Is Forgeworld the new Meta?

[DrBored]

I just took a look at the Adepticon pics. It seems like most of the armies have some aspect of Forgeworld in their lists, either entirely (as in some of the Adeptus Mechanicus lists) or with bits thrown in, like certain Land Raider variants, the Sicaran, or the Fire Raptor.

That's a lot of money. A lot of Forgeworld. Not only at this tournament, but at the previous LVO as well. My local hobby shops allow Forgeworld stuff, and as far as I'm understanding, lots of people are becoming more and more open to the idea of using Forgeworld models and rules.

But here's the thing. Competitive players wouldn't use it if it wasn't good. Considering how much Forgeworld stuff we're seeing, could it be that Forgeworld stuff is.. a little TOO good? Certainly not all of it, and I'm not going to claim it's broken or anything like that, but this is something that's cropping up more and more. The competitive meta is shifting more and more to Forgeworld.

Here's the question I want you all to consider: How do you counter the Forgeworld stuff without using Forgeworld models/rules?

[DarkLink]

Pretty easily, nothing forgeworld is crazier than plenty of things in regular 40k.

[Andrew Thomas]

Necrons...

I kid. Depends on what it is and what you run. Most of the Imperial/chaos stuff falls to SOPs, i.e. haywire and lance from Eldar, armourbane and Melta from other Imps/Chaos, Gauss/Entropic Strike from Crons, etc. It's not unstoppable, you just have to know where you're weak and where you're strong and play toward those ends.

[Vaktathi]

Pretty easily, nothing forgeworld is crazier than plenty of things in regular 40k.
This. There's really nothing in the FW lineup that's any more ridiculous than what's available from the normal codex lineup, and *very* few FW things match the top end codex stuff.

A lot of what you're seeing is simply functional alternatives to codex units that otherwise simply wouldn't be taken. For example, the Spartan over the very lackluster CSM Land Raider. Others plug major gaps in functionality that otherwise keep many armies/builds from seeing top tables, the Sicaran being a big one. Most of these die just as easily as most of their codex counterparts, the Spartan being the exception (though being significantly more expensive as well).

I think another aspect of it is that you're noticing it precisely because it's relatively new and unique.

Of far more prevalence, to me at least, is how prevalent Knights are :eek:

[ShadowcatX]

One important thing to note, armies profit far differently from the inclusion of Forgeworld. Tau or dark eldar, for example, don't gain much, but the Imperium gains the Sicarian and the Eldar gain hornets. So yes, it can be pretty swingy.

[Vaktathi]

One important thing to note, armies profit far differently from the inclusion of Forgeworld. Tau or dark eldar, for example, don't gain much, but the Imperium gains the Sicarian and the Eldar gain hornets. So yes, it can be pretty swingy.While true, same can be said of codex books. The current Eldar codex took the army from near the bottom straight to the top and its stayed there for two years. The AM codex replacing the 2009 IG codex just jiggled a couple things around, dropped a few units and tossed in some new useless stuff and the army didn't end up any better than it was before, in some ways worse.

These things change as times and editions change.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

One important thing to note, armies profit far differently from the inclusion of Forgeworld. Tau or dark eldar, for example, don't gain much, but the Imperium gains the Sicarian and the Eldar gain hornets. So yes, it can be pretty swingy.Aren't some of the Forgeworld Tau options pretty effective ways of working more Marker Lights in the army? And those Riptide variants are fairly swanky. Or did those get hosed in an update? Hard to keep track with Forgeworld.

True that the Dark Eldar don't get much out of it, tough.

[ShadowcatX]

Aren't some of the Forgeworld Tau options pretty effective ways of working more Marker Lights in the army? And those Riptide variants are fairly swanky. Or did those get hosed in an update? Hard to keep track with Forgeworld.

True that the Dark Eldar don't get much out of it, tough.

Pretty sure the riptides haven't been approved yet.

