8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
Breng77 wrote:
I don't think it is really fair to say that a TO can control what people hear about events. That indicates that the internet will care about everything equally. If NOVA (or any other tournament) pumped up a best theme. most people on here would still look for the best general, or most competitive list.
While I agree that a TO cant control what is talked about on the Internet, I'm not sure the rest is correct.
In my experience, the vast majority of people at tournaments have no illusions about winning or being on the top tables - they're there for the laugh of it. Then you have the 10% of 'competitive crowd' who place highly, but by no means constitute the majority.
That 10% are very vocal on sites like this, but again, not in the majority.
Like me, I imagine the majority of people on Dakka care more about the cool armies, conversions and paint jobs present at events like Adepticon/ NOVA than they care about who won Best General. I only bother looking at what the top-tier lists are when I'm gearing up to attend a tournament - and even then I'm under no illusions that I'm going to win one!
In this case, I think Mike is right and it really does matter what the TO promotes as important as his event. If the TO promotes that 'Best Overall' is the most important trophy, he's merely responding to the majority of his customers - who never intended to be playing on the top tales anyway. What the competitive crowd says on the Internet afterwards is irrelevant - the TO's responsibility is to the majority of his attendees...
9594
Post by: RiTides
That said, many "competitive" players on here often compete for, and win, Best Overall. Hulksmash, Mannahnin and Danny Internets come to mind, just as examples  . A lot of folks are in both camps, with modeling and gameplay both being important to them.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
 RiTides wrote:That said, many "competitive" players on here often compete for, and win, Best Overall. Hulksmash, Mannahnin and Danny Internets come to mind, just as examples . A lot of folks are in both camps, with modeling and gameplay both being important to them.
Oh, I absolutely agree. Just trying to wave the flag for the silent majority of tournament-goers and website users.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Re  o we still need forge world in tournament play?
In the end the better question is....
If it has a "Approved for Warhammer 40K" stamp on it, how do you justify not having in tournament play?
I have read 40 plus pages and in the end it seems the discussions wind up in 3 camps.
1. We are the professional elitist players/ tourney organizers and we decide and you like it or else just do not come to our events.
2. It has the stamp and we should use it, what are you elitist worried about?
3. "It has a stamp, gee I did not know that. Those elitist who run Tau lists with 4 or more Riptides, CRON AIR, and those other broken lists from additional supplemental materials told us it was overpowered and we would need to read additional rules in addition to the ones they had on their IPADS..... Gee if they can ban those approved items why can't they ban riptides or CRON AIR or vendettas or stuff that is not printed on a book from the game makers yet?
In the end I have no doubt Camp one will win. Everyone likes to be surrounded by folks who think and act like them and to be a winner. It's human nature. It does not make it right...
I shall not attend any more tourneys that use such a petty house rule. I hope others do the same.
Let the elitist have their fixed games, for if you do not allow everything the game maker allowed then by what definition are they not fixed games...
My last question is simple. What are they afraid of? Can they still not win?
20983
Post by: Ratius
I think it was DashofPepper that once had a quote on here - Im paraphrasing it:
"If I show up to a 100 meter sprint, overweight, smoking 40 a day and fat, do you blame the other racers?" *sic*
I suppose his and my point is:
If you want to be the best, the elite, then you have to utilise and accept what the best is.
Do you blame the TO/competitors/ GW/rules etc. ? Well no.
If the TO (who has ultimately put time, effort, resources, money and passion) into an event says " FW is legal" :
You have (by choice) 3 options:
Accept it and save/ebay/proxy (if allowed) FW.
Attend but not be happy with the FW opponents you face (whether you beat them or not)
Not attend
My point is this:
If you are a hardcore tourney competitor (which many in this thread are) you have to be 100% nay 110% committed to winning it - that includes adapting to the - FW is legal tournament rule.
That is not trying to be arrogant or debasing - it is a truth.
I fully accept FW is an exceptional outlay in terms of money/prices (maybe rules) but if you want to be #1
Repeat #1
in the game/environment it is something that has to be facilitated.
I would not do it myself btw
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
 Ratius wrote:
I fully accept FW is an exceptional outlay in terms of money/prices (maybe rules) but if you want to be #1
Repeat #1
in the game/environment it is something that has to be facilitated.
I would not do it myself btw
I'd agree, but right now, most of the competitive scene disallows FW for obvious reasons, so I'd differentiate between FW-free and FW-plagued comp.
I do agree with the general idea: if you like FW, go play at the FW-plagued tournaments, if you don't, don't take part in FW-plagued tournaments. Simple as pi(e).
20983
Post by: Ratius
Point taken Sig completely.
But lets play devils advocate here and say:
most of the competitive scene disallows FW for obvious reasons
This, from what I have seen is down to 3 reasons (open to other reasons too)
Imbalance
Cost (for those that dont have FW access)
Lack of knowledge/rules for FW
However:
If one wants to win a tournament, be #1, come top:
The 3 above dont negate using FW models (basically to be the best one can be).
Imbalance - not the players problem - thats down to GW/ FW coordinating. If they dont - you cant blame someone who plays/brings FW for that.
Cost - Going to be harsh here (  ) but if one has the money to buy/fund FW, then well done to them (I admit I do have monetary access to FW but it is still a choice)
LoK - this is dictated by a good rules pack/knowledge/sharing/browsing. Lets be honest - no FW rules cant be found on the net realistically.
7971
Post by: mreindl
I've run local tournaments for the past 20 years or so, and for a lot of that time did not allow FW in my tournaments, including our big local event, The Brawl in the Fall. I also went to the BAO and played against a couple of lists that had FW models in them, and didn't really find them to be all that bad. Of course, I didn't run into any of the anti-air stuff either.
That being said, I've come to the conclusion that the real reason many people (myself included) want to run FW models is because there *are* a lot of cool options that the normal books don't have. I've got a Tesseract Ark for my Necrons, not because I think it's going to win me a game, but because I think it looks cool. I'll probably buy a Night Shroud one of these days, and maybe even some Ancathrites.
I think that a lot of the anti-FW view stems from the fact (and it IS an issue) that there are so many different iterations of rules for certain units floating around out there, along with the fact that FW books are not readily accessible to everyone. If a person comes up against FW units that they've never seen before, or read about before, they're counting on their opponent to not screw them on the rules. I did see one player at the BAO (not someone I played against) who was using a FW unit with a set of older, experimental rules, not the most current version. So, he may have gotten away with something to the detriment of his opponents by using an outdated set of rules, or he could've handicapped himself by using those rules if the points cost of the unit had changed in the meantime. It could've been an honest mistake, or it could've been intentional.
I allow the use of FW in my local tournaments now, and will do so for the Brawl in October as well. I also require that people who do play them must bring the book, just as with their core army. No PDF's or copies allowed. I think that's a fair compromise. I may lose some players by requiring them to have their own book, but I think it's a reasonable compromise that will cut down on the shenanigans, and will also give people who don't normally see FW a chance to see the units in action, and to see what they can actually do.
Mark
20983
Post by: Ratius
+1 ^^
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Point taken...good post  To me, the main flaw about FW are very specific issues with very specific units that are clearly overpowered - just ban those and it would be fine. The problem is that doing so would take a lot of playtest and thus time and thus it's easier to say "Nope, no FW at all!". Secondly, allowing FW would drastically benefit IG, as they are FW's absolute love child, and leaving most other factions behind. And thirdly, I think it depends on you define "competitive". Allowing FW with no restrictions would make tournaments a "Pay to win" place as you could drastically increase your win chaces by playing IG and buying the clearly OP stuff. I (personally!) don't consider that being a "competitive" environment but more clever marketing That's just on top of the points you already made, I think not allowing it because of the rules not being spread around a lot is a point, but...uhm...if FW was allowed, that wouldn't be an issue, would it? We all can agree that FW models look AWESOME. Yes, they are insanely overpriced, but they look really, really good. I wouldn't mind seeing more different units on the battlefield! ...but I do mind heavily favoring one army out of all on top of shifting the balance to people who pay the most. So in my eyes, a good solution would be to ban the overpowered stuff and allow the rest. But alas...that's wishful thinking.
20983
Post by: Ratius
To me, the main flaw about FW are very specific issues with very specific units that are clearly overpowered - just ban those and it would be fine.
Can you expand Sig, which ones specifically?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
First thing that come to my mind are the Quad, Sabre and Vultures.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Why are Vultures more OP than Vendettas? They're more expensive, can't squadron, don't have transport capacity and are worse at anti-tank and anti-AV12+ (read: Heldrakes). It's not like it's broken to add more anti-infantry power to IG, so I'm genuinly curious.
7971
Post by: mreindl
We have a few players in our area that like to buy and use FW stuff, or are netlist gurus. I think one of the points that people miss out those supposedly OP items is that while they can indeed be nasty on the battlefield and work well when they work, a lot of their impact is precisely because many players don't see them all the time. A Vulture, for example, is a pretty nasty unit. But all it takes is one good Interceptor shot, and that fancy expensive Vulture is a steaming pile of junk.
Those players who buy such units hoping that they'll be game-winners often tend to get really bent when their pet unit doesn't pan out for whatever reason. The same thing is true of netlisters. When it works, it works well. But if something goes wrong and it doesn't, then they're often the first ones to rage quit.
I realize I've come pretty late to the debate, and we could probably go item by item to try to determine which ones are and aren't OP, but nobody's every going to agree if it's their "pet" unit that's accused of being OP.
Mark
45831
Post by: happygolucky
For me the problem isn't the actual FW its more to do with what the player picks.
For example I may pick up a Mega Dredd in the near future and maybe a Lifta-Droppa wagon, and there not OP or really strong units, but I picked them because they looked cool, or I like the model.
The problem arises is when someone will deliberately cherry picks the units that are maybe a tad too strong or OP just to take advantage of certain aspects of the game mechanics, say saber gun platforms for example, someone may take that just because he or she knowes that it will get him or her, to 1st place. A game like 40k should require tactics and strategic skill to become 1st place, not one two or three units. But then again that's just my opinion, my personal preference is a casual environment, as I see competitive 40k to be all just "90% models 10% skill+strategy" but that's just my opinion.
Other than that I have no problem with FW at all, I like the stuff they produce as it looks awesome, just there will always be the one person to take advantage of what the tournament
9594
Post by: RiTides
NeedleOfInquiry- The only talk of "elite" play, is from you and folks making similar polarized arguments.
I am going to choose the event I think I'll have the most fun with. Right now, that is not unlimited FW. You can boycott all the non-FW events and stick to "elite" ones... because in the end, that's what you're really saying, that not allowing FW isn't hardcore enough for you. And that's really a silly argument.
40k is a fun game, with porous rules. Decrying those who dislike FW as "elitist" and "afraid" is simply making you sound elitist yourself, and is not very effective.
I just want to have fun. I have more fun with limited FW than unlimited. YMMV, live and let live- there are events for both preferences and a whole myriad of varieties thereof.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
RiTides wrote:NeedleOfInquiry- The only talk of "elite" play, is from you and folks making similar polarized arguments.
I am going to choose the event I think I'll have the most fun with. Right now, that is not unlimited FW. You can boycott all the non- FW events and stick to "elite" ones... because in the end, that's what you're really saying, that not allowing FW isn't hardcore enough for you. And that's really a silly argument.
40k is a fun game, with porous rules. Decrying those who dislike FW as "elitist" and "afraid" is simply making you sound elitist yourself, and is not very effective.
I just want to have fun. I have more fun with limited FW than unlimited. YMMV, live and let live- there are events for both preferences and a whole myriad of varieties thereof.
Phrase your words as you want...I never mentioned hardcore, you did. I am talking about using the rules, all of them that are approved for 40K by the company that produces them and not using convenient house rules.
I am also not talking unlimited FW. I am talking the 40K Approved stuff. I can see why you always want to mix the two, it make it look like I am asking for APOC stuff, which I am not..
The article name is a question "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" My reply was that the 40K approved stuff should be there since it is 40k approved and its not.
Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, higher intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
Elitist is when you pick and chose what you will allow and what you not will allow out of a rule set that the makers of the game said were to be included. The description fits.
If that bothers you that's not my problem, I'm not the one cherry picking rules to use.
9594
Post by: RiTides
By limited or unlimited, I'm referring to how many FW units are allowed (only a single unit, 0-1 for any number of units, or a selection of units). Not Apocalypse versus non-Apocalypse.
That language has been used through this whole thread, which if you'd read, you would know
And as I said, calling all players who don't want unlimited FW "elitist" or "afraid" doesn't help your argument. I am a casual tourney player, attending one big GT a year which I save up and prepare for. I choose the one I like based on many factors, and love AdeptiCon's limited FW allowance in the team tournament in recent years. That's not the only factor, but I prefer it, rather than unlimited. YMMV... and it clearly does
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
RiTides wrote:By limited or unlimited, I'm referring to how many FW units are allowed (only a single unit, 0-1 for any number of units, or a selection of units). Not Apocalypse versus non-Apocalypse.
That language has been used through this whole thread, which if you'd read, you would know
And as I said, calling all players who don't want unlimited FW "elitist" or "afraid" doesn't help your argument. I am a casual tourney player, attending one big GT a year which I save up and prepare for. I choose the one I like based on many factors, and love AdeptiCon's limited FW allowance in the team tournament in recent years. That's not the only factor, but I prefer it, rather than unlimited. YMMV... and it clearly does
I have seen people mix the terms up and yes I had read the whole tread already....who was that on the first page going off on thudd guns :} Not that I disagree about the cost for Thudds, the same can be said for other non FW units...
I do not like not being allowed to play because 40K approved does not mean anything to those who pick and chose which rules they will use. The selection of 0-1 or better does me no good. I desire to play an Elysian Drop Troop Army and that has already been crossed off by the majority even though it is a 40K Approved Army.
Suppose we ban the flavor of the month, which is TAU this month because it is overpowered with riptides. Is that fair? It's allowed by the rules.
I can run two armies.
A 6 Vendetta , 3 Valkyrie Force full of demo charging Imperial Guard Troops that any tournament is going to allow in. I suspect I can clean up rather quickly and table someone. Under the current rules I could even make it a 9 vendetta force.
This force is an abuse similar to CRON AIR or Riptides x 4 or 5 depending on how that discussion comes out.
I do not think the other guy would have a lot of fun vs 6 or more Vendettas. Of course he could table me on turn one if he kills the squads I hide in my deployment zone 
If the 40K Approved Elysian is allowed then I can not have demo charges (Elysians lost them) and the same 1850 gets me 6 Valkyries and 3 Vultures. Must put troops in Valkyries, not Vendettas with Elysian Drop Troops.
Which list do you think is more deadly?
It's a fluffy army but its what I play. No tanks, no forts, no allies, no thuds, no sabre platforms, just everything coming in by air. With Vultures being moved to Fast Attack, I do not even have any heavy support choices any more. Maybe time to hit Forge World again.
Anyway, with 6th edition and the first list I have to leave troops hiding on the ground on turn one to forgo the new Auto Win rule. With the Elysian list I do not, half of the Valkyries can come in on turn one.
I was running this list before 6th edition, I will be running them after. Its what I like. It's as close to Air Cav as 40K is going to get.
I just will not be running it in most " 40K" tournaments.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 happygolucky wrote:The problem arises is when someone will deliberately cherry picks the units that are maybe a tad too strong or OP just to take advantage of certain aspects of the game mechanics, say saber gun platforms for example, someone may take that just because he or she knowes that it will get him or her, to 1st place.
So, how is this any different from codex-only 40k? Those people will always pick the most overpowered units regardless of whether they come from a codex or IA book.
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
Ratius wrote:I think it was DashofPepper that once had a quote on here - Im paraphrasing it:
"If I show up to a 100 meter sprint, overweight, smoking 40 a day and fat, do you blame the other racers?" *sic*
I suppose his and my point is:
If you want to be the best, the elite, then you have to utilise and accept what the best is.
Do you blame the TO/competitors/ GW/rules etc. ? Well no.
If the TO (who has ultimately put time, effort, resources, money and passion) into an event says " FW is legal" :
You have (by choice) 3 options:
Accept it and save/ebay/proxy (if allowed) FW.
Attend but not be happy with the FW opponents you face (whether you beat them or not)
Not attend
My point is this:
If you are a hardcore tourney competitor (which many in this thread are) you have to be 100% nay 110% committed to winning it - that includes adapting to the - FW is legal tournament rule.
That is not trying to be arrogant or debasing - it is a truth.
I fully accept FW is an exceptional outlay in terms of money/prices (maybe rules) but if you want to be #1
Repeat #1
in the game/environment it is something that has to be facilitated.
I would not do it myself btw
The exact quote is in my sig 
52309
Post by: Breng77
 NeedleOfInquiry wrote: RiTides wrote:NeedleOfInquiry- The only talk of "elite" play, is from you and folks making similar polarized arguments.
I am going to choose the event I think I'll have the most fun with. Right now, that is not unlimited FW. You can boycott all the non- FW events and stick to "elite" ones... because in the end, that's what you're really saying, that not allowing FW isn't hardcore enough for you. And that's really a silly argument.
