that would be arguing semantics, and I'm not going to continue this. "Ulterior motive" is used colloquially as I just used it.

                  • Alastores says:

                    I don't believe I've ever heard it to mean anything other than "Something that they are trying to hide from you".

                    GW isn't trying to hide that they are about selling models.

                    • Prometheus says:

                      Have you tried a dictionary?

                      Derived from Latin root, meaning "further or more distant".

                    • Alastores says:



                      Also, y'know, adjective: ulterior

                      existing beyond what is obvious or admitted; intentionally hidden.

                      From your own link.

                    • Prometheus says:

                      Which is what I said? I have less animus towards you than Ish, but am no more interested in arguing the semantics. Not only did I use the word and phrase correctly, but even if I didn't my point was clear.

                    • Alastores says:

                      No, you said it meant 'secondary'.

                      You did not use the word correctly. I don't care about how much hostility you have towards me. I don't particularly care that you didn't use it correctly, to be honest, but your stubborness is doing you no favours.

                    • FCE says:

                      He could have meant secondary as in the definition of being further past the primary. And he's not wrong in that sense in that although GW is a company concerned with selling models, the models are used in their game, which they also sell rules to.

                      I believe his point is that the primary product that's being marketed is a fun game, in which you can use their models. It can be argued both ways, but he's not flat out wrong, if you are willing to wrangle semantics, which it seems you are.

                    • Alastores says:

                      -shrugs-. If we are going with that (very much…ulterior…definition of ulterior, then it's the game that's the secondary one.

                      GW's always been very clear that they are about the models first. They've realised recently (with the change in CEO) that their community doesn't entirely agree with them on this, which is why they've tried to step up the balance of their games. But they are still a modelling company first.

                    • Prometheus says:

                      DAFUQ. I didn't say "secondary", YOU DID. Secondly (see what I did there?) if you accept that "beyond" would also mean "secondary" it does also sorta mean that.

                      Look, jackass, when you say someone has an "ulterior motive" you are saying they have "another motive" which certainly could be hidden, also could be secondary.

                      IN this case, I was saying "another motive besides making a good game".

                    • Prometheus says:

                      And yeah, btw, when they say "Use these super expensive resin models, it'll be fun!" They are totally being disengenuous about why they want you to use them. No where does there marketing say "There's no reason for you to use these rule sets in your game, but we'd really like you to, because they're expensive as hell".

                    • indep. third party says:

                      There is no reason for you to use any rulesets in your game. There is not much reason for you to play the game at all; go play some other game if you prefer, or make up your own game (using the same models, if that is your wish). I don't see what that has to do with Forge World.

                      I am in no position to comment on whether or not Forge World products are good or bad in any way; I have never purchased anything from them, nor have I partaken in any game containing any of their models or rulesets, and I haven't even played Warhammer 40,000 in many years. But I can point out that I can't actually discern what your argument is.

                      If your argument is "the rulesets released in the past for Forge World models have been unbalanced", then just say that. If you are correct, then you shouldn't need anything about the motives of the companies involved to defend your statement: just point out imbalances in the rules. Adding in a load of unnecessary stuff has made your argument unclear (and, in my opinion, unfounded).

                    • Prometheus says:

                      I did, in fact, say that. Did you read all the comments?

                      And GWs motives are pertinent because Ish seems to think "because GW says so" is a good enough reason. I was pointing out that they don't have a balanced game as their core interest and should be ignored in some cases.

                    • indep. third party says:

                      I apologise. I said "then just say that". What I suppose I meant was "then say just that". That is, state your main point, back it up and leave it at that. Trying to argue more than one thing at once when you are confident in each individual argument is illogical: if you are correct, then you are correct, in which case you need say nothing about motive; if you are incorrect, or at the very least if you are not convinced by your own argument, then why are you bothering (I am assuming, of course, that you have not been playing devil's advocate this whole time)?

                    • Prometheus says:

                      The appeal of semantic arguments is that they can seize on very little and derail a conversation fully.

                      But again, GWs motives must be discussed because it brings up why they must be disregarded.

                • Prometheus says:

                  And, btw, it doesn't mean "hidden", really, it means "outside of" and it's use to suggest a "hidden meaning" is derivative of that. So yeah, it actually does mean "secondary" or "external".