- - - Updated - - -


While true, same can be said of codex books. The current Eldar codex took the army from near the bottom straight to the top and its stayed there for two years. The AM codex replacing the 2009 IG codex just jiggled a couple things around, dropped a few units and tossed in some new useless stuff and the army didn't end up any better than it was before, in some ways worse.

These things change as times and editions change.

And if the question was "Do codexes help shape the meta" that would be relevant.

[Venomlust]

Other than the Tau FW riptide variants I think everything is more or less pretty reasonable. Will not be convinced otherwise about said units.

[40kGamer]

FW is pretty 'meh' by current standards... There just are not that many stand out units. I believe there's a custom stompa that can be a real beast if kitted out just so and revenants are still pretty good. Nothing that is really game changing though.

[DarkLink]

You kidding? There are a ton of standout FW units, and a lot of them are game-changers*. Just, none of them are so overpowering that they disrupt them meta, they just add more variety to the "good" lists.

*Sicarian Battle Tank, Fire Raptor, Land Raider Achilles, Severin Loth, Caestus Assault Ram, Knight Castellan, Scorpius Whirlwind, Saber Defense Platforms, Thudd Guns, Tetras, Malanthropes, Barbed Hierodules, Lynx, Hornets, Spartan Assault Tanks, etc, the list goes on...

[Vaktathi]

people still think Thudd Guns are standout?

[Arkhan Land]

Individually or as a small battery no, but when someone brings a whole mess of them, yes, they stand out.

I think as supposed to a previous era where the difficulties of mail-order/email order/leading to early internet orders made finding details out about/buying forgeworld kits slightly tougher and a less common occurrence in say for example 3rd/4th. Back in the day without a WD subscription/Kit catalogue the only way to really find out about them was to see them every now and then in action at a store. all me and the people I knew had was simply the knowledge passed by my friends who played we had crazy ideas about these rumored nuts cool Kits that were somehow available somewhere for more money than we could conceivably muster at the time.

Now information regarding these kits is widely available, its even not hard to find pirated pdfs of these books beforehand so you can truly be certain of your choices. and theres a user friendly FW site complete with descriptions and occasionally even free prototype rules for some models while they wait for official rules.

To top it all off, given the unavailability of certain specific normal 40k products regularly in stores I often buy more and more offline, how hard was it to go further and hunt down a few more things that I would never find in a store...

Given the level of commitment needed to decently play casually, competitively, and apocalypse sized games (and not compromising for one of the three or two of the three) i feel like sometimes meeting someone who wont commit to the big tanks/specialized units kind of remind of my friends who "love" cars but dont know how/ever want to change their own oil/filter (which always baffles me, I f***ing hate cars and I still learned to do that crap)

[Vaktathi]

I don't see why Thudd Guns would stand out anymore when Wyverns exist, doing the same thing (well, Se w/Shred instead of S5) and getting Twin Linked and Ignores Cover without having to involve psychic support or reinforcement from orders/leadership bubbles, for basically the same price.

[ShadowcatX]

Other than the Tau FW riptide variants I think everything is more or less pretty reasonable. Will not be convinced otherwise about said units.

Are we supposed to be impressed by your close mindedness?

[Arkhan Land]

Its not a cut and dry thing but heres the run-down of advantages
1) you can take four in the elites spot, which for normal CAD is fairly awesome
2) a S7 model (and through artillery rules helping your sqaud too) you can put in cover, has a different kind of survivability than a vehicle with an av10 facing, which I take down in combat constantly.
3) Overwatch - Wyrvn = 0, Thudd gun = at least one crewmen per battery shooting, for another 56 points put some more crewman in there for a lot more...
4) close combat, the ability to survive it due to the ability of crewman to fight around the models.

only thing else is like the wyrvn and a psyker, keeping an IC around with stubborn/fearleass/zealot is where it gets to be a rule tough cookie.

[40kGamer]

You kidding? There are a ton of standout FW units, and a lot of them are game-changers*. Just, none of them are so overpowering that they disrupt them meta, they just add more variety to the "good" lists.