40k is a fun game, with porous rules. Decrying those who dislike FW as "elitist" and "afraid" is simply making you sound elitist yourself, and is not very effective.
I just want to have fun. I have more fun with limited FW than unlimited. YMMV, live and let live- there are events for both preferences and a whole myriad of varieties thereof.
Phrase your words as you want...I never mentioned hardcore, you did. I am talking about using the rules, all of them that are approved for 40K by the company that produces them and not using convenient house rules.
I am also not talking unlimited FW. I am talking the 40K Approved stuff. I can see why you always want to mix the two, it make it look like I am asking for APOC stuff, which I am not..
The article name is a question "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" My reply was that the 40K approved stuff should be there since it is 40k approved and its not.
Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, higher intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
Elitist is when you pick and chose what you will allow and what you not will allow out of a rule set that the makers of the game said were to be included. The description fits.
If that bothers you that's not my problem, I'm not the one cherry picking rules to use.
Stating that non FW 40k is elitist is silly, when TOs poll attendees and most say they don't want it. That is what you get. The fact is most people do not play this game with or against FW on any kind of regular basis. That fact is more responsible for its exclusion than anything else. People don't want surprises at events and that is more true for the casual player than the super elite gamer. Inclusion of FW is also a lot if work for a to unless they already know all the rules (see adepticon rules pack). And FW is at fault for this given that the rules for armies and units are printed multiple times in multiple books, meaning e to needs to research which are the most current printing etc..
45831
Post by: happygolucky
 Peregrine wrote: happygolucky wrote:The problem arises is when someone will deliberately cherry picks the units that are maybe a tad too strong or OP just to take advantage of certain aspects of the game mechanics, say saber gun platforms for example, someone may take that just because he or she knowes that it will get him or her, to 1st place.
So, how is this any different from codex-only 40k? Those people will always pick the most overpowered units regardless of whether they come from a codex or IA book.
Exactly. adding more FW 40k would just make it further unbalancing and tbh when have you seen something 40k approved that had taken a major effect on game with Orks? or CSM? or even DE? no because of the variety of units has it in favour of the Imperium, and yes whilst I agree that some lists do break the game with just standard 40k at least there are certain units and rules to take it out with each codex. We add FW and whilst most people would pick stuff that is cool (which is awesome ), there will be someone taking obvious units just to get in first place.. then because the Imperium could have said units it would become the meta, and imperium would once again be top of the chain again... atm the meta is varied between each area and to me that's cool, it means we are living in the golden age of 40k as every army has a chance to get to the top. With certain cherry picked units, we would be living in 5th ed. where SM and IG and anything inquisition ruled the game, and that's kind of boring tbh.. Like I say I have nothing against FW I like they stuff they produce, just the Meta would change so quickly tournament wise that certain army's would never have the chance to win a tournament, and that in a competitive environment should never be the case imo. that being said I am slightly biased against "Competitive 40k" as I find the game becomes "90% models 10% Skill + strategy" and I like the casual environment a lot more, so take my perceptions and opinions with a pinch of salt.
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
Breng77 wrote: NeedleOfInquiry wrote: RiTides wrote:NeedleOfInquiry- The only talk of "elite" play, is from you and folks making similar polarized arguments.
I am going to choose the event I think I'll have the most fun with. Right now, that is not unlimited FW. You can boycott all the non- FW events and stick to "elite" ones... because in the end, that's what you're really saying, that not allowing FW isn't hardcore enough for you. And that's really a silly argument.
40k is a fun game, with porous rules. Decrying those who dislike FW as "elitist" and "afraid" is simply making you sound elitist yourself, and is not very effective.
I just want to have fun. I have more fun with limited FW than unlimited. YMMV, live and let live- there are events for both preferences and a whole myriad of varieties thereof.
Phrase your words as you want...I never mentioned hardcore, you did. I am talking about using the rules, all of them that are approved for 40K by the company that produces them and not using convenient house rules.
I am also not talking unlimited FW. I am talking the 40K Approved stuff. I can see why you always want to mix the two, it make it look like I am asking for APOC stuff, which I am not..
The article name is a question "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?" My reply was that the 40K approved stuff should be there since it is 40k approved and its not.
Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, higher intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
Elitist is when you pick and chose what you will allow and what you not will allow out of a rule set that the makers of the game said were to be included. The description fits.
If that bothers you that's not my problem, I'm not the one cherry picking rules to use.
Stating that non FW 40k is elitist is silly, when TOs poll attendees and most say they don't want it. That is what you get. The fact is most people do not play this game with or against FW on any kind of regular basis. That fact is more responsible for its exclusion than anything else. People don't want surprises at events and that is more true for the casual player than the super elite gamer. Inclusion of FW is also a lot if work for a to unless they already know all the rules (see adepticon rules pack). And FW is at fault for this given that the rules for armies and units are printed multiple times in multiple books, meaning e to needs to research which are the most current printing etc..
What Breng said. Calling a poll of the masses and rulings built to protect the majority elitist is probably inaccurate. Also, throwing ad hominems at TOs is not a good way to convert them to your way of thinking.
76338
Post by: ThouShallNotHeal
Brings some variety to armies
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
What Breng said. Calling a poll of the masses and rulings built to protect the majority elitist is probably inaccurate. Also, throwing ad hominems at TOs is not a good way to convert them to your way of thinking.
I am not trying to covert anymore, just pointing out inconsistencies. It is elitism when you chose which rules you will use and not use. If the word bothers you I will use something else. Not sure what the " throwing ad hominems at TOs" is about..
What I am saying is a game company came up with rules to play their game. Those rules include stuff with the Approved for Warhammer 40k. Do not expect me to be appreciative that you have added a little Approved for Warhammer 40k for appearances sake at some of the event.
Separate water fountains never worked for those forced to use the other fountain.
You have decided which rules you will include and not include based on "to protect the majority"?
I did not see the poll or its results. Where there questions about CRON AIR and RIPTIDES x4? Was it a FW question in general or on Approved For 40K?
For that matter what other things are open to vote in your tournaments?
My point is you say you are running a 40K event. Isn't it really a 40K event with the rules I desire and not the ones I do not like event? Honestly?
The initial question was "Do we still need forge world in tournament play?"
My point is is we make the question "Do we still need "fill in your army here" in tournament play everyone would say "we can not ban them, its a part of 40K" and they would be right.
Forge World is both stuff totally unsuited for 40k and stuff which has a stamp saying it can be used in 40K.
When you chose to ban the Approved for 40K stuff you are making a choice to not use part of the rules.
You say it is to protect folks? Do you jump into matches that are lopsided and remove the winning players advantage? Did not think so....
Was the survey not rather to see what was popular, and what was not? Who participated in it, I did not see it.
In the end none of these questions matter and you do not need to answer any of them of course.
When it's your event, you can obviously run your event any way you want...
However, this thread is not about your event.
Again the question at the top of the tread is [u]"Do we still need forge world in tournament play?"
[/u]
I say yes because the Approved for 40K stuff is part of 40K and you either play with all the rules or you do not in a 40k tournament.
9594
Post by: RiTides
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
What Breng said. Calling a poll of the masses and rulings built to protect the majority elitist is probably inaccurate. Also, throwing ad hominems at TOs is not a good way to convert them to your way of thinking.
Separate water fountains never worked for those forced to use the other fountain.
I think comparing FW-allowed or FW-restricted/semi-allowed to racial segregation is... well, at best a reach, and at worse offensive.
This thread hadn't been posted in for weeks and to bring it up using language like this (after saying you wouldn't use "elitist" anymore if it bothered people, as it clearly did) really isn't advancing the pro- FW argument... at all.
I'll stop responding to you now as I don't think it's going to get anywhere and everything you're bringing up has already been discussed, you're just using more extreme language for it to get a reaction.
76338
Post by: ThouShallNotHeal
Forgeworld Models really bring the battlefield alive
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
happygolucky wrote:atm the meta is varied between each area and to me that's cool, it means we are living in the golden age of 40k as every army has a chance to get to the top. With certain cherry picked units, we would be living in 5th ed. where SM and IG and anything inquisition ruled the game, and that's kind of boring tbh..
Necrons, Eldar and Tau. Honorable mention to Imperial Guard with X allied MEQ HQ. How is that different from Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard and Grey Knights, other than the fact that they're different factions?
76338
Post by: ThouShallNotHeal
Everything's OP'd at first until something new comes out.
45831
Post by: happygolucky
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: happygolucky wrote:atm the meta is varied between each area and to me that's cool, it means we are living in the golden age of 40k as every army has a chance to get to the top. With certain cherry picked units, we would be living in 5th ed. where SM and IG and anything inquisition ruled the game, and that's kind of boring tbh..
Necrons, Eldar and Tau. Honorable mention to Imperial Guard with X allied MEQ HQ. How is that different from Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard and Grey Knights, other than the fact that they're different factions?
Not really I also see DE, Tyranids, Vanilla marines, CSM, Daemons.
Like I said its different because most armies now have a chance to get to the top of the tournament, adding FW, will just add further unbalancing and turn the meta back into what was 5th ed. where the imperial boys were at the top. This should not be the case, in a competitive environment every army should have a right to win but then again 40k is designed as a casual game, not a competitive game, so obvious FW cherry picked units will just make the whole tournament scene just transformed into "Imperium or GTFO" but that's my opinion.
76338
Post by: ThouShallNotHeal
That's when you field lots of tank busting weaponry
52309
Post by: Breng77
Actually catering to Pro forge world folks would be more elitist than not. As it is catering to a small group of individuals that own and play fw vs the majority that don't own fw.
As for the survey I'll speak for myself I sent a survey to the players who chose to attend my event asking them about fw inclusion (approved stuff only) in future events. The players were ovrwhelmingly against it. I see no reason to have an open poll as it would allow players input that have no intent on attending. If players who want fw and would like to attend my events wish to speak up they can email me at the email on my tournament site.
76338
Post by: ThouShallNotHeal
Breng77 wrote:Actually catering to Pro forge world folks would be more elitist than not. As it is catering to a small group of individuals that own and play fw vs the majority that don't own fw.
As for the survey I'll speak for myself I sent a survey to the players who chose to attend my event asking them about fw inclusion (approved stuff only) in future events. The players were ovrwhelmingly against it. I see no reason to have an open poll as it would allow players input that have no intent on attending. If players who want fw and would like to attend my events wish to speak up they can email me at the email on my tournament site.
We don't see much FW here in AU it would be a nice change
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
happygolucky wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: happygolucky wrote:atm the meta is varied between each area and to me that's cool, it means we are living in the golden age of 40k as every army has a chance to get to the top. With certain cherry picked units, we would be living in 5th ed. where SM and IG and anything inquisition ruled the game, and that's kind of boring tbh..
Necrons, Eldar and Tau. Honorable mention to Imperial Guard with X allied MEQ HQ. How is that different from Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard and Grey Knights, other than the fact that they're different factions?
Not really I also see DE, Tyranids, Vanilla marines, CSM, Daemons.
And I saw loads of Orks, DE and Tyranids win local tournaments in 5th, but the big tournaments were dominated by the Imperium, just like Xenos are dominating the big tournaments now. Xenos won WargamesCon 2013, Xenos won BAO 2013 and Xenos won Adepticon 2013. But sure, "anyone can win"...
55033
Post by: LValx
Well, Imperial armies have also won stuff. Gonyo won some GTs with DA/IG/GK and Kopach won NOVA with SW/IG. Both also placed well at some other big events.
I can without a doubt say that the current meta is far more interesting and varied than the one that I saw in 5th. This extends to both list composition and variety of codices being played.
7637
Post by: Sasori
 LValx wrote:Well, Imperial armies have also won stuff. Gonyo won some GTs with DA/ IG/ GK and Kopach won NOVA with SW/ IG. Both also placed well at some other big events.
I can without a doubt say that the current meta is far more interesting and varied than the one that I saw in 5th. This extends to both list composition and variety of codices being played.
This is so true.
Even with a lot of Necrons, Necrons +X being played and reaching top tables, it's a lot better than 8 out of top sixteen lists being GK, with the other eight being SW/ IG. We've seen just about every Army place fairly highly, if not outright win in 6th.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
happygolucky wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: happygolucky wrote:atm the meta is varied between each area and to me that's cool, it means we are living in the golden age of 40k as every army has a chance to get to the top. With certain cherry picked units, we would be living in 5th ed. where SM and IG and anything inquisition ruled the game, and that's kind of boring tbh..
Necrons, Eldar and Tau. Honorable mention to Imperial Guard with X allied MEQ HQ. How is that different from Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard and Grey Knights, other than the fact that they're different factions?
Not really I also see DE, Tyranids, Vanilla marines, CSM, Daemons.
Like I said its different because most armies now have a chance to get to the top of the tournament, adding FW, will just add further unbalancing and turn the meta back into what was 5th ed. where the imperial boys were at the top. This should not be the case, in a competitive environment every army should have a right to win but then again 40k is designed as a casual game, not a competitive game, so obvious FW cherry picked units will just make the whole tournament scene just transformed into "Imperium or GTFO" but that's my opinion.
There's really no evidence this is true, no evidence that FW would shift balance that much, there's some pretty damn good Xenos stuff, and even if this "nightmare" scenario is true, these units exist in the 40k universe, are made by GW for Warhammer 40,000 play for typical games, since when has it ever been the responsibility of a TO to ensure all armies have a fair shot? They certainly don't do anything about it with regards to Codex issues. Eldar broke the game so much in 2nd that GW revamped half the game mechanics for 3rd just to make SM's playable and TO's didn't do anything about it then, Rhino Rush and Eldar starcannon spam and Disruption tables and CSM's dominated 3rd edition and TO's didn't do anything about it, Eldar Skimmerspam dominated the 2nd half of 4th edition without any action by TO's to curb it, GK/ SW/ IG/ BA/ SM's dominated 5th, TO's didn't do anything about it. Why is it relevant *ONLY* to Forgeworld?
This line of thinking is no different than telling someone they can't use their new Eldar codex because Eldar will dominate the metagame.
9594
Post by: RiTides
 Sasori wrote: LValx wrote:Well, Imperial armies have also won stuff. Gonyo won some GTs with DA/ IG/ GK and Kopach won NOVA with SW/ IG. Both also placed well at some other big events.
I can without a doubt say that the current meta is far more interesting and varied than the one that I saw in 5th. This extends to both list composition and variety of codices being played.
This is so true.
Even with a lot of Necrons, Necrons +X being played and reaching top tables, it's a lot better than 8 out of top sixteen lists being GK, with the other eight being SW/ IG. We've seen just about every Army place fairly highly, if not outright win in 6th.
Agreed! The tourney meta is a lot more exciting and interesting to me at the moment than it was towards the end of 5th edition.
Guard blobs are already doing great without the addition of things like Thudd guns, as evidenced by Tony Kopach's performance. Of course, his skill is a huge factor, but IG are great as allies now... as they should be.
But so are a lot of other armies, and there's a ton of variety being fielded atm in my opinion. So, I just don't see a "need" for unlimited Forgeworld (the topic of this thread). But while that is my view, I also think some FW allowance can be a fun addition. I think a lot of gamers feel this way. But start talking about how FW-allowed is the only way to play, a la some of the posts on the last page when this thread was brought back from the depths, and you'll turn most of the room off to your argument immediately.
52309
Post by: Breng77
That is he fault of reasoning by most pro fw people fw books are not equivalent to codices, they are also something that for many editions was no "40k approved" so going from basically not allowing any FW to all the sudden wholesale allowing it is a big step, as big a step as outlawing a codex would be. They are also far less organized than the codexes (units get re-printed as do army lists with different rules, so unless you own them all you have no real way of knowing what is current.) I'm not saying this is a reason not to accept them. Simply to refute the fact that disallowing them is in any way similar to banning a codex.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
RiTides wrote: Sasori wrote: LValx wrote:I just don't see a "need" for unlimited Forgeworld (the topic of this thread). But while that is my view, I also think some FW allowance can be a fun addition. I think a lot of gamers feel this way. But start talking about how FW-allowed is the only way to play, a la some of the posts on the last page when this thread was brought back from the depths, and you'll turn most of the room off to your argument immediately.
I am not interested in a popularity contest. I am interested in playing by all of the 40k rules. I keep using 40k Approved, you keep using the term unlimited Forge World. Which of these terms could more easily be misunderstood? I know what you have said earlier. I am saying many who have not gone thru this tread will see Forge World allowed and think items 1, 2 and 3 in the image below. I am talking about item 3 below.
The problem with some "FW allowance" as you call it is we both know the WIN AT ALL COST players will load up with allied sabres and thuds and it will be a see how terrible Forge World is.
All armies have something that just cries to be used for a WIN AT ALL COSTS player. CRON AIR, RIPTIDES, VENDETTAS. I do not see any of the other things getting banned.
This is not about any particular tournament. The simple question is what do you think number 3 on the image below means?
9594
Post by: RiTides
You messed up the quotes a bit there
Again, that argument has been thoroughly discussed. The line "but owing to the fact they may be uknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start" means, in a tournament setting, that the TO must decide that for the players ahead of time.
