Wednesday, July 4, 2012

6e ramblings and ruminations...Forgeworld and YOU!!!

-Okay, a thread I started (in my sleep-addled teething-baby induced haze) in my local club's forum.
Regardless of the sleep deprivation making it less than 'professional' in tone, I've been thinking in these terms for upwards of a week+ (around when the rumours really began to consolidate/confirm things).
Nothing has changed my mind, yet.

Okay, I'm about to go off the rail here (and TOTALLY against my prior personal opine, but that was 5e)...

I am of the opinion (currently) that Forgeworld should be
considered for [tournament] play.
*holds hands up defensively about the head* "not the face, not the's how I makes mah money!"

Seriously, though...there are a few considerations.

A) with some of the 'shenannigans' available now (via allies, dbl FOC @ 2k+[which I don't like], etc) I don't think FW is really unbalancing anymore.
B) the 'super' vehicles (achilles, anyone) are significantly mitigated/brought into parity with the newer rules interactions.
C) it allows some armies the ability to bring their own elements of aircraft/anti-air to the table without being FORCED to add allies (sometimes, you just wanna play pure armies...not always allied for gap-filling).
D) with the advent of the formal 'authorization' stamp AND the way the rules have been written/tweaked, it seems (IMHO) to be a design intent. designed to make more money, sure, but still designed with some of these things in mind.

With everything I have seen looked at and read,
some of the (current) racial gaps,
and vehicular balancing tweaks,
I think this may very well be the time to start to consider crossing the FW line?

I expect to see the (currently solidly rumoured/confirmed?) Aeronautic Imperialis:Apocalypse(not sure on the title, but pretty much something like that) to formally 'stamp' a larger number of the Xenos/Naval aircraft and ADA, PDQ.

Just some meanderings.

I know that in personal games (for the nonce), I am actually going to start asking permission to use my FW with regularity...and unless specifically testing something out for balance/viability in a tourney that doesn't (or I am unsure of) I will not say no to those that ask the same.

-and my response to the only Nay-Sayer on the thread thus far (noting that he didn't disagree in principle...just felt it needed more thought/some testing/some nerfing),

I don't agree...not anymore.

I always thought, up til now, that was the case...actually, I just thought it was a bad idea.
Last years BB didn't change my mind.

This is a new era, and with all that is in 6e...I now feel that, if "it's got the stamp, it ain't a tramp!"

ok, a little simplistic yes...but it is my gut feeling.
GW has given us the effective green-light.
The fail-safes are disengaged.
Chaos reigns, and no sacred cow has not been shattered!

Many of the concepts with reserves, application of flyers (etc, etc, etc) were tuned in via FW.
Hell, some of the newest FW elements were written specifically with 6e rules in mind (tomb stalker!).
The new rules mitigate some of the bad-asses of the FW bad-asses...while at the same time elevating their 'standard-rule' counterparts.

Look at the forced 'gaps' in basic ADA for most Xenos armies (truthfully,
being filled a bit here and there).
Those gaps are there to be filled.
In the BRB they are filled by fortifications (that still only have Imp equivalent models) or allies.

Fortifications are 'optional' IIRC?
Allies force you to;
a)violate the 'purity' of a force (sometimes good, sometimes not...depends on how attached you are to effective army design vs your perceived army fluff),
b)spend as much (or more) money to generate the equivalent effect of a FW purchase and,
c)....(well, I don't know just always feels better to have a 'C' when writing something like this.)

I am not railing at the Allies rule, not by a long shot...I am railing (a little) about fortifications, but not much.

I just think we may have entered an era where FW is(should be) as much a part of our TO&E as anything else.

(and, as always, I reserve the right to disavow any of my statements in this thread as the ravings of a sleep-deprived, teething-baby inflicted, lunatic...should this current opinion prove to be utter stupidity in the course of our endeavors)

No comments:

Post a Comment