*Sicarian Battle Tank, Fire Raptor, Land Raider Achilles, Severin Loth, Caestus Assault Ram, Knight Castellan, Scorpius Whirlwind, Saber Defense Platforms, Thudd Guns, Tetras, Malanthropes, Barbed Hierodules, Lynx, Hornets, Spartan Assault Tanks, etc, the list goes on...

Maybe it's because we've always included FW in games and local events folded FW in back in 5th. I see their units as complementary to certain builds but nothing so super special that it's an auto include. In 5th Lucius pods, Achilles, Thudd guns and Hades breaching drills were far more annoying to deal with than what FW offers up today.

[Venomlust]

Are we supposed to be impressed by your close mindedness?

Nope. Just wanted to prevent the inevitable silly arguments to the contrary.

[DarkLink]

But you didn't just say that forgeworld was common, you said it was 'meh' and that there are 'no stand out units' and 'nothing really game changing'. That's quite inaccurate.

Severin Loth is what makes Centstar work. You can do it with Tigirius, nut Tigirius only has a 3/4 chance of invisibility. Loth always gets it, making the Centstar far more viable.

Sicarians kill wave serpents like nothing else, and are extremely common because of it. They make SMs significantly better against Wave Serpents.

Fire Raptors eat Flyrants and other FMCs, giving SMs the tools to deal with FMCs they wouldn't otherwise have.

Just those three have had a significant effect on the types of lists SM players bring. That's quite literally the definition of 'game changing'. No, none of them are broken, but they are certainly not 'meh'.



And, yes, Thudd guns are still very good. Just, no one plays Guard anymore for whatever reason. And I suppose they're very interchangable with Wyverns, but that doesn't mean Thudd guns are bad by any means.

[40kGamer]

But you didn't just say that forgeworld was common, you said it was 'meh' and that there are 'no stand out units' and 'nothing really game changing'. That's quite inaccurate.

While everything you list is good there isn't anything there that I would balk at playing against. I just don't think there is really anything you can weave into the meta from FW that is auto-include. The FW stuff complements certain builds nicely but most of it is situational just like the regular codex stuff. Is there anything that you would auto-include in every SM army if you were going to an event? Anything that gives a 'leg up' on someone handicapped with mainline models only? I haven't see anything that creates a build that is universally better than what you can do with GW proper models.

[Vaktathi]

Its not a cut and dry thing but heres the run-down of advantages
1) you can take four in the elites spot, which for normal CAD is fairly awesome That's only for DKoK Siege Regiments using the Siege of Vraks book for their army list (who also don't have access to the Wyvern, nor any psykers within the army list). Otherwise they're Heavy Support for normal IG armies and you can only take up to 3 per FoC slot.


2) a S7 model (and through artillery rules helping your sqaud too) you can put in cover, has a different kind of survivability than a vehicle with an av10 facing, which I take down in combat constantly. If you get into combat with the guns, you're fighting WS3 S3 T3 I3 Ld7 5+sv guardsmen, certainly no harder to kill than the Wyverns. The guns (and their T7) are entirely ignored in CC. Wyverns can't be swept either.


3) Overwatch - Wyrvn = 0, Thudd gun = at least one crewmen per battery shooting, for another 56 points put some more crewman in there for a lot more... Sure, you can get some S3 lasguns, but they're not going to scare much.


4) close combat, the ability to survive it due to the ability of crewman to fight around the models. Again, WS3 S3 T3 I3 Ld7 5+sv guardsmen aren't usually going to survive anything that'll kill a tank unless you're talking about a single SM sergeant with a powerfist all by his lonesome or something.



only thing else is like the wyrvn and a psyker, keeping an IC around with stubborn/fearleass/zealot is where it gets to be a rule tough cookie.With a Wyvern you don't need the psyker or IC and you can deploy them without having to worry about concentrating your units around the IC bubbles. The Wyvern gets to ignore cover and twin link all of its shots, and not worry about Ld, without any external support. Also, they can move if needs be.