          • Ish says:

            Funny thing about words, they have a root with a specific meaning but after centuries of linguistic drift and vernacular usage, they will acquire a distinct meaning all of their own. Often with layers of subtle nuance and context based associations. Hence, a person could be described as “sleepy,” “exhausted,” or “lethargic” and you would have the same general meaning (he needs rest) but very different tonal meanings.

            Ulterior, in modern usage, means “existing beyond what is obvious or admitted; intentionally hidden.” Which is copy-pasted from the very dictionary definition you, yourself, cited.

            • Prometheus says:

              Yes, it means exactly what I said it meant, and is used exactly as I used it. I am not arguing this further, you are wrong in every way, you sophomoric twit.

          • Ish says:

            Prometheus, here’s a simple Yes/No question for you: Does this article from Games Workshop (link below) state that the Imperial Armour indices are “designed to be used with the new edition of Warhammer 40,000”?

            If your answer is “No,” please explain why I can read that exact sentence in the article.
            If your answer is “Yes,” please explain why we should listen to you.

            • Prometheus says:

              What part of the "they should be ignored because they are more interested in selling you models than giving you a good game" argument (i.e. an "ulterior motive") passed you by?

    • itcamefromthedeep says:

      If a TO were to ban Forge World stuff because they found in their experience that the presence of Forge World models makes their event, on net, less fun, then that would be fine by me. I can't recall ever playing a game ever made more enjoyable for the presence of a Forge World model, with the exception of some titans in an Apocalypse game. I don't play 30k though, and that's something of a different beast.

      They spoiled 3 profiles, and all of them have proofreading issues. That could reasonably lead a TO to ban the stuff until they have some assurance that Forge World's writing and balance work is up to an acceptable level. It could reasonably lead a player to decide not to bother playing a game when Forge World models hit the table.

  6. Ish says:

    >> [T]hey have an ulterior motive. They want you buying ridiculously expensive premier resin models and rules. <<

    Those are your exact words, copy-pasted from your comment from June 14, 2017 at 2:29 AM. Selling models and rules is Games Workshop's sole reason for existing, you're actually like it's some sort of conspiracy.

    • Prometheus says:

      Why are you still (incorrectly) trying to argue semantics?

      Why are you quoting me, when those words remain, unaltered, just a few comments up?

      Why are you restarting a conversation in a separate thread, like somebodies internet un-savvy grandpa?

      Why are you wasting my time? NO SHIT THEY SELL MODELS. Which everyone completely forgets when they say "Hey kids! Use this super exclusive rule set comprised only of super expensive models! It'll be fun and make your games so much better!" Except it won't and that has nothing to do with why they want you to use it (making it both a hidden, and an extra motive, both part of the meaning of "ulterior", use a dictionary or have a decent grasp of the language before you WASTE MY TIME IN MULTIPLE THREADS ARGUING SEMANTICS).

      • Alastores says:

        Have they ever actually said "These models will make your games better" ?

        Because I don't recall that ever being said. There's certainly comments on the looks of them, but I don't remember any GW employee or product saying the game would be improved by adding more forgeworld.

        • Prometheus says:

          Dude, I'm fucking done. My point was fucking clear. I am 100% sure that some marketing somewhere said FW is going to make your game better, of course it did. No I'm not looking it up.

          • Alastores says:

            Wait, so your argument is "Because you think that somewhere, GW has said that Forge World models will make the game better, they must have done so".

            Uh..that's…not…how this works. Unless you've actually got a reason beyond "Welp, they must've done it!" ?

            I get White Dwarf, so I've seen the advertising for the Forgeworld models. Absolutely NONE of it is "This would be awesomely powerful in your games!". They focus on how it looks, on it being cool. Yes, this is still advertising to try to get you to buy it, but it really doesn't focus on it being powerful. Up until VERY recently (the hype articles for 8th, actually), GW really hasn't focused on "X is powerful, you should want it" for a very, very long time.

            So, unless you actually DO go and look it up, you are correct – you are done. Because your assertion isn't backed up, and isn't consistent with GW's prior advertising methods and policy.

            • Prometheus says:

              No, no it isn't. It was my argument for why your argument was stupid. And then you misrepresented what I said (and my assertions), making all this extra stupid.

              My argument, IF WE CARE TO GET BACK TO IT, was that GW wants you to use FW because it is good for them, not because it makes the game better. And that players should not use FW rules, and should in fact ignore GW when they say "this is part of the game now!" because of that.

              By all means use FW models as proxies if you think they're pretty (I do).

              • Alastores says:

                GW wants you to use ALL models because it's good for them – they sell the damn models regardless of where they come from.