Which is exactly what this thread was about . There is no one "right" way to play, as many TOs concurred in this thread. FW is great for some events, not as good for others... and for some in the middle, a limited allowance of FW is a nice compromise.
But the fact is, the TO must make a call on this for any particular tourney, which is why the discussion turned to how particular events treat FW, rather than a "one ring to rule them all" or "this is the only way to run a tourney!1?1" discussion.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
RiTides wrote:You messed up the quotes a bit there
Again, that argument has been thoroughly discussed. The line "but owing to the fact they may be uknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start" means, in a tournament setting, that the TO must decide that for the players ahead of time.
Which is exactly what this thread was about . There is no one "right" way to play, as many TOs concurred in this thread. FW is great for some events, not as good for others... and for some in the middle, a limited allowance of FW is a nice compromise.
But the fact is, the TO must make a call on this for any particular tourney, which is why the discussion turned to how particular events treat FW, rather than a "one ring to rule them all" or "this is the only way to run a tourney!1?1" discussion.
Sorry about the quotes, I sure did mess them up...
When I look at item 3 I think it says these are an official part of the 40k Rule set.
The "best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start" does not mean I need his permission any more than if I show up with some other list he may dislike like Vendetta Spam. Its to not surprise him and give him a chance to look at the book if he wants along with my list. In my mind there is no difference there between that and showing an opponent the new Tau supplement who likely has never seen it. Would a tournament organizer ban it for lack of knowledge for opponents? It's not even in print...the opponent has to be shown it on an electronic device. 
I suspect we are not going to agree on this and that's OK.
Sooner or later I can hope more come over to my way of thinking what the rules say.
 Inquistors will be looking those for not in compliance with the will of the Emperor...
52309
Post by: Breng77
The issue you still run into is that when Gw has run a tournament it has been no FW, so the standard 40k game (heck the standard rules) don't involve tournaments, which IMO are about creating the most enjoyable environment for the largest number of attendees, thus if most attendees at an event would opt with not being comfortable facing an unknown army at an event (FW is more unknown to most than codices or their supplements) then that is the best answer. If most people want FW and are comfortable with it than again best answer. Using the supplements is bad precedent, they don't have nearly the amount of rules in the (at this point) that FW brings to the table.
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
In the above images, Forgeworld kinda kills the argument that "40k Approved" rules are the OFFICIAL ones and so are the allowable ones.
"As with all our models, these should be considered official" kinda blows it out of the water. Besides the fact permission due to opponent comfort is a requirement (not something that applies to the codices), anyone who is arguing the 40k Approved stamp is official but not each and every other thing that FW produces is being shot down by FW themselves.
I'm not sure there's going to be a lot of budge at this point by the extremists in the discussion; for my own part, I'll continue to run a full spread of events designed to offer competitive and casual gaming to both FW fans and FW opponents. I'll probably NOT do much to address the needs of guys and gals on the fringes for whom this is a politicized, partisan, emotional, and often verbally aggressive issue ... especially those who wouldn't attend our events no matter what was offered.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
MVBrandt wrote:In the above images, Forgeworld kinda kills the argument that " 40k Approved" rules are the OFFICIAL ones and so are the allowable ones.
But that's not the point. Everything FW produces is official, but not everything official GW publishes is for standard 40k.
A codex or supplement is official and part of the standard game.
" 40k approved" rules are official and part of the standard game just like a codex or supplement.
"Apocalypse" rules are official and part of any game played with the Apocalypse expansion.
The Planetstrike stratagems in the recent supplements are official and part of any game played with the Planetstrike expansion.
"Heresy" rules are official and part of any Heresy game.
The "official" part of the statement is only really relevant when dealing with someone who thinks that FW is a separate company instead of just a brand name used by GW, the important part is the statement that the " 40k approved" rules are the ones that are part of the standard game.
53249
Post by: Molonious
We just had a FW allowed Tourney in my area, a qualifier for the Feast of Blades. The event was hardly overrun with hordes of IG armies sporting gobs of interceptor artillery or the like, mine in fact was the only IG army and the only FW units in my list were Rapiers, people were far more afraid of the Vendettas. The one SM army sporting multiple Interceptor artillery units and Mortis Contemptor dreads got tabled its first game by a Nidzilla list and the only other army with a Mortis dread likewise got tabled its first game.
I don't believe any of the Feast of Blades qualifying players used FW at all. All 3 qualifying armies however were Eldar armies with Dark Eldar or Tau allies.
Holofields, Wave Serpents, and Conceal, along with clever manipulation of Battle Brothers Allies seemed to be the power of the day, not Forgeworld.
52309
Post by: Breng77
So the top players were seeming cheating since conceal only targets the psyker and has no effect on a wave Serpent?
That said until fw legal is the standard for tournies I would not expect to see tons of broken stuff because most people don't own it yet.
53249
Post by: Molonious
Breng77 wrote:So the top players were seeming cheating since conceal only targets the psyker and has no effect on a wave Serpent?
No, you're misinterpreting that. The Conceal power was used to good effect on other units (particularly with one army where Dark Reapers with a Spiritseer attached coupled with allied Tau HQ joined to them routinely allowed to sit in 2+ cover with AP3 guns and ignoring cover saves), not on the Wave Serpents, but in general the presence of those three items tended to pretty much hold their own over other armies.
That said until fw legal is the standard for tournies I would not expect to see tons of broken stuff because most people don't own it yet.
And yet somehow despite having been so in some areas (in California especially) for almost a year now this hasn't happened, while new codex books see new armies are quickly fielded and advantages exploited in weeks. I just don't see this argument holding as much water as some think it does.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Molonious wrote:Breng77 wrote:So the top players were seeming cheating since conceal only targets the psyker and has no effect on a wave Serpent?
No, you're misinterpreting that. The Conceal power was used to good effect on other units (particularly with one army where Dark Reapers with a Spiritseer attached coupled with allied Tau HQ joined to them routinely allowed to sit in 2+ cover with AP3 guns and ignoring cover saves), not on the Wave Serpents, but in general the presence of those three items tended to pretty much hold their own over other armies.
That said until fw legal is the standard for tournies I would not expect to see tons of broken stuff because most people don't own it yet.
And yet somehow despite having been so in some areas (in California especially) for almost a year now this hasn't happened, while new codex books see new armies are quickly fielded and advantages exploited in weeks. I just don't see this argument holding as much water as some think it does.
Ok good to know it was confusion and not cheating (I have seen a lot of people try that). As for the second part. Yes it has been in CA for a Year, the problem there being that the "best" players travel to lots of out of state GTs that don't allow it and so don't drop cash on stuff they will only sometimes use, or they already have a list they like just fine and since no one else has run out to buy FW they don't either (some CA guys are opposed to FW you know). What I'm saying is that until FW is universally accepted you won't see the worst of it because people don't all want to spend money on stuff they can only use sometimes.
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
I've said it before, but allowing FW has nothing to do with top tier players and the guys who win events (because usually the same folks are on top no matter what book is out). It's about what happens to everyone's experience, not just the elites.
76338
Post by: ThouShallNotHeal
It still is decided by dice afterall
2670
Post by: hands_miranda
MVBrandt wrote:I've said it before, but allowing FW has nothing to do with top tier players and the guys who win events (because usually the same folks are on top no matter what book is out). It's about what happens to everyone's experience, not just the elites.
Thanks Mike. This is really the point that matters to me. Worrying about the guys at the top is nowhere near the most important thing for any event coordinator, since most players aren't going to see any of it. And without the middle table guys, you don't have numbers for an event. It's something that gets missed by a lot of players when they start talking about scrubs, newbs, and the like, but honestly these guys are as much a part of event as the top table guys who get the internet praise, and are in fact more important as a group since they are the bulk of the participants.
As far as using FW goes, our club of fairly average players is giving it a go right now. It's a bit expensive, but IMO the biggest issue is always figuring out what book holds what unit, and also if said profile has been over-written. My example for this is the infamous Remora. It's listed in IA Apocalypse, Aeronautica, and IA3 2nd Edition with three different statlines. It's practically impossible to tell from the FW page which set of rules is current for the Remora-- nothing in it's FW page even tells you what book the rules are in. So even if you have a book with rules for the unit in them, you get a 1 in 2 chance that those rules are wrong because the currently sold book is not the most up to date version (Apocalypse is now out of print from what I can tell). Getting a list of where all the current rules for units are is much harder than it needs to be for FW stuff.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
hands_miranda wrote:MVBrandt wrote:I've said it before, but allowing FW has nothing to do with top tier players and the guys who win events (because usually the same folks are on top no matter what book is out). It's about what happens to everyone's experience, not just the elites.
Thanks Mike. This is really the point that matters to me. Worrying about the guys at the top is nowhere near the most important thing for any event coordinator, since most players aren't going to see any of it. And without the middle table guys, you don't have numbers for an event. It's something that gets missed by a lot of players when they start talking about scrubs, newbs, and the like, but honestly these guys are as much a part of event as the top table guys who get the internet praise, and are in fact more important as a group since they are the bulk of the participants.
As far as using FW goes, our club of fairly average players is giving it a go right now. It's a bit expensive, but IMO the biggest issue is always figuring out what book holds what unit, and also if said profile has been over-written. My example for this is the infamous Remora. It's listed in IA Apocalypse, Aeronautica, and IA3 2nd Edition with three different statlines. It's practically impossible to tell from the FW page which set of rules is current for the Remora-- nothing in it's FW page even tells you what book the rules are in. So even if you have a book with rules for the unit in them, you get a 1 in 2 chance that those rules are wrong because the currently sold book is not the most up to date version (Apocalypse is now out of print from what I can tell). Getting a list of where all the current rules for units are is much harder than it needs to be for FW stuff.
Well it was easy for me.
I just looked at the description for the newest book and there it was
Imperial Armour Volume Three – Second Edition: The Taros Campaign is the definitive reference for using Forge World’s extensive range of Tau Empire armoured vehicles and battlesuits in games of 6th Edition Warhammer 40,000. This book includes profiles for each and every Tau Empire unit in the Forge World range, from the humble Heavy Gun Drone to the super-heavy Manta, including those units deployed after the bloody conflict on Taros such as the potent XV9 Hazard Close Support Team and our Kroot Auxiliary units.
The Index for Tau equipment had page 262 for the DX-6 "Remora" Drone Fighter, which also lists it as approved for 40k with all the stats and point costs and options for 6th edition.
I would expect anyone I played to show me their current book with the equipment in it and it was easy to determine which one that was.
I went to the web site, looked at the newest IA and read the description of what was inside . Took me less than a minute.
If a guy showed up with Tau 2nd edition I would ask him to have the current codex, not 2 or 3 out of date ones, I suspect you would too.
This can of course get interesting with the new "electronic books: if the other guy says his I Pad is dead
Not seeing as much as a problem as you do. The trick is if you are using a piece of equipment you must have the current book and that is easier to do than I suspect many folks are saying.
All that being said did I really read " not just the elites"? How modest....
Have a good day
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:hands_miranda wrote:MVBrandt wrote:I've said it before, but allowing FW has nothing to do with top tier players and the guys who win events (because usually the same folks are on top no matter what book is out). It's about what happens to everyone's experience, not just the elites.
Thanks Mike. This is really the point that matters to me. Worrying about the guys at the top is nowhere near the most important thing for any event coordinator, since most players aren't going to see any of it. And without the middle table guys, you don't have numbers for an event. It's something that gets missed by a lot of players when they start talking about scrubs, newbs, and the like, but honestly these guys are as much a part of event as the top table guys who get the internet praise, and are in fact more important as a group since they are the bulk of the participants.
As far as using FW goes, our club of fairly average players is giving it a go right now. It's a bit expensive, but IMO the biggest issue is always figuring out what book holds what unit, and also if said profile has been over-written. My example for this is the infamous Remora. It's listed in IA Apocalypse, Aeronautica, and IA3 2nd Edition with three different statlines. It's practically impossible to tell from the FW page which set of rules is current for the Remora-- nothing in it's FW page even tells you what book the rules are in. So even if you have a book with rules for the unit in them, you get a 1 in 2 chance that those rules are wrong because the currently sold book is not the most up to date version (Apocalypse is now out of print from what I can tell). Getting a list of where all the current rules for units are is much harder than it needs to be for FW stuff.
Well it was easy for me.
I just looked at the description for the newest book and there it was
Imperial Armour Volume Three – Second Edition: The Taros Campaign is the definitive reference for using Forge World’s extensive range of Tau Empire armoured vehicles and battlesuits in games of 6th Edition Warhammer 40,000. This book includes profiles for each and every Tau Empire unit in the Forge World range, from the humble Heavy Gun Drone to the super-heavy Manta, including those units deployed after the bloody conflict on Taros such as the potent XV9 Hazard Close Support Team and our Kroot Auxiliary units.
The Index for Tau equipment had page 262 for the DX-6 "Remora" Drone Fighter, which also lists it as approved for 40k with all the stats and point costs and options for 6th edition.
I would expect anyone I played to show me their current book with the equipment in it and it was easy to determine which one that was.
I went to the web site, looked at the newest IA and read the description of what was inside . Took me less than a minute.
If a guy showed up with Tau 2nd edition I would ask him to have the current codex, not 2 or 3 out of date ones, I suspect you would too.
This can of course get interesting with the new "electronic books: if the other guy says his I Pad is dead
Not seeing as much as a problem as you do. The trick is if you are using a piece of equipment you must have the current book and that is easier to do than I suspect many folks are saying.
All that being said did I really read " not just the elites"? How modest....
Have a good day
What does modesty have to do with me talking about elite and non-elite players? :p I'm a TO, not a player, in this discussion. That was a silly troll (though I guess it worked? lol)
47462
Post by: rigeld2
It's near impossible for me ( as a player) to remember which book has the newest rules for a given FW model.
The fact that FW does nothing to help that is extremely annoying.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
What does modesty have to do with me talking about elite and non-elite players? :p I'm a TO, not a player, in this discussion. That was a silly troll (though I guess it worked? lol)
You sir, are a gentleman.
It's near impossible for me ( as a player) to remember which book has the newest rules for a given FW model.
The fact that FW does nothing to help that is extremely annoying.
Strangely enough when I checked someone else mentioned that very thing two weeks ago at Forge World and their response was We are looking at making some kind of rules index for the models.
so a online index may be on the way which would be better than the method I currently use of starting from the newest book on back.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
They've said that every time I've asked for the past 18 months.
It should take all of 30 minutes. An hour if you type slow. This is just them being lazy.
2670
Post by: hands_miranda
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Well it was easy for me.
I just looked at the description for the newest book and there it was
Imperial Armour Volume Three – Second Edition: The Taros Campaign is the definitive reference for using Forge World’s extensive range of Tau Empire armoured vehicles and battlesuits in games of 6th Edition Warhammer 40,000. This book includes profiles for each and every Tau Empire unit in the Forge World range, from the humble Heavy Gun Drone to the super-heavy Manta, including those units deployed after the bloody conflict on Taros such as the potent XV9 Hazard Close Support Team and our Kroot Auxiliary units.
The Index for Tau equipment had page 262 for the DX-6 "Remora" Drone Fighter, which also lists it as approved for 40k with all the stats and point costs and options for 6th edition.
I would expect anyone I played to show me their current book with the equipment in it and it was easy to determine which one that was.
I went to the web site, looked at the newest IA and read the description of what was inside . Took me less than a minute.
If a guy showed up with Tau 2nd edition I would ask him to have the current codex, not 2 or 3 out of date ones, I suspect you would too.
This can of course get interesting with the new "electronic books: if the other guy says his I Pad is dead
Not seeing as much as a problem as you do. The trick is if you are using a piece of equipment you must have the current book and that is easier to do than I suspect many folks are saying.
Uh.. the difference is that the 3rd and 4th edition version of the Tau Codex aren't currently available from GW. The old version of the Remora is still available from Forgeworld via IA Aeronautica. You can say this isn't confusing, but having mutliple different currently sold books with different statlines for the same unit is confusing, especially since Forgeworld doesn't think to list which book is required on the unit's ordering page. Again, it's easy if you know what you're doing and have all the books, but otherwise it's a bit opaque.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
hands_miranda wrote:Again, it's easy if you know what you're doing and have all the books, but otherwise it's a bit opaque.
Or if you have the time to look through the books on the website and see which version of a unit's rules was published more recently. It's stupid that they don't have a simple list for everyone to look at, but there's no ambiguity if you take the time to look for the information.
827
Post by: Cruentus
rigeld2 wrote:It's near impossible for me ( as a player) to remember which book has the newest rules for a given FW model.
The fact that FW does nothing to help that is extremely annoying.
And its near impossible for me (as a player) to remember what all the new rules are for all the codexes that keep coming out. GW's pricing and release schedule aren't helping me out on that at all either.
Heck, it'd be cheaper and easier for me to buy IA1v2 from forgeworld rather than the last three or four codexes.