[Anggul]

Sure, some Forgeworld stuff is superior to similar GW units. That isn't because FW is too good, that's because FW tend to look at the units GW stubbornly refuse to make good and decide they're going to cut the crap and make a good version. See: Predators to Sicarans, Vypers to Hornets. It's sad because Predators and Vypers are cool and should be good on their own merits, but it's GW, not much can be done about it.

GW write most of the rules that give people head-aches, not FW.

You could say some of the most commonly seen FW units are a bit like gimmicky linchpins, but that's what comes to having to firefight the 'main' GW's rules design team.

I can see it now: "Oh crap, they've gone and made Zoanthropes mostly dead weight with their new psychic phase but people are having to take them anyway because they need synapse, we'd better combine the synapse they provide with Venomthropes so they aren't having to throw a crazy chunk of points into the two separate rules, and we'll need to make it decently resilient so they don't lose both at once too easily." Thus, the new Malanthrope rules.

That's what it has always looked like anyway. I could be totally wrong, but FW seem much better at writing rules and it might just be a coincidence but they do tend to make units that play the same role as GW units but do it well.

[ShadowcatX]

While everything you list is good there isn't anything there that I would balk at playing against. I just don't think there is really anything you can weave into the meta from FW that is auto-include. The FW stuff complements certain builds nicely but most of it is situational just like the regular codex stuff. Is there anything that you would auto-include in every SM army if you were going to an event? Anything that gives a 'leg up' on someone handicapped with mainline models only? I haven't see anything that creates a build that is universally better than what you can do with GW proper models.

I can't speak to the space marine line, but point for point the hornet is good enough that an eldar player handicaps themselves if they don't take them and they are available.

[Vaktathi]

I can't speak to the space marine line, but point for point the hornet is good enough that an eldar player handicaps themselves if they don't take them and they are available.It also doesn't help that there's not much to compete with in the FA slot, where most of the least impressive Eldar units reside.

It's also really one weapon option that's the issue. If Pulse Lasers were 15pts each instead of 5, they'd be much less popular.

[ShadowcatX]

It also doesn't help that there's not much to compete with in the FA slot, where most of the least impressive Eldar units reside.

It's also really one weapon option that's the issue. If Pulse Lasers were 15pts each instead of 5, they'd be much less popular.

You can fix anything by raising or lowering its cost, but that's not what this thread is about. They are an auto-include if they are available and not taking them is a handicap.

[DarkLink]

While everything you list is good there isn't anything there that I would balk at playing against. I just don't think there is really anything you can weave into the meta from FW that is auto-include. The FW stuff complements certain builds nicely but most of it is situational just like the regular codex stuff. Is there anything that you would auto-include in every SM army if you were going to an event? Anything that gives a 'leg up' on someone handicapped with mainline models only? I haven't see anything that creates a build that is universally better than what you can do with GW proper models.

I'm just saying that there's very good stuff that does change the meta. I also agree with you that none of it is so gamebreaking that regular 40k stuff can't deal with forgeworld, not by any means.

[40kGamer]

I'm just saying that there's very good stuff that does change the meta. I also agree with you that none of it is so gamebreaking that regular 40k stuff can't deal with forgeworld, not by any means.

Got it! I think we're actually saying the same thing but have slightly different definitions of game-meta changing / game breaking. :p

[DarkLink]

Yeah, it'd be one of those threads where both people are too proud to quit flaming each other because they thought they were disagreeing even though they weren't ;).

[Lurker]

You can fix anything by raising or lowering its cost, but that's not what this thread is about. They are an auto-include if they are available and not taking them is a handicap.

True and true. But as Vakthathi points out, it's the dearth of comparable choices in the FA slot (in this particular instance) that makes it true. I think that's why we see more and more FW over GW preference as players seek to replace "weaker" units with decent ones. I don't think it over balances the game either, anymore than can possibly be done by someone determined to do so anyhow.