                Up until very recently, they didn't give a crap about the game. Their entire advertising method was "look at how cool these models are. Oh, yeah, and theree's some rules that you can use to Forge A Narrative with them, if you want".

                I get that you've got this Hate Thing for Forgeworld, but seriously, you are criticising a business for ultimately wanting to sell models.

                And no. You cannot go "I Prometheus have decided a thing, and even without any evidence, this must be true and therefore you are stupid". That's moronic. So unless you can present some evidence of GW saying "Buy Forgeworld, it'll make your games better", you haven't done a damn thing about my argument. Nor have I 'misrepresented ". My point was fucking clear. I am 100% sure that some marketing somewhere said FW is going to make your game better, of course it did."

                You refuse to find evidence for this, and GW's marketting strategy really doesn't focus on 'buy X, it'll make the games better', which means it doesn't matter how sure you are.

                If you think Forgeworld was bad for the game in 6th, I suspect pretty much everyone would agree with you.

                You – I believe- didn't play 7th, so you can't really form an opinion there.

                None of us can form an opinion over whether Forge World will be bad for the game in 8th.

                • Prometheus says:

                  I'm not hating on GW for trying to sell models? I'm saying that because they want to sell models, they're entreatments that you should use the FW ruleset should be ignored.

                  You agree that FW was bad for the game in 6th? SO therefore you agree they have a bad track record. The game went downhill when GW forced FW rules into the main game and tournaments started allowing it. Maybe in a few years, once they've released completely balanced rules for 8th, or at least as balanced as main GW rules, people should consider letting them back in. But it's much harder to let them in now and then ban them later when the rules are proven to be crazy.

                  • Alastores says:

                    I agree that they were bad in 6th. 6th was a long time ago.

                    They honestly weren't that big a deal in 7th. In fact, they were possibly less unbalanced than some of…formations GW produced – and because they couldn't fit into those formations, people wanting to use FW stuff either had to use basic CADs (IE, much, much weaker than Free-Razorback-Spam Company, Stupid Marine Drop Pod Assault Forces, War Convocations et al) or had to create really..bizarre armies.

                    The massive Tau suit is about the only thing I can really remember seeing being used in serious settings around here, actually.

                    And frankly, since they are Games Workshop rules, asi s mentioned above, you can make the claim for literally any other Games workshop rules. Forgeworld is no different to Codex Space Marines,

              • Trickstick says:

                With this logic, I could conclude that I should ignore (random choice) Salamanders because it is good for GW that they sell them? Or that Kroot really don't make the game better and should be ignored?

                Why isn't the argument just "I don't want to play against them"? Everyone can accept that, you have a free choice of what you want to play against. FW legality arguments are really weird and never go anywhere. I don't understand the motivation behind trying to de-legitimise other people's play choices.

                • Prometheus says:

                  Specifically, I am talking for tournaments. Do whatever you want in your home games.

                  • Alastores says:

                    We can say the same to you.

                    Forgeworld rules ARE rules. Therefore, why are you telling tournaments to ignore bits of the ruleset?

                    You can do whatever you like in your home games.

      • Kadeton says:

        Why are mummy and daddy fighting? ;_;

        • Sean Gordon says:

          I sometimes think Prometheus and Ish like fighting on 40k forums more than fighting in 40k.

          To be fair to them, it's cheaper than plasticrack 😀

          • abusepuppy says:

            Well I mean by his own admission he hasn't played the game in more than an edition, so I don't think it's really in question at all.

          • Ish says:

            I’ve played exactly one game of Seventh Edition. I did not enjoy it. OTOH, my eldest daughter begged for me to get her some Sylvaneth for her birthday and we’ve been playing a lot of Ahe of Sigmar. I’ve enjoyed it immensely.

        • Kirby says:

          If they are mom and dad… what are the rest of us?