44083
Post by: quiestdeus
hands_miranda wrote:
Uh.. the difference is that the 3rd and 4th edition version of the Tau Codex aren't currently available from GW. The old version of the Remora is still available from Forgeworld via IA Aeronautica. You can say this isn't confusing, but having mutliple different currently sold books with different statlines for the same unit is confusing, especially since Forgeworld doesn't think to list which book is required on the unit's ordering page. Again, it's easy if you know what you're doing and have all the books, but otherwise it's a bit opaque.
hands_miranda, just wanted to post and say you are definitely not alone - trying to guess what book has what units in it and what counts as "current" is definitely a lesson in frustration. Sabre Weapons platform - I have seen mention of those and I went to see which book they were in. Seems like they could be Imperial Armour Aeronautica (they are anti-air and this book apparently covers all things anti-aircraft) or Imperial Armour Volume One - Second Edition: Imperial Guard (this is the IG book, right?)
If I get tabled by Imperial Guard I know exactly where to look: Codex: Imperial Guard. If I get tabled by a bunch of random IG FW stuff I have at least two places I need to look to see what hit me... hell, maybe more, and the fact that I cannot even provide a definitive there is one of the major problems.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
quiestdeus wrote:If I get tabled by Imperial Guard I know exactly where to look: Codex: Imperial Guard. If I get tabled by a bunch of random IG FW stuff I have at least two places I need to look to see what hit me... hell, maybe more, and the fact that I cannot even provide a definitive there is one of the major problems.
No, you have one place to look because the FW website has the table of contents for each book and you know that IA1 is the more recent book so it has the current rules.
44083
Post by: quiestdeus
Peregrine wrote:quiestdeus wrote:If I get tabled by Imperial Guard I know exactly where to look: Codex: Imperial Guard. If I get tabled by a bunch of random IG FW stuff I have at least two places I need to look to see what hit me... hell, maybe more, and the fact that I cannot even provide a definitive there is one of the major problems.
No, you have one place to look because the FW website has the table of contents for each book and you know that IA1 is the more recent book so it has the current rules.
Interesting - where is the ToC? and how do I know IA1 is more recent?
Definitely not saying the information is not there, but all I see is :
Imperial Armour Volume One - Second Edition: Imperial Guard is a book dedicated to the fighting vehicles of the Imperial Guard; the steel-clad behemoths that rumble and clank their way across the battlefields of the far future, unleashing fire and shell at the enemies of Mankind. Inside this 294-page book, the full panoply of Imperial Guard armoured vehicles are displayed in exhaustive detail, including profiles and rules for over fifty tanks, support vehicles, artillery pieces and super-heavy vehicles, alongside extensive background material on these war machines, their munitions and manufacture.
In addition to the wealth of information, colour profiles and photographs, the book also includes a full army list that allows you to field the sledgehammer of Imperial military power: the Imperial Guard Armoured Battlegroup. Also included are rules for some of the most famous Tank Aces of the Imperium including General Grizmund of the 1st Narmenian Armoured Regiment
and either way, the fact that we are even having this discussion means it is more complicated than the traditional Codex system.
But I am legitimately curious where to get the ToCs for each book.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
quiestdeus wrote:Interesting - where is the ToC? and how do I know IA1 is more recent?
The table of contents is in the picture gallery, second from the left in the top row. And the publication date doesn't seem to be available directly from FW, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_%28Warhammer_40,000%29 (found with just a few seconds of searching) shows the correct publication order for every 40k rulebook.
and either way, the fact that we are even having this discussion means it is more complicated than the traditional Codex system.
Sure, it's a stupid way of doing things and they really need to keep an updated list of where each unit's rules are. But that's an ease of use issue, not any real ambiguity about what the answer is.
44083
Post by: quiestdeus
ToCs in the pictures is a surprisingly good idea on their part.
But as I look through them... they vary in clarity. What are the units in the Elysian drop troop army list? It just says "heavy support" in Imperial Armour Volume Three – Second Edition's ToC - what counts as heavy support?
Are the hellhound rules up-to-date in the Imperial Armour Volume Twelve: The Fall of Orpheus or in the Imperial Armour Volume One - Second Edition: Imperial Guard?
I can go to a third page to see which is more recent... but needing to go to a third page does not make the information on forgeworld's site ambiguous? Interesting.
I'm sure you know I am just asking rhetoricals now, as while the ability to peruse the tables of contents is helpful, its implementation (and inconsistency in detail across the books) does not seem able to answer everything.
I do appreciate the effort though.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
quiestdeus wrote:What are the units in the Elysian drop troop army list? It just says "heavy support" in Imperial Armour Volume Three – Second Edition's ToC - what counts as heavy support?
Doesn't matter. You have to use the whole Elysian army list at once, you can't pick and choose, say, the heavy support from IA3(2nd) and the fast attack from IA8. All you need to know is that the current version of the Elysian army list is in IA3(2nd).
Are the hellhound rules up-to-date in the Imperial Armour Volume Twelve: The Fall of Orpheus or in the Imperial Armour Volume One - Second Edition: Imperial Guard?
In this case it doesn't matter because the Hellhound page in IA1(2nd) is just fluff and a reprint of the codex rules.
But note that the IA12 entry for the Hellhound is only as part of the DKoK army list and can not be used separately. And if you're using the DKoK army list there's only one place you can look for your rules.
I can go to a third page to see which is more recent... but needing to go to a third page does not make the information on forgeworld's site ambiguous? Interesting.
It's not ambiguous because you know the answer without any possible uncertainty. Yes, it sucks from an ease of use perspective, but if you're trying to figure out where the current rules for something are all you have to do is spend the effort. You're never going to be left with ambiguity about which source is the right one.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 Cruentus wrote:rigeld2 wrote:It's near impossible for me ( as a player) to remember which book has the newest rules for a given FW model.
The fact that FW does nothing to help that is extremely annoying.
And its near impossible for me (as a player) to remember what all the new rules are for all the codexes that keep coming out. GW's pricing and release schedule aren't helping me out on that at all either.
You do understand the difference between knowing the rules and knowing which rules are valid right?
I'm addressing the latter, you seem to have addressed the former...
If I want to know where to look for the mode current codex IG lists, it's trivial. If I want to know where to look for the most recent ABG lists it takes detective work. That's absolutely stupid.
Heck, it'd be cheaper and easier for me to buy IA1v2 from forgeworld rather than the last three or four codexes.
Okay? Sure. And?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
rigeld2 wrote: Cruentus wrote:rigeld2 wrote:It's near impossible for me ( as a player) to remember which book has the newest rules for a given FW model.
The fact that FW does nothing to help that is extremely annoying.
And its near impossible for me (as a player) to remember what all the new rules are for all the codexes that keep coming out. GW's pricing and release schedule aren't helping me out on that at all either.
You do understand the difference between knowing the rules and knowing which rules are valid right?
I'm addressing the latter, you seem to have addressed the former...
If I want to know where to look for the mode current codex IG lists, it's trivial. If I want to know where to look for the most recent ABG lists it takes detective work. That's absolutely stupid.
There's nothing in Codex: Black Templars or the FAQ telling me that I'm allowed to take a Storm Talon or a Storm Raven. How do I know where to find the rules, and why is one supplement not referenced in any way in the Codex or FAQ OK but another not?
76338
Post by: ThouShallNotHeal
Any ETA on templars/SoB
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
76338
Post by: ThouShallNotHeal
When is GW ever truly ready
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
SoB are due for a VERY, VERY long time as GW recently told people they can't use the old sculpts for plastic models. They would therefore have to produce entirely new sculpts for the army...and seriously, that's a lot of effort (and money!) you'd spend to satisfy a small niche audience.
76338
Post by: ThouShallNotHeal
Nah, Just market them as allies of ultramarines and they're golden.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Ok So the Pro-FW people are missing the point entirely on the confusion about know which rules are current. It is not that I as a player cannot do internet research to find this out. It is about if I am at a table and a guy shows up with a FW unit and a book with the rules for that unit in it, how do I know they are the current rules?
Do I assume he put in his due diligence to bring the most current rules? Do I whip out my smart phone, or find someone with one and start googling stuff to find out if he is using the right book?
OR should I have memorized every FW unit and what book contains its newest iteration?
This is a problem even if a TO provides a list of legal units and the books they come in. As a player unless the TO is individually checking how do I know a player is not cheating me, or making a mistake?
SO it is not a matter of can I find out. Sure I can with enough research. IT is a matter of how do I know.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
AlmightyWalrus wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Cruentus wrote:rigeld2 wrote:It's near impossible for me ( as a player) to remember which book has the newest rules for a given FW model.
The fact that FW does nothing to help that is extremely annoying.
And its near impossible for me (as a player) to remember what all the new rules are for all the codexes that keep coming out. GW's pricing and release schedule aren't helping me out on that at all either.
You do understand the difference between knowing the rules and knowing which rules are valid right?
I'm addressing the latter, you seem to have addressed the former...
If I want to know where to look for the mode current codex IG lists, it's trivial. If I want to know where to look for the most recent ABG lists it takes detective work. That's absolutely stupid.
There's nothing in Codex: Black Templars or the FAQ telling me that I'm allowed to take a Storm Talon or a Storm Raven. How do I know where to find the rules, and why is one supplement not referenced in any way in the Codex or FAQ OK but another not?
Why are you assuming Death from the Skies is "okay"?
Am I arguing against Forgeworld? If I am, please quote where I've said that.
I've said it's stupid that I have to do detective work to figure out where FW rules are.
That doesn't mean I'm okay with how DftS has been handled.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
rigeld2 wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Cruentus wrote:rigeld2 wrote:It's near impossible for me ( as a player) to remember which book has the newest rules for a given FW model.
The fact that FW does nothing to help that is extremely annoying.
And its near impossible for me (as a player) to remember what all the new rules are for all the codexes that keep coming out. GW's pricing and release schedule aren't helping me out on that at all either.
You do understand the difference between knowing the rules and knowing which rules are valid right?
I'm addressing the latter, you seem to have addressed the former...
If I want to know where to look for the mode current codex IG lists, it's trivial. If I want to know where to look for the most recent ABG lists it takes detective work. That's absolutely stupid.
There's nothing in Codex: Black Templars or the FAQ telling me that I'm allowed to take a Storm Talon or a Storm Raven. How do I know where to find the rules, and why is one supplement not referenced in any way in the Codex or FAQ OK but another not?
Why are you assuming Death from the Skies is "okay"?
Am I arguing against Forgeworld? If I am, please quote where I've said that.
I've said it's stupid that I have to do detective work to figure out where FW rules are.
That doesn't mean I'm okay with how DftS has been handled.
Sorry, must've jumped to conclusions. I guess I read into stuff that wasn't there in your comments. I can only agree with you that it's been handled badly, my point (which was, seemingly, mis-aimed) was that it's not unique to ForgeWorld publications. Sorry about my fail.
EDIT: Anyhow, the reason I'm assuming that DFtS is OK is because no one ever complains about it being official yet badly handled, while the fact that we're now on page 43 of this debate seems to imply that ForgeWorld is not, despite both having similar issues (and don't get me started on the Sisters of Battle WDs...).
9594
Post by: RiTides
quiestdeus wrote:hands_miranda wrote:
Uh.. the difference is that the 3rd and 4th edition version of the Tau Codex aren't currently available from GW. The old version of the Remora is still available from Forgeworld via IA Aeronautica. You can say this isn't confusing, but having mutliple different currently sold books with different statlines for the same unit is confusing, especially since Forgeworld doesn't think to list which book is required on the unit's ordering page. Again, it's easy if you know what you're doing and have all the books, but otherwise it's a bit opaque.
hands_miranda, just wanted to post and say you are definitely not alone - trying to guess what book has what units in it and what counts as "current" is definitely a lesson in frustration. Sabre Weapons platform - I have seen mention of those and I went to see which book they were in. Seems like they could be Imperial Armour Aeronautica (they are anti-air and this book apparently covers all things anti-aircraft) or Imperial Armour Volume One - Second Edition: Imperial Guard (this is the IG book, right?)
If I get tabled by Imperial Guard I know exactly where to look: Codex: Imperial Guard. If I get tabled by a bunch of random IG FW stuff I have at least two places I need to look to see what hit me... hell, maybe more, and the fact that I cannot even provide a definitive there is one of the major problems.
You guys are not alone, I'm right there with you.
This is why, the only tournaments who can responsibly run FW right now are ones that are doing it to the level of AdeptiCon- making a list like this before each iteration of their event, and making sure it is current:
http://www.adepticon.org/13rules/201340KIAApoc.pdf
To the average player, it is not obvious which FW book is most current. Particularly, if you're matched up against a new army for Round 3 of an event, and they hand you their book with the rules of their unit. Are you going to whip out your iPad and check each book's entry on the FW site, one at a time, to see if a more recent book has the same unit listed? I think not!
You can say the TO is responsible for the player having the current rules, but ah, there's the rub!
The amount of extra work this could add to a TO, once it became less a novelty that a few players at an event are taking, and instead included in most armies at an event, is insane! As is the amount of extra knowledge required in sheer number of units for them to be familiar with, and ready to make rules dispute calls on in the midst of a timed event. People advocating for more FW need to lobby GW and FW, not the TOs, to make it's inclusion easier!
Things like an index (which AdeptiCon does for their own events) would make it massively easier for a TO to check that players are using the current rules. Of course, consolidating rules into less books or marking the old ones as out of date would do that, too... but that doesn't seem to be happening. Instead, there are still some units in the old books that don't have replacements, afaik, and so those books remain in use... but only for a small selection of their contents.
Obviously, this is confusing and comparing it to a new edition of a codex, or a flyers supplement, is like comparing a huge warehouse to a small shack, imo. They're in the same category, but completely different levels of the same thing. And it'd be an easy thing to fix, to boot... but that's up to GW and FW to do, not TOs trying to run a smooth and fun event.
(Unless they're willing to put in the work to make it smooth and fun- a la AdeptiCon, and I believe the Nova Open soon as well, if not already)
2670
Post by: hands_miranda
Peregrine wrote:quiestdeus wrote:Interesting - where is the ToC? and how do I know IA1 is more recent?
The table of contents is in the picture gallery, second from the left in the top row. And the publication date doesn't seem to be available directly from FW, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_%28Warhammer_40,000%29 (found with just a few seconds of searching) shows the correct publication order for every 40k rulebook.
and either way, the fact that we are even having this discussion means it is more complicated than the traditional Codex system.
Sure, it's a stupid way of doing things and they really need to keep an updated list of where each unit's rules are. But that's an ease of use issue, not any real ambiguity about what the answer is.
Searching a bunch around the internet (including wiki, which is non-vetted and in some cases an absolute joke) is not what I would call a normal method to determine this stuff. Nothing on FW's site tells you publication order, and wiki is only as good as the last basement-dweller to edit it. What A-Con does is really the gold standard for this kind of thing, but really the same kind of thing should be done by FW itself, since A-Con only does a chart for its own events.
Note this is not coming from a pro and anti FW position. We're trying stuff out for our club as a way to add more variety into games, not out of some balance need-- the game is bad without it so it's not going to get any more broken including it. FW has just made it very hard to ensure you're using the correct version of the unit (in reality we're just going to use the IA Aero version because it's what we have and if anything worse than the IA3 version)
9594
Post by: RiTides
Oh, wow, I didn't even realize that. So there's no way to tell on FW site which book is the most recent... as far as I can see?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Armour_Books
The blurbs for each are also really brief. Nothing like AdeptiCon's list of exactly which unit is in which book:
http://www.adepticon.org/13rules/201340KIAApoc.pdf
Also, as someone unfamiliar with these things, on the top of the page I see Imperial Armor Volume 3, Second Edition. Imperial Armor Volume 12, and Imperial Armor Volume 1, Second Edition.
Is there no Volume 2, Second Edition? 
From the Imperial Armor Volume 12 blurb:
Imperial Armour Volume Twelve: The Fall of Orpheus, written by Alan Bligh, is a mighty 232-page, full colour tome, packed with lavish maps, colour profiles and photographs. The horrors of the Orphean War are recounted in detail, alongside a new variant Necron army list – the Dark Harvest – which represents the tainted Maynarkh Dynasty, and full rules for new Necron units such as the Night Shroud Bomber, the Canoptek Acanthrites and the mighty Tomb Citadel.
The book also contains a new Death Korps of Krieg army list – the Assault Brigade – updated background, units and characters for the Minotaurs Space Marine Chapter, as well as rules for numerous Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine units.
"Rules for numerous Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine units." What does that even mean? Are these the most current rules for all Space Marine units? How do I know which units this book covers, if an opponent hands me an older book with a Space Marine unit in it?
Not trying to be an ass here, but seriously, people who love FW can be very intimidating to average players (like myself!) with the "Well, it was in Imperial Armor Volume 7, you should have known that!" attitude that comes across (to me). How the can I know where the rules are for units if FW doesn't list them, and is as vague as the above?
They need to make and upkeep a document or index like AdeptiCon does, to really be seriously considered for widespread tourney use at small events where TOs can't put in that kind of time and research for monthly events and the like, as opposed to a once-a-year GT.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Breng77 wrote:Ok So the Pro- FW people are missing the point entirely on the confusion about know which rules are current. It is not that I as a player cannot do internet research to find this out. It is about if I am at a table and a guy shows up with a FW unit and a book with the rules for that unit in it, how do I know they are the current rules?