[ShadowcatX]

True and true. But as Vakthathi points out, it's the dearth of comparable choices in the FA slot (in this particular instance) that makes it true. I think that's why we see more and more FW over GW preference as players seek to replace "weaker" units with decent ones. I don't think it over balances the game either, anymore than can possibly be done by someone determined to do so anyhow.

So don't you think replacing weaker units with stronger units is, by definition, changing the meta, and putting armies that have to use the weaker units (your words) puts non-forgeworld armies at a disadvantage?

[DrBored]

There are certainly bad Forgeworld units, but when something is an 'auto include' unit, then it's obviously GOOD. In fact, it's obviously VERY GOOD if it's so good that not taking it is considered a 'handicap', but then you know what we call that?

We call it cheese.

One of my friends pointed out that Forgeworld units seem, quite literally, like 'Pay to Win' units. Those with more money can afford better stuff and can therefore do better on the table. Now, the hobby is already pretty expensive, and you could argue that going out and buying a tourney-winning list off E-bay is just as much 'Pay to Win', but I figured it was a point worth bringing up.

[Ankhalagon]

I am playing a FW list. Because GW was too stupid to create a decent Admech Army. But I would never deploy more than 1 Thanatar or more than 3 Castellax on the table.
Wave Serpents and Canoptek Wraith are much more scary. Because they are GW-stuff. And even my army struggles with that pieces of scrap.

[Lurker]

So don't you think replacing weaker units with stronger units is, by definition, changing the meta,

Within the restraints of the given example, I do agree it does change the meta. However, I suppose I should have clarified that I was speaking to (or trying to anyway) to both competition and casual play. In casual I would not so readily agree, though it is noteworthy to point out that I would assume in casual that the selections would be more for aesthetic and/or fluff reasons and not be an attempt to just bring the biggest baddest kind of thing.


putting armies that have to use the weaker units (your words) puts non-forgeworld armies at a disadvantage?

And here, "weaker" was used in two ways. One because I couldn't quite come up with the proper word for what I was thinking, and two because it is an assumption that (especially within the given example) that a player might view a unit that is not to their preference as weak. My battery's about to die, so I will try to finish answering your second question more fully at later time.

[Popsical]

One of my friends pointed out that Forgeworld units seem, quite literally, like 'Pay to Win' units. Those with more money can afford better stuff and can therefore do better on the table. Now, the hobby is already pretty expensive, and you could argue that going out and buying a tourney-winning list off E-bay is just as much 'Pay to Win', but I figured it was a point worth bringing up.

Its when those guys make that comment that i just laugh and walk away from them.
I remember going to a tournament with my best mate, before hand he had been moaned at on the forum where the event was organised.
Several of the more vocal forum members said that he was "paying to win" by bringing a FW ork dread mob army and that FW should be banned as it was obviously OP and etc etc etc. He finished second to last out of 30 players and didn't win a game. Strangely the nay sayers were very quiet about that after the event, but still moan on and on about FW being OP and should be banned etc etc etc.
I myself spent 18 months building and painting to 4000pts a FW seige assault vanguard army of astral claws, it was so OP that i played 6 games and lost every last one of them. Now i'm an experienced SM player and have placed 2nd, 4th and 8th in my last 3 tournaments, so i have a pretty good grasp of 40k and its nuances, so it wasn't because i'm a terrible player.

Yes FW has some good units, yes some maybe more powerful than their codex counterpart, but the Codex's contain a damn sight more OP or unbalanced units by a long way. So one wonders why people are so anti FW?

I'm waiting for some total plum who owns a baneblade, knight or wraithknight to complain its because FW costs too much, its bound to happen somewhere.

[ShadowcatX]

Yes FW has some good units, yes some maybe more powerful than their codex counterpart, but the Codex's contain a damn sight more OP or unbalanced units by a long way. So one wonders why people are so anti FW?