  7. Neil_Phillips says:



    Ionic Discharge Cannon: "When targeting this enemy VEHICLE" instead of "When targeting an enemy VEHICLE"
    Flechette is spelled incorrectly.
    Fletchette pod doesn't.. really.. do anything. (it's a pistol, so can't be fired at the same time as the other weapons. The XV109 can fly out of combat and still shoot.)
    Drone Support: "..unit coherency with them" instead of "..unit coherency with it"
    Nova Reactor: Does "Overcharged Burst" apply to both weapons, or just one?
    Escape Thrust: "more than 9" away from an enemy unit" should be "more than 9" away from any enemy models"


    Big Zzappa: Spelling error, "cause" should be "causes" (and templating is awkward).
    Rokkit-Bomms are listed, but not available as a Wargear Option.
    Big n' Stompy: "bearer" should be "firer"


    Shrouding Spores: SHould be "ranged attacks" not "Ranged Weapons
    Shrouding Spores: How does this even work if a unit has some models within 3", and some not?
    Prey Adaptation: How long does this ability last? All game? Does it continue after the Malanthrope dies?
    Prey Adaptation: <Hive Fleet> keyword templated incorrectly. "all models in your army with the same <hive fleet> keyword as the Malanthrope" should say "All <hive fleet> models in your army".

    I cannot think of a single unit in any of the Indexes with issues as numerous as any of these three – and these are the ones GW chose to highlight! It's pretty clear that these are NOT up to the standard of the Indexes, and I would not blame anyone for continuing to treat Forgeworld as "not real 40k" if the rest of the Forgeworld datasheets are of similar quality.

    • Track says:

      Wow Neil.
      Fw should hire the hell out of you, man 🙂

    • Alastores says:

      Well, the Fletchette pod gives it a pistol. It's rarely going to use it, true, but there will be situations in which either you do not want to retreat it, or you cannot retreat it (either due to lack of room or a rule like the Wyches).

      • Neil Phillips says:

        Yes it’s not completely impossible to come up, although in the case of Wyches etc you need to also add “..and using the Escape Thrust is not a good option”.

        But it’s more useful than SoB’s global 1D6 Deny the Witch, so that’s something I guess!

        • Alastores says:

          mmm. Yeah, I don't think it's going to do anything a lot of the time, but it's there. As long as it's not paying for it, I guess!

          For Sisters…really? That's what their psychic defence is? Godsdamnit, GW.

  8. Calmdown says:

    Malanthrope 250 points ish going by its power of 10. Very low move and only good for protecting MCs which it needs to sit on top of. Tough to trigger prey adaptation with a move of 5 and it needing to be in melee.

    Since most MCs are about 250 max not sure why you’d bother instead of just taking a second MC.

    Maybe if they’d give it decent stats so it could fight once it’s delivered things to melee but str 4 t5 and a 5+? Come on fw.

    • No One says:

      "Malanthrope 250 points ish going by its power of 10. "
      Noo…likely ~200 pts. Trygon Prime (PL 10) sits at around 210 pts. Tryannofex (PL11) and exocrine (PL11) sit at around 230-240 pts (can't remember exactly). And harpy (PL9) is around 180 pts (with the more expensive gun). It is not going to be 250 pts, unless they somehow manage to completely stuff up PL balancing, which shouldn't be hard with no options…

      "Since most MCs are about 250 max not sure why you'd bother instead of just taking a second MC."
      Synapse. With IB changes, most MCs really need it. Unless it's just carnis running up the board with flyrants, in which case…not with 5" move, no.

      "Maybe if they'd give it decent stats so it could fight once it's delivered things to melee but str 4 t5 and a 5+? Come on fw. "
      It's not like it was ever really good at killing things in combat…It's a Character with <10 wounds, and a 5" move – combat's…probably not the best place for it.

      How this interacts with Prey adaptation…yeah, I don't see that one being helpful very often, no.

    • Prometheus says:

      10 Power level would be about 200 pts. It's looking about 20 pts per power level, full equipped. (less if you spend carefully)

      This seems pretty consistent, though Coteaz was 4 power level and 100 pts, for some reason.

  9. J.D says:

    200pts for the Malantrophe is okay.
    I think this thing is kind of an auto hq pick for me. Giving -1 to hit to the enemies could protect nearly everything in your deployment zone (Tervigon on objektive, Exocrines, Tyrannofexes). Beeing a Synapse is very usefull. 2 in a team for 1 slot is usefull too.

  10. Catalyst says:

    Does anyone know the actual points cost of the XV109? I can’t find it anywhere and battlescribe doesn’t have the files yet. I really want to use it in a points match soon

    • Catalyst says:

      Yeah, no problem bro.. Base points cost (with weapons) is above 394 but below 396 (to negate any of those weird rules about putting points values online) but any upgrade will take it over that 400pt mark. Glad I could help!

      • abusepuppy says:

        We don't give a shit about GW's boogeyman tactics about points values, for reference. They do not own the concept of numbers, nor do they have the ability to copyright reviews and discussion of their products.