If a person shows up with a codex you aren't familiar with how can you know it is current? Or how do you that they haven't just edited the rules and made their own (ipad) codex?
OR should I have memorized every FW unit and what book contains its newest iteration?
I don't know about every unit, but doing the research on units you expect to face is just part of being prepared for a tournament. We wouldn't feel much sympathy for someone who lost to Tau because they didn't know about JSJ, so why should we feel sympathy for someone who was cheated because they didn't do even a minimal amount of research on what units are out there?
This is a problem even if a TO provides a list of legal units and the books they come in. As a player unless the TO is individually checking how do I know a player is not cheating me, or making a mistake?
I don't see how this is a problem. If the TO provides a list of units and which books they're in how can you possibly be cheated? Your opponent shows you their list, you ask to see their books. If they match the ones on the TO's list it's legitimate, if they don't you have a problem.
50463
Post by: Eldercaveman
Peregrine wrote:Breng77 wrote:Ok So the Pro- FW people are missing the point entirely on the confusion about know which rules are current. It is not that I as a player cannot do internet research to find this out. It is about if I am at a table and a guy shows up with a FW unit and a book with the rules for that unit in it, how do I know they are the current rules?
If a person shows up with a codex you aren't familiar with how can you know it is current? Or how do you that they haven't just edited the rules and made their own (ipad) codex?
To further on this point, if this is at a Tournament were said player turns up wit his FW unit and book, surely this would have been approved with is submitted army list to the TO? So why would you need to worry about it being an unapproved model?
9594
Post by: RiTides
It's not about an unapproved model- it's that there isn't a list of which is the most current ruleset for said model.
It's absurdly easy to check if it's the most recent version of a codex. Right now, with no index provided by FW, it is not nearly so easy to see if you have the most recent version of rules for a given unit.
Some may be easier than others (does the new Imperial Armor, Volume 3, Second Edition have all Tau units?) but just look at AdeptiCon's list and you'll see how scattered the rules are:
http://www.adepticon.org/13rules/201340KIAApoc.pdf
I'm linking to this again because the confusion should be very obvious, I don't know why you guys are not seeing that... there are multiple books being sold by FW, with mutiple entries for the same units, yet no list saying which book has the most current rules for any particular unit or even which book is more current in general.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
RiTides wrote:It's absurdly easy to check if it's the most recent version of a codex.
Really? How do you check the most recent version of a codex, assuming you have no internet access (since if you did you could check the FW books)? And how do you check that your opponent hasn't edited their codex?
Right now, with no index provided by FW, it is not nearly so easy to see if you have the most recent version of rules for a given unit.
It isn't as convenient, but it's possible. I won't disagree that FW should keep a single list of what rules are where, but this is hardly a fatal problem for allowing FW in tournaments.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Peregrine wrote:I won't disagree that FW should keep a single list of what rules are where, but this is hardly a fatal problem for allowing FW in tournaments.
More like death by a thousand cuts
It is a pretty big deal, though, and is a large part of the reason why the way AdeptiCon deals with FW is great... but very different than a blanket "Have at it, guys!" And also why I think we have to at least acknowledge what needs to be done to make FW easier to implement in a tournament setting.
52309
Post by: Breng77
The big difference that is not being noted here is not about telling the most recent version of any one book (that is as easy for FW as it is for Codices.) The problem is that FW prints rules for the same unit/army in multiple books.
It is quite different as your opponent if you bring codex Eldar with you and show me the rules for Warp Spiders, as I just need to be able to recognize that it is the newest version of codex eldar (which if we are playing at a store is likely for sale on the wall.)
Than an opponent bringing Imperial armor: Apocalypse 2nd ed, with the rules for Sabers (could be wrong I don't know what books they are in.), when those rules have been updated in say Imperial Armor: Aeronautica. This requires me to know which units are in which books, as well as which books are more recent. I need to know that the rules have been re-printed in a differently named book (and as shown above I'm not sure which books contain which units to begin with). This is a pretty big failing of Forgeworld. If say sabers were only ever in IA: Apocalypse, then all I would need know is what the newest edition of the book is (2nd ed, or 3rd if they reprint it again.)
Currently I need to know that x unit is in books y and Z and I need to know which of books y and z is more current.
Even with Adepticons list of units it requires one of two things...
1.) The tournament judges/organizers to vet that the rules being used by each player are correct (very labor intensive).
2.) Opponents of those players to be inimately familar with the list of units and which books they fall into, so that if their opponent is using the wrong rules they can be called on it.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Breng77 wrote:The big difference that is not being noted here is not about telling the most recent version of any one book (that is as easy for FW as it is for Codices.) The problem is that FW prints rules for the same unit/army in multiple books.
While true, and is an issue, I will point out that basically the last year and a half is the first time we haven't had the same situation with core GW products. We had multiple different rules and points costs for supposedly identical items across very similar armies, things like PotMS, Stormshields, Assault Cannons, Rhinos, etc for years and years and multiple editions. Hell, Inquisitor Karamazov existed in two different armies with two different sets of rules for half a year after the GK book came out
So yes, while it's an understandable issue, it's something that GW as a whole is only recently moving away from, and not by any means a FW-specific malady.
195
Post by: Blackmoor
Peregrine wrote: RiTides wrote:It's absurdly easy to check if it's the most recent version of a codex.
Really? How do you check the most recent version of a codex, assuming you have no internet access (since if you did you could check the FW books)? And how do you check that your opponent hasn't edited their codex?.
Well, if you are playing at a store you can walk 10' and look to see if the covers match. That is something that you can't do with forge world.
If you are at a tournament everyone knows what the current codexes are. If you are at a level to find a tournament, you are at a level to know what the current codexes are.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote: RiTides wrote:It's absurdly easy to check if it's the most recent version of a codex.
Really? How do you check the most recent version of a codex, assuming you have no internet access (since if you did you could check the FW books)?
You're being disingenuous about the level of effort to check validity. Less than 10 seconds (pending page loads) to check the current version of any GW codex. For FW we have to a) ascertain which books the unit is in (and the only way to do that afaik is to check each book) b) ascertain which one was the latest (which there's no FW source for)
And how do you check that your opponent hasn't edited their codex?
Please tell me how to edit an iBook. I'd love it. I'd send you money for that information.
Or are you spouting fud?
Right now, with no index provided by FW, it is not nearly so easy to see if you have the most recent version of rules for a given unit.
It isn't as convenient, but it's possible. I won't disagree that FW should keep a single list of what rules are where, but this is hardly a fatal problem for allowing FW in tournaments.
Except it is. Every TO should vet a list of units->books prior to an event which adds a significant amount of work. No vetting required for GW codexes.
52309
Post by: Breng77
 Vaktathi wrote:Breng77 wrote:The big difference that is not being noted here is not about telling the most recent version of any one book (that is as easy for FW as it is for Codices.) The problem is that FW prints rules for the same unit/army in multiple books.
While true, and is an issue, I will point out that basically the last year and a half is the first time we haven't had the same situation with core GW products. We had multiple different rules and points costs for supposedly identical items across very similar armies, things like PotMS, Stormshields, Assault Cannons, Rhinos, etc for years and years and multiple editions. Hell, Inquisitor Karamazov existed in two different armies with two different sets of rules for half a year after the GK book came out
So yes, while it's an understandable issue, it's something that GW as a whole is only recently moving away from, and not by any means a FW-specific malady.
Except that in all those cases unless FAQ'd by GW we were expected to play the appropriate rules from our codex. IN otherwords the Rhino Point costs for Vanilla Marines did not replace those for say Templars. That is not the case for Forgeworld, Saber in One book replaces the rules for the saber in an entirely different book, both for use by IG. So your argument here holds no water. It is not the having multiple sets of rules, it is the having multiple sets of rules that all apply to the same army. For example if FW puts out a Space Wolf Contemptor (which they do) its rules do not supercede the rules for a Blood Angel Contemptor. Much the same way a Space Wolf Rhino does not supercede the rules for A Blood Angels rhino. They are different units in different books, despite the same name. Now occasionally GW erratas these changes, but then they are changing the book in question.
Now you can make that argument about say the Daemon WD rules or Death from the Skies, that we had/have 2 sets of rules for units at the same time, in two different sources. I agree that could be confusing, but it was for one book/one supplement, GW included many of these changes in their FAQs, so if you read the FAQ you knew of the difference.
2670
Post by: hands_miranda
rigeld2 wrote:
Please tell me how to edit an iBook. I'd love it. I'd send you money for that information.
Or are you spouting fud?
iBook is safe, but you can edit mobi and epub files pretty easily. They're just XML documents. I plan on editing down all my epub codexes for tabletop use to a) remove all the background and unneeded bestiary entries and b) include ibook style rule popouts. I'll have a real version sitting on tablet too in case people really think I edited anything in a rules-changing way.
34390
Post by: whembly
MVBrandt wrote:I've said it before, but allowing FW has nothing to do with top tier players and the guys who win events (because usually the same folks are on top no matter what book is out). It's about what happens to everyone's experience, not just the elites.
This...
I'm re-quoting Mike's blurb here... this is important. The TO has the absolute burden to manage a tournament and should be left up to the TO's discretion to include FW units, because at the end of the day, all the TO wants is to have a successful (and largely attended) event. They're the ones getting the feedback... trust in them... let the hate floooooooooow (erm... sorry 'bout that! )
My personal opinion is that I have a "BRING IT BRAH!" mindset... I love seeing new stuff and love trying to tactically overcome when facing a surprising adversary. If you want to fit in a baneblade or War Titan in a 2k pt list? Be my guest... but, I assure you that I'll be formulating plans to bring your ass down! 
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 Blackmoor wrote:If you are at a tournament everyone knows what the current codexes are. If you are at a level to find a tournament, you are at a level to know what the current codexes are.
And why can't you say the same about FW rules? If you're at a level to find a tournament you're at a level to know what the current IA books are.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
hands_miranda wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Please tell me how to edit an iBook. I'd love it. I'd send you money for that information.
Or are you spouting fud?
iBook is safe, but you can edit mobi and epub files pretty easily. They're just XML documents. I plan on editing down all my epub codexes for tabletop use to a) remove all the background and unneeded bestiary entries and b) include ibook style rule popouts. I'll have a real version sitting on tablet too in case people really think I edited anything in a rules-changing way.
And are the ePub or mobi books released? I didn't think they were yet.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
rigeld2 wrote:hands_miranda wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Please tell me how to edit an iBook. I'd love it. I'd send you money for that information.
Or are you spouting fud?
iBook is safe, but you can edit mobi and epub files pretty easily. They're just XML documents. I plan on editing down all my epub codexes for tabletop use to a) remove all the background and unneeded bestiary entries and b) include ibook style rule popouts. I'll have a real version sitting on tablet too in case people really think I edited anything in a rules-changing way.
And are the ePub or mobi books released? I didn't think they were yet.
I'm 90% certain that at least the Eldar codex is in ePub and mobi. I'll check that now.
EDIT: Currently, we only have the Rulebook, the Eldar Codex, and the Farsight Enclaves Codex Supplement in ePub and mobi, although quite a lot of them are in iBook format.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Breng77 wrote:
Now you can make that argument about say the Daemon WD rules or Death from the Skies, that we had/have 2 sets of rules for units at the same time, in two different sources. I agree that could be confusing, but it was for one book/one supplement, GW included many of these changes in their FAQs, so if you read the FAQ you knew of the difference.
Nothing in Death From the Skies is mentioned in the Black Templars FAQ. For all I know, Death From the Skies could just be some random dude who's taking the piss trying to claim that the rules inside applies to Codex: Black Templars.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Breng77 wrote:
Except that in all those cases unless FAQ'd by GW we were expected to play the appropriate rules from our codex. IN otherwords the Rhino Point costs for Vanilla Marines did not replace those for say Templars. That is not the case for Forgeworld, Saber in One book replaces the rules for the saber in an entirely different book, both for use by IG. So your argument here holds no water.
That expectation came about only after GW stated so, it took them more than a bit of time, and then they eventually reversed themselves on at least the rules portions (if not the points costs) and FAQ'd them to all use the current stats several years later for many of those. I'm not trying to say it's *not* an issue with FW, only that this is something that GW itself has only recently sorted out. FW's issue is that they try to update stuff as time goes on in a reasonably timely manner, GW does not. FW's error is that they don't make clear where the latest updates are, while GW's failing is that they often let stuff rot for 3 editions.
52309
Post by: Breng77
That is true, but at least in GWs case what I have in my book are the correct rules for my army. Where as for FW because they feel the need to update units without re-relaeasing the same book.
The issue would be there even if they gave a list of what was most recent for each unit. The problem is when I have the same unit in multiple books, with different names, there is no reasonable way that at a table a player can know their opponent is using the right rules. It is simply too much to remember. Not sure how many FW 40k legal units there are but lets say 100 total, so I need to be expected as a player to know all 100 units, which books they have been printed in and which of those is the most recent?
Sorry but that is an absurd expectation. Now you can say, well if there is a list, you can bring it with you, and then spend time in a timed event cross referencing your opponents rulebooks with the units in his army and said list. But that too seems a bit much.
So IMO FWs failing is that they don't update units within the books that they were originally placed in, instead they update them in separate releases. Which is confusing. They would have been better served FAQ the existing releases (like they did for 6th ed in many cases.).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No it isn't. It's difficult to remember, but so is keeping track of all of GW's FAQ updates so someone doesn't bring their own fake FAQ that lets them do something they shouldn't be allowed to do.
Not sure how many FW 40k legal units there are but lets say 100 total, so I need to be expected as a player to know all 100 units, which books they have been printed in and which of those is the most recent?
But it's not really going to be 100 units in a competitive tournament. You can cut that list down to a handful of powerful units that you can reasonably expect to see in a tournament list, and only worry about checking rulebook versions if your opponent shows you a powerful unit that isn't on that list of things you were expecting. For example, if my opponent claims that the Lightning is AV 13 with four TL lascannons I'm going to immediately know that something is wrong because the Lightning doesn't even appear at all on my list of tournament units and those stats would clearly put it there if they were real.
Sure, this means that your opponent might be able to cheat a bit and, say, claim that the Lightning has 3 HP instead of 2 HP, but who cares? The advantage gained from making a weak and ignorable unit slightly less weak (but still so weak that you don't notice) is much less than the advantage gained from just taking Vendettas instead.
Sorry but that is an absurd expectation. Now you can say, well if there is a list, you can bring it with you, and then spend time in a timed event cross referencing your opponents rulebooks with the units in his army and said list. But that too seems a bit much.
How is this any different than having to spend time in a timed event cross referencing my opponent's supplements and FAQs and checking the online version of the FAQ to make sure it matches?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:
No it isn't. It's difficult to remember, but so is keeping track of all of GW's FAQ updates so someone doesn't bring their own fake FAQ that lets them do something they shouldn't be allowed to do.
That'd be hard to do when I'm carrying copies of every FAQ on my tablet and in hard copy.
But it's not really going to be 100 units in a competitive tournament. You can cut that list down to a handful of powerful units that you can reasonably expect to see in a tournament list, and only worry about checking rulebook versions if your opponent shows you a powerful unit that isn't on that list of things you were expecting. For example, if my opponent claims that the Lightning is AV 13 with four TL lascannons I'm going to immediately know that something is wrong because the Lightning doesn't even appear at all on my list of tournament units and those stats would clearly put it there if they were real.
That assumes familiarity with every FW unit - at least enough to decide what's going to be competitive.
How is this any different than having to spend time in a timed event cross referencing my opponent's supplements and FAQs and checking the online version of the FAQ to make sure it matches?
You are prepared and have print outs of all the FAQs, right? Also, I don't have to cross reference my opponents Wraithlord with the rules he's using - there's only one place they're listed.
How many books (and experimental rules) list the Hades drill?
2670
Post by: hands_miranda
rigeld2 wrote:
And are the ePub or mobi books released? I didn't think they were yet.
Eldar and Farsight are already out in epub and mobi. Hopefully there will be more to follow, since that's the only mobile format I'd bother buying. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote:
You are prepared and have print outs of all the FAQs, right? Also, I don't have to cross reference my opponents Wraithlord with the rules he's using - there's only one place they're listed.
How many books (and experimental rules) list the Hades drill?
The whole cross-reference thing is a mess in GW's 40K releases too. By including stats for units and weapons in the rulebook, we're now at a point where some weapons are wrong in one of the two profiles (examples, Burst Cannons, and Shuriken weapons but there are plenty more) and also units have the wrong statlines in the summary section. This becomes a mess because some units default to their codex for being correct, some to the summary page. At least the delination is easy to remember (Hardback > Summary > Softback) but it's still a problem into the future. An extra sheet with hull point info would have been sufficient and a much better choice that would keep the rulebook from having this issue, where some statlines are authoritative and some aren't.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:That'd be hard to do when I'm carrying copies of every FAQ on my tablet and in hard copy.
Great, so why don't you put a list of FW units and the location of their current rules on your tablet?
That assumes familiarity with every FW unit - at least enough to decide what's going to be competitive.