Forgeworld doesn't have to be the most powerful thing on the table (though I can argue that in several cases it is), when it fills weak spots in an army, or when it is simply better than the codex option, then it changes the meta. Furthermore, it changes it in very inconsistent ways, some armies have very good options (your beloved marines, my eldar) while others (dark eldar, tau) do not.

[Popsical]

Following that line of reason leads to a result of "your codex has more units than mine, so its unfair" arguement. Or your codex has a good choice for each slot, whereas mine has poor fast attack. The plain and simple fact is 40k is not balanced at all, so whining about units that unbalance the already unbalanced game is laughable. As for changing the meta, really? Its never static for more than a few months anyway, so again its laughable to moan about it. And the whole balance issue has been done to death so i will leave it there.
Some might say the tau have plenty of good fw units.

[DrBored]

I think I already said this but: Yes, Forgeworld has some bad units, or some mediocre units, or some decent units.

The problem that I'm seeing is when EVERY Space Marine player (and there are a lot of them) in the competitive meta has one, if not two big fat Forgeworld vehicles. Sicaran, Fire Raptor, Fellblade, and all sorts of other big fancy vehicles that, hands down, are BETTER than the rest of the vehicles in their Codex.

Does that mean they're broken? I don't think so, honestly. They suffer from the same limitations of vehicles: hull points, explode results, melta vulnerability, etc, but when you add the Relics of War (or whatever they're called) rules and can suddenly make that Fellblade ignore cover?

Now you're talking about something that is, indeed, more effective than its points suggest.

[ShadowcatX]

Following that line of reason leads to a result of "your codex has more units than mine, so its unfair" arguement. Or your codex has a good choice for each slot, whereas mine has poor fast attack. The plain and simple fact is 40k is not balanced at all, so whining about units that unbalance the already unbalanced game is laughable. As for changing the meta, really? Its never static for more than a few months anyway, so again its laughable to moan about it. And the whole balance issue has been done to death so i will leave it there.
Some might say the tau have plenty of good fw units.

So if you think the question of this thread is pointless, why bother posting here? And about Tau, they would be mistaken.

[Vaktathi]

Tetras, R'varnas, Y'vahras? They aren't solid competitive FW units?

[ShadowcatX]

Tetras, R'varnas, Y'vahras? They aren't solid competitive FW units?

Riptides haven't received sanction have they? Ithought without that they weren't allowed.

[Vaktathi]

They're still experimental, but there are some events that have allowed them, including GW's Throne of Skulls, though events like the LVO obviously would not.

Tetra's though, at least in my experience, have been pretty popular where FW isn't an issue.

[Popsical]

So if you think the question of this thread is pointless, why bother posting here? And about Tau, they would be mistaken.

No. Im saying that complaining that FW provide good units to some armies and not to others is a poor premiss for disliking them.
Codexs provide just as much disparity in quality and number of units to each army as FW, ask daboarder or any other csm player.
Are formations evenly distributed?
Does GW give a rats bottom?
Do marine players deserve to be penalised because their army gets the most love?
Too many people take this hobby too seriously and think GW are purposefully slapping them in the face with a wet fish.

[ShadowcatX]

No. Im saying that complaining that FW provide good units to some armies and not to others is a poor premiss for disliking them.
Codexs provide just as much disparity in quality and number of units to each army as FW, ask daboarder or any other csm player.
Are formations evenly distributed?
Does GW give a rats bottom?
Do marine players deserve to be penalised because their army gets the most love?
Too many people take this hobby too seriously and think GW are purposefully slapping them in the face with a wet fish.

When did restricting people to models designed for this game by GW become penalising them? Entitled much?

[Vaktathi]

When did restricting people to models designed for this game by GW become penalising them? Entitled much?
Are we implying that FW models aren't designed for 40k?

Or is the argument that wanting to use FW stuff makes one "entitled"?