And why is it unfair to expect people playing in competitive events to be familiar with what they could be facing? We wouldn't feel much sympathy for someone who lost to Tau because they didn't know about JSJ, so why should we feel any differently about someone who didn't even bother browsing the forums to see what FW units people are talking about?
You are prepared and have print outs of all the FAQs, right?
So I have to carry copies of the FAQs for all the armies I don't play just in case my opponent tries to cheat? Why don't I just add a single piece of paper with the list of which rules are in each FW book?
How many books (and experimental rules) list the Hades drill?
Who cares? This is about as relevant as asking about how many previous C: SM versions also contain tactical squads.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:So I have to carry copies of the FAQs for all the armies I don't play just in case my opponent tries to cheat? Why don't I just add a single piece of paper with the list of which rules are in each FW book?
You're the one arguing that it's simply difficult to remember...
And when my opponent says "No, that's wrong, this is the newest book." where do we fall back on? You're adding a significant amount of work for everyone at every tournament like it's nothing.
How many books (and experimental rules) list the Hades drill?
Who cares? This is about as relevant as asking about how many previous C: SM versions also contain tactical squads.
No, it's very relevant. The fact that you cut out part of the quote shows you understand that it is and just declined to address it, instead wanting to make me look foolish.
There's one relevant place to look for a Wraithlord. I know what the Eldar codex looks like because I play 40k and to imply I don't know at least what the cover is would be ... silly.
I literally have no idea what books the Hades was in and which one is current - heck, if I remember right the current rules for it aren't even in a book.
This is not the same thing as trying to use an outdated codex. At all. Please stop comparing the two situations.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:You're the one arguing that it's simply difficult to remember...
No, my point is that it's just as difficult as the "difficulty" in keeping track of FW rules. There's a double standard here where difficulty in dealing with codex rules is just accepted as part of playing a GW game, while equal difficulty in dealing with FW rules is an impossible obstacle that we can't even attempt to face.
And when my opponent says "No, that's wrong, this is the newest book." where do we fall back on?
You fall back on the same thing that you fall back on when your opponent shows you a FAQ that disagrees with your copy: you go online and find the answer.
There's one relevant place to look for a Wraithlord. I know what the Eldar codex looks like because I play 40k and to imply I don't know at least what the cover is would be ... silly.
I literally have no idea what books the Hades was in and which one is current - heck, if I remember right the current rules for it aren't even in a book.
So why don't you spend a few minutes and look for the answer? I know that it's possible to not know these things, what I don't understand is why "I don't want to go find the answer" should be an acceptable excuse. If you can figure out which version of a codex is current you can figure out where the rules for the Hades drill are.
(And the current rules are in IA1 second edition, just like almost every IG unit.)
5873
Post by: kirsanth
Should be up to the TO.
It is multiplying their work for marginal gain.
Anyone arguing otherwise needs to step up and start running events with FW.
Posts about how others need to do the work are simply wrong.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:No, my point is that it's just as difficult as the "difficulty" in keeping track of FW rules. There's a double standard here where difficulty in dealing with codex rules is just accepted as part of playing a GW game, while equal difficulty in dealing with FW rules is an impossible obstacle that we can't even attempt to face.
Again, you're representing the difficulty between the two as being similar. They're simply not in any way shape or form.
It's not a double standard when one takes a significant amount more effort.
[quite] There's one relevant place to look for a Wraithlord. I know what the Eldar codex looks like because I play 40k and to imply I don't know at least what the cover is would be ... silly.
I literally have no idea what books the Hades was in and which one is current - heck, if I remember right the current rules for it aren't even in a book.
So why don't you spend a few minutes and look for the answer? I know that it's possible to not know these things, what I don't understand is why "I don't want to go find the answer" should be an acceptable excuse. If you can figure out which version of a codex is current you can figure out where the rules for the Hades drill are.
(And the current rules are in IA1 second edition, just like almost every IG unit.)
Right now? Because I couldn't care less.
When playing a game I'd rather play.
In a tournament I don't have the time to do the research for every unit. Since there aren't any stamped tournaments in my area it's not worth my extra time investment to do the research. My normal tournament prep takes literally 2 minutes - print all FAQs and 10 copies of my list, then go make some tea while it prints before I head out the door. If FW was a normal thing in this area I'd likely write a script to figure it out.
I'm not saying disallow forge world because there's extra effort, I'm saying don't pretend the level of effort is similar.
52309
Post by: Breng77
There is a large difference between someone modding faqs and someone brining the wrong rules from FW, and it is simply this, the FAQ discussion does not even come up unless the rule in question comes into play....and we disagree. Whereas the FW from the wrong book will come up every time I see FW because I'll need to vet that we are using the right book.
Furthermore, it is possible (perhaps even likely) that the FW player can (if the to does not do a lot of research beforehand) bring the wrong rules by mistake, he happens to own book a with the rules and never even knew the rules were updated in unrelated book b. so now I need to error check that as his opponent. Don't believe this will happen...it absolutely will I've gotten lists for events that were over on points....by 182 points....people make dumb mistakes all the time.
The same cannot be said of the FAQ because there is only one current FAQ for each army...vs multiple current books with rules for various FW units.
Finally it comes back to this for me:
If my players are not clamoring for FW (most don't want it or are indifferent) , why as a to should I spend hours researching what the most current FW rules for each unit are, then having my players check in at e event and show me each FW book they are using to make sure they have the most current rules?
24717
Post by: Shinkaze
One interesting dilemma is if you let the Thudd Gun in.. well it is extremely unfun to play against. If you ban it then you are picking and choosing.
I like having some with FW and some without. I would just prefer that the Thudd Gun be fixed or banned. I won't travel to a GT that had Thudd Guns with the exception of LOV but only because that will be a week long vacation for me. If I was flying out just for the weekend I wouldn't go.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Vaktathi wrote:There's really no evidence this is true, no evidence that FW would shift balance that much, there's some pretty damn good Xenos stuff, and even if this "nightmare" scenario is true, these units exist in the 40k universe, are made by GW for Warhammer 40,000 play for typical games, since when has it ever been the responsibility of a TO to ensure all armies have a fair shot? They certainly don't do anything about it with regards to Codex issues. Eldar broke the game so much in 2nd that GW revamped half the game mechanics for 3rd just to make SM's playable and TO's didn't do anything about it then, Rhino Rush and Eldar starcannon spam and Disruption tables and CSM's dominated 3rd edition and TO's didn't do anything about it, Eldar Skimmerspam dominated the 2nd half of 4th edition without any action by TO's to curb it, GK/ SW/ IG/ BA/ SM's dominated 5th, TO's didn't do anything about it. Why is it relevant *ONLY* to Forgeworld?
This line of thinking is no different than telling someone they can't use their new Eldar codex because Eldar will dominate the metagame.
I have to agree. There's plenty of broken things in regular 40k, so disallowing Forge World because something might be "overpowered" seems truly silly. It becomes even more so when you realize that we are talking about a game where part of the allure is customization of an army and playing it against others.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
 Shinkaze wrote:One interesting dilemma is if you let the Thudd Gun in.. well it is extremely unfun to play against. If you ban it then you are picking and choosing.
I like having some with FW and some without. I would just prefer that the Thudd Gun be fixed or banned. I won't travel to a GT that had Thudd Guns with the exception of LOV but only because that will be a week long vacation for me. If I was flying out just for the weekend I wouldn't go.
Many people feel the same way about other units however, yet nobody talks about banning or modifying them. While I can certainly understand that facing certain units isn't always fun, one has to expect such things at a tournament, and banning only the Thudd Gun, and not say, Heldrakes, is, as you say, picking and choosing, an arbitrary double-standard.
Monster Rain wrote:
I have to agree. There's plenty of broken things in regular 40k, so disallowing Forge World because something might be "overpowered" seems truly silly. It becomes even more so when you realize that we are talking about a game where part of the allure is customization of an army and playing it against others.
Indeed, and who doesn't like seeing new and interesting models that may otherwise not normally be present?
Not to mention we're talking about competitive events where bringing a "hard" army and things like allies shennanigans is often expected and incentivized
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
Vaktathi wrote:Many people feel the same way about other units however, yet nobody talks about banning or modifying them. While I can certainly understand that facing certain units isn't always fun, one has to expect such things at a tournament, and banning only the Thudd Gun, and not say, Heldrakes, is, as you say, picking and choosing, an arbitrary double-standard.
If anything, this argument underscores the fact that FW is not perceived as a normal part of 40k, and that, even if it were, it is perceived as so imbalanced that its inclusion demands special and selective treatment. Each of these should make proponents of FW inclusion give pause.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
 Danny Internets wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Many people feel the same way about other units however, yet nobody talks about banning or modifying them. While I can certainly understand that facing certain units isn't always fun, one has to expect such things at a tournament, and banning only the Thudd Gun, and not say, Heldrakes, is, as you say, picking and choosing, an arbitrary double-standard.
If anything, this argument underscores the fact that FW is not perceived as a normal part of 40k, and that, even if it were, it is perceived as so imbalanced that its inclusion demands special and selective treatment. Each of these should make proponents of FW inclusion give pause.
On what basis? It's not hard to find people say the same things about non- FW units and refrain from attending events so they don't have to play certain armies/units that exist in codex books.
We have zero evidence of any sort that any of these FW units are any more imbalanced than anything else currently in the game given the last year or so of many FW allowed events (e.g. Feast of Blades, etc)
I'm not arguing there's a perception gap, hell, I remember people complaining about the Hydra Flak Tank's Imperial Armour original incarnation and then seeing them happily playing against them at less than half the original cost, squadronable and much more effective just because it was in a codex. I'm arguing that the arbitrary desire to ban certain FW units, which have in no way been shown to be more abusive than anything in a codex, is largely just because of the book title, and that such suggestions would never be considered otherwise, and that otherwise there aren't even attempts to talk about bans of other units that arguably are at least as abusive and certainly more widespread.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
rigeld2 wrote:They've said that every time I've asked for the past 18 months.
It should take all of 30 minutes. An hour if you type slow. This is just them being lazy.
There is a new book releasing soon and was shown at the recent US Games Day in Tennessee. Between this new book and Aeronautica a TO should have access to all of the most common 40k approved units from Forge World. Each TO must decide if they want to allow the use of campaign books that feature more exotic units or Forge World armies. So it doesn't have to be hard to keep up if you make an effort.
52309
Post by: Breng77
 Dozer Blades wrote:rigeld2 wrote:They've said that every time I've asked for the past 18 months.
It should take all of 30 minutes. An hour if you type slow. This is just them being lazy.
There is a new book releasing soon and was shown at the recent US Games Day in Tennessee. Between this new book and Aeronautica a TO should have access to all of the most common 40k approved units from Forge World. Each TO must decide if they want to allow the use of campaign books that feature more exotic units or Forge World armies. So it doesn't have to be hard to keep up if you make an effort.
But how as a to do I know that those two books have the most current rules for those units? And why arbitrarily should only those be allowed?
76338
Post by: ThouShallNotHeal
FW should start adding FAQs
22804
Post by: tigerstein
Sometimes they post erratas and also complete army list updates in pdf. (and if I'm correct, they correct the later printings.)
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
Vaktathi wrote:On what basis? It's not hard to find people say the same things about non- FW units and refrain from attending events so they don't have to play certain armies/units that exist in codex books.
I've been playing in 40k tournaments for about thirteen years and I've yet to come across someone who refuses to play in tournaments because it allows specific codex units or codex armies. I find that the people who claim to boycott tournaments because codex unit X or codex army Y is overpowered are just blowhards who had no intention of attending tournaments in the first place. However, I do know avid tournament-goers who refrain from participating in events that permit FW.
Despite the anecdotal nature of these observations, I'm confident in their generalizability. There's no denying that people react differently to the restriction of FW units/armies (either as a whole or in part) than they do to the restriction of codex units/armies. The differential treatment may be a result of perceived and/or actual differences in FW units versus standard 40k units. I'm usually dismissive of community rabble about balance, but there are many respected competitive players who acknowledge the severe balance issues introduced by FW inclusion.
We have zero evidence of any sort that any of these FW units are any more imbalanced than anything else currently in the game given the last year or so of many FW allowed events (e.g. Feast of Blades, etc)
This is a demonstrably false statement. Others have cited evidence countless times in this thread and others. Perhaps you mean that there is zero evidence which you personally deem satisfactory, which is another matter entirely. Any such statement would, of course, be completely meaningless without defining your parameters for satisfaction.
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
Whether a FW army has won an event is also a meaningless statistic in EITHER direction. If Alan B won WGC w/ FW spammed IG, that would have said NOTHING about whether FW was overpowered.
The people who win GT's are good players, and they tend to bring very strong lists w/in what's legal and then play them well. Most GT's within any given timeframe are typically won or highly placed in by the same folks, regardless of list. We've had 2 NOVA primers in the last month, raised close to 2 grand for charity between 'em (yeah, shameless plug, whatever), and one was won by Eldar (Overall) and Daemons (General), while the other was won by Daemons (Overall) and Necron (General). Does that mean Tau isn't OP? Well, Tau went something like 14-3 over the course of the two events, while Eldar, Daemons, and Necron all had worse records than that by a noticeable margin. Does that mean Tau IS OP, since in most games they beat up on people? The same measuring stick could be applied to anything ... you could argue "clearly" Daemons and Necron and Eldar are OP, since they won these events, yada yada yada. It's all pointless stat-grabbing from data pools both large and small, and from all sorts of different "places" within the pools. This is why such metrics don't influence most TO's ... as I've said, the reason I offer major events with a wide variety of FW legality or illegality is there's a desire for all of the above by at least SOME people, and the reason our largest event disallows it is because the vast MAJORITY of our attendees and interested attendees voiced a desire not to have it in that setting. Really has nothing to do with lengthy and pointless and unprovable arguments like "what's op."
The issue, again, is about what happens "in the crowd." When you hear stories about players like Chumbalaya taking a cheeseball Acanthracite list and having a bunch of disgusted opponents in the middle of the pack, those are the stories that tell you the reality of its impact. How do FW inclusive or armies using the FW "cheeseball" units do as a whole, not "does a FW using player win an event?"
The biggest problem with this discussion as a whole is it is not inclusive of those "average" joes who go to tournaments to have an enjoyable time, play some games to the best of their ability, and socialize. When they get nailed out of the blue by surprises and ill-tested units from books they've never seen or heard of, they tend to enjoy it less than getting punked by the occasional triple-heldrake that they'd heard of, seen before at the local shop, and knew to expect.
The folks on either extreme side of this discussion and ones like it on the internet are generally have their fixed opinions, and select whichever arguments benefit them from a complex subject whose "obviousness" is ... quite obviously ... not so obvious. Yeah, I wrote that sentence.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Danny Internets wrote:I've been playing in 40k tournaments for about thirteen years and I've yet to come across someone who refuses to play in tournaments because it allows specific codex units or codex armies. I find that the people who claim to boycott tournaments because codex unit X or codex army Y is overpowered are just blowhards who had no intention of attending tournaments in the first place.
I agree, however that's also largely my perception of those who make such statements regarding specific FW units if they're fully aware of the unit rules and not just running off hearsay that so many do.
However, I do know avid tournament-goers who refrain from participating in events that permit FW.
Most of which, at least in my experience, do so largely out of ignorance of FW units or because it'll upset their particular metagame plan. As I noted earlier, I had to explain to a TO as to what a DKoK army could and could not do, as he banned DKoK armies on the thought that they could make all their Troops T7 (they cannot, nor can they take artillery units at all as Troops) and take gobs and gobs of interceptor artillery (they have no interceptor options) because of something he heard without bothering to confirm it. This is hugely widespread, even with the army list up for free online as a PDF.
There's no denying that people react differently to the restriction of FW units/armies (either as a whole or in part) than they do to the restriction of codex units/armies.
I don't disagree.
The differential treatment may be a result of perceived and/or actual differences in FW units versus standard 40k units. I'm usually dismissive of community rabble about balance, but there are many respected competitive players who acknowledge the severe balance issues introduced by FW inclusion.
And yet they don't see any issues when a codex introduces the exact same issues. That's what I'm trying to get across.
This is a demonstrably false statement. Others have cited evidence countless times in this thread and others.
I've been in most of this thread, there's been lots of conjecture, argument and discussion about certain units, but nothing concrete showing that anything FW produces is any more imbalanced than Heldrakes, Vendettas, etc, or that any higher % of their units are abuseable than codex units, and no tournament results/standings/attendence %'s that reflect this to be true. There were a couple armies that placed reasonably well run by players that had previously placed reasonably well, but no overrunning or complete domination by FW stuff. If there's something specific you'd like to reference that you feel I may be missing, I'd gladly discuss it.
As far as I can tell, the armies that seem to be doing well in Feast of Blades qualifiers appear to not in fact be armies including lots of FW, but in general appear to be armies making best use of cover allies synergy and cover save utility, such as Eldar/Tau as noted earlier.
MVBrandt wrote:Whether a FW army has won an event is also a meaningless statistic in EITHER direction.
Perhaps, but the rate of appearance and relative standings/win rates (do FW armies generally have higher win rates/place higher than Codex armies?) can inform us of certain things. Thus far, FW inclusion does not seem to particularly heavily influence relative standings/win rates/etc or be appearing to overrun events where it's allowed.
The people who win GT's are good players, and they tend to bring very strong lists w/in what's legal and then play them well. Most GT's within any given timeframe are typically won or highly placed in by the same folks, regardless of list. We've had 2 NOVA primers in the last month, raised close to 2 grand for charity between 'em (yeah, shameless plug, whatever), and one was won by Eldar (Overall) and Daemons (General), while the other was won by Daemons (Overall) and Necron (General). Does that mean Tau isn't OP? Well, Tau went something like 14-3 over the course of the two events, while Eldar, Daemons, and Necron all had worse records than that by a noticeable margin. Does that mean Tau IS OP, since in most games they beat up on people? The same measuring stick could be applied to anything ... you could argue "clearly" Daemons and Necron and Eldar are OP, since they won these events, yada yada yada. It's all pointless stat-grabbing from data pools both large and small, and from all sorts of different "places" within the pools. This is why such metrics don't influence most TO's ... as I've said, the reason I offer major events with a wide variety of FW legality or illegality is there's a desire for all of the above by at least SOME people, and the reason our largest event disallows it is because the vast MAJORITY of our attendees and interested attendees voiced a desire not to have it in that setting. Really has nothing to do with lengthy and pointless and unprovable arguments like "what's op."
And if it comes to a vote like that, then any gameplay related discussion goes out the window, just as if they all voted to ban Necrons or Space Marines. We can't really trade points on something like that, only the reasons people may vote a certain way or not (e.g. many people assuming FW equates to seeing Reaver titans on tables for example).
The issue, again, is about what happens "in the crowd." When you hear stories about players like Chumbalaya taking a cheeseball Acanthracite list and having a bunch of disgusted opponents in the middle of the pack, those are the stories that tell you the reality of its impact.
And certainly people feel the same way about certain codex builds. How's that different than a Paladin or Razorfang spam build in 5th or multiple baleflamer heldrakes in 6th?
The biggest problem with this discussion as a whole is it is not inclusive of those "average" joes who go to tournaments to have an enjoyable time, play some games to the best of their ability, and socialize. When they get nailed out of the blue by surprises and ill-tested units from books they've never seen or heard of, they tend to enjoy it less than getting punked by the occasional triple-heldrake that they'd heard of, seen before at the local shop, and knew to expect.
I'd take issue with the concept of ill-tested, we don't know FW or GW's testing routines, FW usually at least puts out test rules that are often changed before final inclusion (e.g. the Caestus and Achilles). Additionally, it's not much different than facing a new codex for the first few times really, and people don't seem to have an issue with "surprise" there.
That said, we're looking at a chicken and egg problem here, until they are more widespread, people won't know about them and will get surprised by them, and they won't get to be more widespread if people keep banning them based on how people will be surprised by them.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Danny Internets wrote: Vaktathi wrote:On what basis? It's not hard to find people say the same things about non- FW units and refrain from attending events so they don't have to play certain armies/units that exist in codex books.
I've been playing in 40k tournaments for about thirteen years and I've yet to come across someone who refuses to play in tournaments because it allows specific codex units or codex armies. I find that the people who claim to boycott tournaments because codex unit X or codex army Y is overpowered are just blowhards who had no intention of attending tournaments in the first place. However, I do know avid tournament-goers who refrain from participating in events that permit FW.
Despite the anecdotal nature of these observations, I'm confident in their generalizability. There's no denying that people react differently to the restriction of FW units/armies (either as a whole or in part) than they do to the restriction of codex units/armies. The differential treatment may be a result of perceived and/or actual differences in FW units versus standard 40k units. I'm usually dismissive of community rabble about balance, but there are many respected competitive players who acknowledge the severe balance issues introduced by FW inclusion.
We have zero evidence of any sort that any of these FW units are any more imbalanced than anything else currently in the game given the last year or so of many FW allowed events (e.g. Feast of Blades, etc)
This is a demonstrably false statement. Others have cited evidence countless times in this thread and others. Perhaps you mean that there is zero evidence which you personally deem satisfactory, which is another matter entirely. Any such statement would, of course, be completely meaningless without defining your parameters for satisfaction.
+1 to everything Danny said.
The argument that "it's not any more broken than codex units" is getting tired because FW doesn't treat every army like codexes do. When you buy a codex, you get a complete army with several choices from every FO. Every army has good and bad choices, but the for the most part get a similar number of choices.
FW does not represent each army equally. Xenos get a small fraction of additional units in comparison to IG/ SM. Yes, there is undercosted or overpowered units from both core codex units and FW, but every army in the core of 40k has an entire codex to choose from. Until FW releases units approaching equality between Tyranids and IG, my vote will always be that FW does not get included into tournaments.
My local meta doesn't have the hardcore gamers that others do. I've never even seen triple heldrakes, triptides, or any other spammy list locally. We've run a few 40k approved FW events and I've supported them because I know with certainty that nobody around here has thudd guns, sabres, vultures, or artillery carriages to spam. If they did start showing up, I would withdraw my support of the FW events.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
 hyv3mynd wrote:
My local meta doesn't have the hardcore gamers that others do. I've never even seen triple heldrakes, triptides, or any other spammy list locally. We've run a few 40k approved FW events and I've supported them because I know with certainty that nobody around here has thudd guns, sabres, vultures, or artillery carriages to spam. If they did start showing up, I would withdraw my support of the FW events.
Would you then dismiss your local scene if Codex spam turned up? specifically triple drake?
Good generals will take the challenge of so called OP units and'or lists and prove their mettle. if you don't want to partake, that's fine, but don't pretend that that Fw is any more OP to some than Helldrakes, Tides, Cron air, and the ubiquitous Vendetta spam.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 Mr. Burning wrote:Fw is any more OP to some than Helldrakes, Tides, Cron air, and the ubiquitous Vendetta spam.
I'm not afraid of triple Heldrakes, Vendetta spam, Cron Air, and I haven't faced more than 2 Riptides but I'm not afraid of them either.
A well built IG list using FW rules scares the crap out of me.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Mr. Burning wrote: hyv3mynd wrote:
My local meta doesn't have the hardcore gamers that others do. I've never even seen triple heldrakes, triptides, or any other spammy list locally. We've run a few 40k approved FW events and I've supported them because I know with certainty that nobody around here has thudd guns, sabres, vultures, or artillery carriages to spam. If they did start showing up, I would withdraw my support of the FW events.
Would you then dismiss your local scene if Codex spam turned up? specifically triple drake?
Good generals will take the challenge of so called OP units and'or lists and prove their mettle. if you don't want to partake, that's fine, but don't pretend that that Fw is any more OP to some than Helldrakes, Tides, Cron air, and the ubiquitous Vendetta spam.
My point, like MVB and other have said, is that good players win, not strong lists. There are several local players who use double vendettas, stormravens, heldrakes, etc just not triples. In the last tournament, #1 and #2 overall had no flyers, fortifications, or spam. Double drakes, vendettas, etc lost out to good players. The point is if triple codex units showed up, I'd be fine with it because everyone has a full codex to choose from. Not everyone has an equal FW selection to choose from.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
hyv3mynd wrote:
The argument that "it's not any more broken than codex units" is getting tired because FW doesn't treat every army like codexes do. When you buy a codex, you get a complete army with several choices from every FO. Every army has good and bad choices, but the for the most part get a similar number of choices.
Care to look at how many distinct units Codex: IG gets relative to say, Codex: Dark Eldar? Or Codex Space Marine vs Codex Tyranids? Looking at all the distinct units, including characters, C: SM has a third again as many units, yet that doesn't appear to be an issue. Why not add more stuff for everyone, even if it's not necessarily evenly distributed? Since when has that been something TO's concerned themselves with, Forgeworld aside?
FW does not represent each army equally. Xenos get a small fraction of additional units in comparison to IG/SM. Yes, there is undercosted or overpowered units from both core codex units and FW, but every army in the core of 40k has an entire codex to choose from.
which have different unit counts, and often go up to two editions between updates.
Until FW releases units approaching equality between Tyranids and IG, my vote will always be that FW does not get included into tournaments.
So, because you don't get as many extras, someone else can't use their Warhammer 40,000 models? That's being petty for its own sake.
rigeld2 wrote: Mr. Burning wrote:Fw is any more OP to some than Helldrakes, Tides, Cron air, and the ubiquitous Vendetta spam.
I'm not afraid of triple Heldrakes, Vendetta spam, Cron Air, and I haven't faced more than 2 Riptides but I'm not afraid of them either.
A well built IG list using FW rules scares the crap out of me.
As previously noted, kill the Ld lynchpin, abuse the ld7 of the artillery units and/or move to engage in CC, and control the board (the list will be very static). The new Eldar are very good at engaging this sort of list.
34390
Post by: whembly
rigeld2 wrote:
A well built IG list using FW rules scares the crap out of me.
Really?
I can see a fast moving army can take on FW IG: Drop pod list, Deathwing Terminators, Ravenwing... shoot... if I went first, my old assault DE list can survive a turn and get into assaults by turn 2.
*shrugs*
Guys... new, unique stuff = moar funs.
29152
Post by: Clauss
3 thudd guns is not by any means. Moar funs.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
hyv3mynd wrote: Mr. Burning wrote: hyv3mynd wrote:
My local meta doesn't have the hardcore gamers that others do. I've never even seen triple heldrakes, triptides, or any other spammy list locally. We've run a few 40k approved FW events and I've supported them because I know with certainty that nobody around here has thudd guns, sabres, vultures, or artillery carriages to spam. If they did start showing up, I would withdraw my support of the FW events.
Would you then dismiss your local scene if Codex spam turned up? specifically triple drake?
Good generals will take the challenge of so called OP units and'or lists and prove their mettle. if you don't want to partake, that's fine, but don't pretend that that Fw is any more OP to some than Helldrakes, Tides, Cron air, and the ubiquitous Vendetta spam.
My point, like MVB and other have said, is that good players win, not strong lists. There are several local players who use double vendettas, stormravens, heldrakes, etc just not triples. In the last tournament, #1 and #2 overall had no flyers, fortifications, or spam. Double drakes, vendettas, etc lost out to good players. The point is if triple codex units showed up, I'd be fine with it because everyone has a full codex to choose from. Not everyone has an equal FW selection to choose from.
Not to keep on this, but you don't need FW units to beat FW units.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Vaktathi wrote:hyv3mynd wrote:
The argument that "it's not any more broken than codex units" is getting tired because FW doesn't treat every army like codexes do. When you buy a codex, you get a complete army with several choices from every FO. Every army has good and bad choices, but the for the most part get a similar number of choices.
Care to look at how many distinct units Codex: IG gets relative to say, Codex: Dark Eldar? Or Codex Space Marine vs Codex Tyranids? Looking at all the distinct units, including characters, C: SM has a third again as many units, yet that doesn't appear to be an issue. Why not add more stuff for everyone, even if it's not necessarily evenly distributed? Since when has that been something TO's concerned themselves with, Forgeworld aside?
FW does not represent each army equally. Xenos get a small fraction of additional units in comparison to IG/SM. Yes, there is undercosted or overpowered units from both core codex units and FW, but every army in the core of 40k has an entire codex to choose from.
which have different unit counts, and often go up to two editions between updates.
Until FW releases units approaching equality between Tyranids and IG, my vote will always be that FW does not get included into tournaments.
So, because you don't get as many extras, someone else can't use their Warhammer 40,000 models? That's being petty for its own sake.
rigeld2 wrote: Mr. Burning wrote:Fw is any more OP to some than Helldrakes, Tides, Cron air, and the ubiquitous Vendetta spam.
I'm not afraid of triple Heldrakes, Vendetta spam, Cron Air, and I haven't faced more than 2 Riptides but I'm not afraid of them either.
A well built IG list using FW rules scares the crap out of me.
As previously noted, kill the Ld lynchpin, abuse the ld7 of the artillery units and/or move to engage in CC, and control the board (the list will be very static). The new Eldar are very good at engaging this sort of list.
Call it petty if that makes you feel better. I'm not stopping anyone from using any models if you actually read what I said. I'm not a TO making those sorts of calls. I even said I support our local FW events because players around here use moderation. If things got out of control with sabre/thudd spam, I would withdraw my support but I wouldn't force others to play a certain way. Everyone can use their 40k codex models all they want. FW is an expansion that favors some armies more than others. While not every codex is equally balanced, every army does have their own codex with similar choices.
32806
Post by: Chumbalaya
Hey, people are talking about me. Whee!
Yeah, I rolled out my Acanthrites to various tournies, including WGC. I made a "middle tables" type list for messing around. Every game the Acanthrites not only had a ridiculous impact, they also made the game less fun. I talked to my opponents and the majority said they'd trade Acanthrites for 6 Scythes, 3 Barges, 15 Wraiths or whatever are the "OP" units from the Codex.
Good players will do well regardless of format, because they're the most knowledgeable and capable to win. The vast majority of tourney attendees are the ones who suffer from "supah sekrit pay2win" rules. And, unsurprisingly, they're the ones who keep voting to keep FW confined to "safe" zones like the Nova Narrative.
If you want your Thudd Guns or whatever in tournaments, the best way to get that started is to actually go. Big, 40 page internet arguments are fun to read, but ultimately futile. Go to events, contribute, try and run your own. Join the community and changing things gets a lot easier.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Vaktathi wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Mr. Burning wrote:Fw is any more OP to some than Helldrakes, Tides, Cron air, and the ubiquitous Vendetta spam.
I'm not afraid of triple Heldrakes, Vendetta spam, Cron Air, and I haven't faced more than 2 Riptides but I'm not afraid of them either.
A well built IG list using FW rules scares the crap out of me.
As previously noted, kill the Ld lynchpin, abuse the ld7 of the artillery units and/or move to engage in CC, and control the board (the list will be very static). The new Eldar are very good at engaging this sort of list.
I never said I don't know how to beat it. I said it scares me more than anything else.
And that'd be great if I played Eldar. I don't. I play Nids. Automatically Appended Next Post:  whembly wrote:rigeld2 wrote:A well built IG list using FW rules scares the crap out of me.
Really?
I can see a fast moving army can take on FW IG: Drop pod list, Deathwing Terminators, Ravenwing... shoot... if I went first, my old assault DE list can survive a turn and get into assaults by turn 2.
Really. I haven't played against one (my meta is pretty anti- FW) but mathhammer looks really bad for me.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
hyv3mynd wrote:
Call it petty if that makes you feel better. I'm not stopping anyone from using any models if you actually read what I said. ]I'm not a TO making those sorts of calls.
No, but that's evading my point, which is you'd be in favor of not allowing people to use their 40k models because your particular faction doesn't get as many.
I even said I support our local FW events because players around here use moderation. If things got out of control with sabre/thudd spam, I would withdraw my support but I wouldn't force others to play a certain way.
Why would the same not in turn apply to things like vendettas spam or the like however? I'm not saying that people should always run gobs of lascannon sabres or full HS slots full of thudd guns, I don't even own either model, but it seems that there's an arbitrary double-standard being applied here based off an incorrect assumption that codex books are created with equal unit counts with similar choices, which just isn't true.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Vaktathi wrote:hyv3mynd wrote:
Call it petty if that makes you feel better. I'm not stopping anyone from using any models if you actually read what I said. ]I'm not a TO making those sorts of calls.
No, but that's evading my point, which is you'd be in favor of not allowing people to use their 40k models because your particular faction doesn't get as many.
I even said I support our local FW events because players around here use moderation. If things got out of control with sabre/thudd spam, I would withdraw my support but I wouldn't force others to play a certain way.
Why would the same not in turn apply to things like vendettas spam or the like however? I'm not saying that people should always run gobs of lascannon sabres or full HS slots full of thudd guns, I don't even own either model, but it seems that there's an arbitrary double-standard being applied here based off an incorrect assumption that codex books are created with equal unit counts with similar choices, which just isn't true.
I respectfully disagree.
Every army receives a codex which contains several HQ, Elites, Troops, FA, and HS options. The numbers may not all be equal, but every army receives this treatment.
Now tell me exactly how many IG units have the 40k approved stamp compared to Tyranids. The competitiveness of the units matters not to me. It's the fact that you can play 40k with a rulebook, codex, and models off the shelf in any game store. FW is an expansion that isn't needed or mentioned in the BRB, codex, has no presence in a typical gaming store, and doesn't treat each and EVERY army with the same unit selections as core codexes.
It doesn't apply to vendetta spam because it's a codex FA unit. Every army has codex FA units they can choose to spam. Not every army has similar FW variety or selections.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Danny Internets wrote:This is a demonstrably false statement. Others have cited evidence countless times in this thread and others. Perhaps you mean that there is zero evidence which you personally deem satisfactory, which is another matter entirely. Any such statement would, of course, be completely meaningless without defining your parameters for satisfaction.
You have a rather unconventional definition of "demonstrably false" and "evidence". So far we don't have tournament results showing that certain units are overpowered, we have theory and speculation about how they might be overpowered. And of course we also have an endless list of excuses for why it doesn't really count when there's a FW-legal tournament that isn't dominated by FW units. Automatically Appended Next Post: hyv3mynd wrote:It's the fact that you can play 40k with a rulebook, codex, and models off the shelf in any game store.