[Auticus]

Wow I had hoped this topic would have burned in a fire when vanilla-40k 5th edition died in a fire with it.

Forge world is indeed generally accepted now by most tournament organizers though not universally. In my area, there are a couple of groups that won't let you use it but the remainder of the events do.

Most of the big tournaments that everyone tries to use as a standard also allow forge world now.

[Popsical]

Sadly the anti FW and game balance arguements will probably never go away.
Some folks just want to moan at any opportunity.
The more options GW give us to play with, the more reasons the moaners get to moan.

[ShadowcatX]

Are we implying that FW models aren't designed for 40k?

Or is the argument that wanting to use FW stuff makes one "entitled"?

30k models aren't designed for 40k. And claiming you are penalized by not being able to use them is a casebook example of entitlement.

- - - Updated - - -


Sadly the anti FW and game balance arguements will probably never go away.
Some folks just want to moan at any opportunity.
The more options GW give us to play with, the more reasons the moaners get to moan.

And some people will always complain that others are complaining, even when they do no such thing. If you will notice, I have not passed judgment of rather or not their inclusion is good, simply that it does shape the meta.

[Charistoph]

Right now, I find it rather amusing. A lot of stuff you can get from Forgeworld is amazing, and can be quite overpowered. Except that they usually (not always, just mostly) charge more points for all their changes than Citadel has for the last 10 years.

In short, sure its powerful, but you pay for it.

[Renegade]

As an Imperial Guard player it is simply the further diversity in units, and diversity is a good thing, not to mention being able taking units that were previously available in the codex.

IG don't have to go FW to get decent units, but they do to get some upgrades and specialised kit while pay for every point and every penny.

I don't think that FW is the new meta, but I do think that it keeps the meta from setting to much (Eldar winge about secarian while have that whole shield thing).

[Vaktathi]

30k models aren't designed for 40k. And claiming you are penalized by not being able to use them is a casebook example of entitlement. Did I miss something about 30k-specific units? AFAIK nobody is trying to bring Angron to a 40k game.

That said, there's a grip of models that have rules for both 30k and 40k, and they should absolutely be able to be used in 40k.

Likewise, even 30k HH stuff is still designed to use the same underlying core ruleset, just balanced around a different set of restrictions, and really, with 7E's formations, alternate detachments, and allies rules, even that's not particularly off-kilter anymore.

[ShadowcatX]

Did I miss something about 30k-specific units? AFAIK nobody is trying to bring Angron to a 40k game.

That said, there's a grip of models that have rules for both 30k and 40k, and they should absolutely be able to be used in 40k.

Likewise, even 30k HH stuff is still designed to use the same underlying core ruleset, just balanced around a different set of restrictions, and really, with 7E's formations, alternate detachments, and allies rules, even that's not particularly off-kilter anymore.

Sicarians have been mentioned. Also, show me the 30k stuff in a 40k book and I will agree that it was made for both games.

[Vaktathi]

Sicarians have been mentioned. Also, show me the 30k stuff in a 40k book and I will agree that it was made for both games.

Why don't Sicarans belong in 40k? They have rules written for their use in 40k, in Imperial Armour Volume 2 (for Loyalists) & Imperial Armour 13 (for CSM's). People aren't just taking them from the HH books and slapping them into 40k armies.


The very specifically "30K-only" stuff, things like Volkite-armed tanks and whatnot, aren't available for 40k, hence why you might see a Typhon heavy tank or Fellblade superheavy in 40k armies, and not a Glaive superheavy, but lots of units cross-over both.

[Popsical]

Sicarians have been mentioned. Also, show me the 30k stuff in a 40k book and I will agree that it was made for both games.

Rhino, drop pod, vindicator, spartan, proteus, whirlwind, predator, landspeeder, bikes, landraider, lightning, dreadnought, contemptor all in 30k, all in 40k books. Im sure theres more.

[ShadowcatX]

I was not aware they were in Imperial Armour, learn something new every day. I cede the point there.