Since when? Or is your position that it's sufficient to be able to buy the rulebook, codex, and battleforce off the shelf even though trying to build a competitive army means buying lots of direct-only stuff, scratchbuilding conversions, etc?
FW is an expansion that isn't needed or mentioned in the BRB, codex, has no presence in a typical gaming store, and doesn't treat each and EVERY army with the same unit selections as core codexes.
No, according to GW it's a part of the standard game just like codices and their supplements. Which brings up a good point: are you in favor of allowing supplements in tournaments? After all, they aren't mentioned in the BRB/codex, you can't buy them at your FLGS, and they certainly aren't equally available to every army.
It doesn't apply to vendetta spam because it's a codex FA unit. Every army has codex FA units they can choose to spam. Not every army has similar FW variety or selections.
Who cares where a unit comes from? What matters is the overall power level of the army and whether or not it is balanced.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Peregrine wrote: No, according to GW it's a part of the standard game just like codices and their supplements.
Which, as usual, is a wrong statement. FW is NOT part of the standard game, it's an add-on. " 40k approved" units can be used in standard 40k games (as stated right below the stamp) but they aren't part of the "core" 40k.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 Sigvatr wrote:Which, as usual, is a wrong statement. FW is NOT part of the standard game, it's an add-on. " 40k approved" units can be used in standard 40k games (as stated right below the stamp) but they aren't part of the "core" 40k.
GW disagrees with you.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Peregrine wrote:
Who cares where a unit comes from? What matters is the overall power level of the army and whether or not it is balanced.
You're confusing my argument with someone else's. I'm not arguing against FW because of overpowered units. I'm arguing against it because it's an entire sub-company dedicated to imperial armies while xenos get the shaft as far as number of units added and quality of units added.
If FW treated every army equally with a " FW codex" or similar supplement for every single army with a similar number of unit options, I would support it. Right now, FW is "play imperial or go away".
34390
Post by: whembly
rigeld2 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote:rigeld2 wrote:A well built IG list using FW rules scares the crap out of me.
Really?
I can see a fast moving army can take on FW IG: Drop pod list, Deathwing Terminators, Ravenwing... shoot... if I went first, my old assault DE list can survive a turn and get into assaults by turn 2.
Really. I haven't played against one (my meta is pretty anti- FW) but mathhammer looks really bad for me.
It's not an auto-lose dude.
Case in point. I recently played in a tournament where the winner did have thudd gunz and sabre lascannons. Hear me out...
This player really didn't want to play against a dual Ravenwing/Death wing list. (well, from memory one squad of termies and rest bikes/speeders). Fortunately, he didn't face the DA player... because if the DA player has first turn, he can neuter the thudd guns by scouting forward and on first turn, turn the bikes side-ways and be 1" away. The cupcake template wouldn't be able to land w/o touching his own unit.
Another list he really didn't want to play was a 5 (or 6) Landraider BA spam. The only reason he still won that game, was that the terrain was stacked to his favor... there were terrain pieces all over the place, such that the LR player had to roll for dangerous terrain multiple times per movement phase... thus, immobilising himself more often than not. 
I was playing CSM+Deamon allies... I was chopping at the bit to get matched up to him as I could deepstrike half my army easily. *shrugs*
I'm easy to play against 'cuz, I'm like... "BRING IT BRAH!" Automatically Appended Next Post:
See... this makes me want to build a list to take one down AND be as TAC as possible.
To me, that's part of the fun.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
hyv3mynd wrote:I'm arguing against it because it's an entire sub-company dedicated to imperial armies while xenos get the shaft as far as number of units added and quality of units added.
Which is a bad argument because Tau, Eldar and Necrons also get very good units (for example, the Barracuda makes a joke of the codex Tau flyers). They don't get the same total number of units, but that doesn't really mean very much when the Imperial total is inflated by a bunch of useless marine characters and IG tank variants nobody will ever use outside of fluffy scenario games.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Peregrine wrote: hyv3mynd wrote:I'm arguing against it because it's an entire sub-company dedicated to imperial armies while xenos get the shaft as far as number of units added and quality of units added.
Which is a bad argument because Tau, Eldar and Necrons also get very good units (for example, the Barracuda makes a joke of the codex Tau flyers). They don't get the same total number of units, but that doesn't really mean very much when the Imperial total is inflated by a bunch of useless marine characters and IG tank variants nobody will ever use outside of fluffy scenario games.
No, it's a bad argument because you say it is. Just like I claim your arguments are poor at best.
I'm not going on a good unit vs bad unit basis, even if IG get 100 units that competitive players overlook. It's the fact that FW produces 100 units for one army and 20 for another. That portion of GW is invested in supplying imperial units to imperial players. And like I said, until they TREAT every army equally, they will always get a "no" vote from me. GW gives every army a full codex with between 2 and 8 options for every FO slot, why can't FW? It's because that company has an extremely heavy imperial bias and bias doesn't belong in a tournament.
It's also very interesting to me that the most vocal and active "pro- FW" advocates in this very thread are IG players.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Sigvatr wrote: Peregrine wrote:
No, according to GW it's a part of the standard game just like codices and their supplements.
Which, as usual, is a wrong statement. FW is NOT part of the standard game, it's an add-on. " 40k approved" units can be used in standard 40k games (as stated right below the stamp) but they aren't part of the "core" 40k.
You know, I looked in my "core" battle book, I did not see a mention of a electronic supplement there... to paraphrase from the Great movie 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madres.' 'Electronic Supplements? We ain't got no Electronic Supplements. We don't need no Electronic Supplements! I don't have to show you any stinkin' Electronic Supplements!
Somehow, putting the words "40 Approved" in instead makes that line OK to folks even though both are approved for 40K... Isn't that special.....
http://www.maniacworld.com/we-dont-need-no-stinking-badges.html
The supplement is an add on as well, that's where the word "supplement" comes in. They are both legal for 40k....
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
hyv3mynd wrote:
I respectfully disagree.
Every army receives a codex which contains several HQ, Elites, Troops, FA, and HS options. The numbers may not all be equal, but every army receives this treatment.
I guess my response to this would be, can you find me a Sisters of Battle codex? And we have multiple armies that had codex books and do no longer (e.g. Catachans, Squats, Assassins, etc), while FW also has full armies with full HQ/Elites/Troops/ FA/ HS and those are even less welcomed despite typically being better balanced than anything else.
Now tell me exactly how many IG units have the 40k approved stamp compared to Tyranids.
Lots more, but why is that relevant? They have more than half again as many codex units than Tyranids do as well and that doesn't appear to be a problem.
The competitiveness of the units matters not to me. It's the fact that you can play 40k with a rulebook, codex, and models off the shelf in any game store.
You can't get all the models in many game stores (many are direct only), some armies aren't available at all in game stores outside of special orders (Sisters), some units still lack models (e.g. IG vets while SM vets have their own models, or Ymgarl Genestealers) or only have FW models even for codex entries (e.g. Hydra Flak tanks). Before the current Eldar codex the Nightspinner had been out for nearly 3 years as a core GW plastic kit, but no rules were anywhere to be found if you didn't snag the one WD it came out with, nobody had an issue with it (or the fact that Eldar got an additional new unit from WD, not much different than adding the Firestorm from Imperial Armour except that you can buy the IA book for more than a month).
FW is an expansion that isn't needed or mentioned in the BRB, codex, has no presence in a typical gaming store
Neither does it specifically spell out what armies, codex books, versions, etc what you can use. The rulebook doesn't spell out that Codex: Imperial Guard is legal or which of the 4 different books entitled Codex: Imperial Guard that have thus far been released are in fact legal. And again, I'd ask you to find a Sisters of Battle codex.
and doesn't treat each and EVERY army with the same unit selections as core codexes.
Why is that relevant? They're things that exist in the 40k universe meant to be portrayed in the game. The codex books don't treat each and every army the same either. Some get half a dozen troops like Tyranids, others only get two. Some armies have nearly 50 unit entries, others struggle to hit 30.
It doesn't apply to vendetta spam because it's a codex FA unit. Every army has codex FA units they can choose to spam. Not every army has similar FW variety or selections.
I ask...why it's relevant if all its doing is adding to the codex options? If they're already unequal and we're not concerned about it, why are we suddenly caring? Why was there no such care about White Dwarf units?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
hyv3mynd wrote:It's the fact that FW produces 100 units for one army and 20 for another.
Now go count the total number of units in the IG and Tau codices. Once you've done so you can come back and demand that codex units be banned in tournaments.
That portion of GW is invested in supplying imperial units to imperial players.
And xenos units to xenos players. Seriously, you're completely ignoring the fact that Tau/Eldar/Necrons have powerful FW options that their players would love to use in tournaments.
GW gives every army a full codex with between 2 and 8 options for every FO slot, why can't FW?
Because they'd rather do a good job of making new models instead of rushing out a bunch of garbage for the sake of "fairness".
It's also very interesting to me that the most vocal and active "pro-FW" advocates in this very thread are IG players.
I also play Tau, and my Tau army loves its FW units. In fact, before the new codex, FW units were the only thing keeping it even remotely competitive.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
It's also very interesting to me that the most vocal and active "pro-FW" advocates in this very thread are IG players.
Well, I'd pull out my sisters army but I can not seem to get a GW Codex codex for it.....I keep getting stares when I pull out 2 White Dwarf magazines that are falling apart.....
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Total units in C:SM: 45
Total units in C:Tau: 25
BAN CODEX UNITS FROM TOURNAMENTS. IMPERIAL BIAS!!!
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
hyv3mynd wrote:
It's also very interesting to me that the most vocal and active "pro-FW" advocates in this very thread are IG players.
I happen to play IG, I also just happen to play other armies
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: It's also very interesting to me that the most vocal and active "pro-FW" advocates in this very thread are IG players.
Well, I'd pull out my sisters army but I can not seem to get a GW Codex for it.....I keep getting stares when I pull out 2 White Dwarf magazines that are falling apart.....
In point of fact I actually have more points and money in Sisters than I do in IG or Forge World...far more...
My Grey knights Inquisitional army which I had to covert once 6th edition came out is almost as large as my IG
It's a fairness issue...
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Total units in C:SM: 45
Total units in C:Tau: 25
BAN CODEX UNITS FROM TOURNAMENTS. IMPERIAL BIAS!!!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
I didn't say it was ... ? I said I was scared of it. As in - it's possible for me to win but it would take exceptional luck/stupidity from my opponent. And I use a low model count Nid army - horde Nids are essentially auto-lose.
This player really didn't want to play against a dual Ravenwing/Death wing list. (well, from memory one squad of termies and rest bikes/speeders). Fortunately, he didn't face the DA player... because if the DA player has first turn, he can neuter the thudd guns by scouting forward and on first turn, turn the bikes side-ways and be 1" away. The cupcake template wouldn't be able to land w/o touching his own unit.
That's not true. The bikes are 1" away, the base of the bike is about an inch thick. Placing the center of the "cupcake" marker at the edge of the bike means you're short of hitting your own unit.
Or are you under the mistaken impression that the center of the marker must be centered on the target's base?
Another list he really didn't want to play was a 5 (or 6) Landraider BA spam. The only reason he still won that game, was that the terrain was stacked to his favor... there were terrain pieces all over the place, such that the LR player had to roll for dangerous terrain multiple times per movement phase... thus, immobilising himself more often than not.
Then it wasn't a well built IG army. Tanks are something that IG just should never be afraid of.
I was playing CSM+Deamon allies... I was chopping at the bit to get matched up to him as I could deepstrike half my army easily. *shrugs*
Deep Striking is actually the thing you really don't want to do. If you fire, you're in perfect "Own me now" position for all the blasts. If you run and spread out a) you can roll a 1 b) you caused no casualties for 2 turns with that unit.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
While the pro-FW strike team in this thread has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.
All I've seen is:
"40k approved, I don't need permission"
and
"Codexes already have broken units, so what's the problem with including more?"
Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
hyv3mynd wrote:While the pro- FW strike team in this thread, has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.
All I've seen is:
" 40k approved, I don't need permission"
and
"Codexes already have broken units, so what's the problem with including more?"
Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?
Even w/out the Tyranid subcomponent, this feels fairly accurate. You can say it until you are blue in the face, but a large mass of players, and the fairly obvious "status quo" is not pro- FW, and does not see FW as an OBVIOUS part of 40k rules that everyone needs to just accept and play.
Taking the stance that it *already is* fully accepted and used everywhere by "normal" 40k players and should be accepted by tournaments of all kinds and formats, and that any tournament that doesn't is somehow outlawing part of the "basic" game ... is an ineffective stance to take, b/c it doesn't resonate even really with those who are putting it forth (or else, why argue so hard?).
You are more likely to be effective trying to persuade the masses who do not routinely see it or play with it that it SHOULD BE, and is fun to use, and no more expensive, and has no broken units, and has fun things for every codex to enjoy, etc., etc., than basically saying "If you don't use it, you're obviously just not aware of the rules that say it is an automatic must-use part of the game!!!!!!"
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
hyv3mynd wrote:While the pro- FW strike team in this thread has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.
Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Tyranids ?
Fairness is not an attitude. It's a professional skill that must be developed and exercised.
Brit Hume ?
20774
Post by: pretre
MVBrandt wrote:If you don't use it, you're obviously just not aware of the rules that say it is an automatic must-use part of the game!!!!!!
According to this quote, MVB is totally pro- FW.
NeedleofInquiry wrote:Well, I'd pull out my sisters army but I can not seem to get a GW Codex codex for it.....I keep getting stares when I pull out 2 White Dwarf magazines that are falling apart.....
Seriously? I have never had anyone give me crap or look at me funny for pulling out the white dwarfs or my photocopied version that I use during games. I do usually explain why I use the photocopy and show them the WD though at the start of the game. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think he meant good arguments.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
There isn't a single model there that would convince me to say "Man... I sure do wish Forge World was more accepted around here."
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: hyv3mynd wrote:While the pro- FW strike team in this thread has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.
Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Tyranids ?
Fairness is not an attitude. It's a professional skill that must be developed and exercised.
Brit Hume ?
This link does 100% nothing for persuasion. Harridans, Heirophants, and Heirodules are not 40k approved. Already own several fexes, shrikes, and sky slashers self converted. So the best thing you have for me is a Malanthrope? Got anything better, I'll pass on the malanthrope if it means I don't have to face thudds, sabres, and basilisk carriages.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
hyv3mynd wrote:While the pro- FW strike team in this thread has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.
If you'll notice, there were some non-witty responses, and there was no response from you to any of the arguments put forth in response to your claims.
You claimed that the pro- FW posters all play IG. This was retorted with statements that no, it's not just IG players or people who only play IG. I myself happen to play Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Eldar, Tau, and sometimes Sisters and Grey Knights in addition to Imperial Guard.
You claimed that your issue was with FW having more units for certain armies. It was then pointed out that already there's nothing resembling unit count balance between books currently, and that no such issue is apparently seen for White Dwarf releases, so why the double standard?
You pointed out that you can go into a store and just pickup and play with the stuff there, this was responded to by pointing out that no, there are in fact certain models, units, and even armies that aren't FW that this is not possible for, such as Sisters of Battle, Hydra Flak Tanks, etc.
All I've seen is:
"40k approved, I don't need permission"
and
"Codexes already have broken units, so what's the problem with including more?"
Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?
You're misrepresenting the argument.
Someone puts forth "its broken", its responded with "X, Y, Z codex units have similar issues, why the double-standard for unit A from FW?" It's not just 'well X can do it why can't Y", there's a double standard being applied with the only justification being "it's not in a book where the title starts with "Codex:".
I can't argue specifically for a Tyranid player, you're looking for a carrot. I will respond, why do you need the carrot to let someone else have theirs? If you're going to be against FW just because it has nothing for your army and not allow other people to use their Warhammer 40,000 models to represent things from the Warhammer 40,000 universe, I can't give you anything other than you get to see cool new models and play against armies that you might otherwise not ever get to.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
MVBrandt wrote:You can say it until you are blue in the face, but a large mass of players, and the fairly obvious "status quo" is not pro- FW, and does not see FW as an OBVIOUS part of 40k rules that everyone needs to just accept and play.
Taking the stance that it *already is* fully accepted and used everywhere by "normal" 40k players and should be accepted by tournaments of all kinds and formats, and that any tournament that doesn't is somehow outlawing part of the "basic" game ... is an ineffective stance to take, b/c it doesn't resonate even really with those who are putting it forth (or else, why argue so hard?).
You are more likely to be effective trying to persuade the masses who do not routinely see it or play with it that it SHOULD BE, and is fun to use, and no more expensive, and has no broken units, and has fun things for every codex to enjoy, etc., etc., than basically saying "If you don't use it, you're obviously just not aware of the rules that say it is an automatic must-use part of the game!!!!!!"
"What are you doing here? We don't want your kind here. We took a vote and we don't care what the rules says. We just think you look and act different and might scare the women folk so you just clear on out...." Just cleared up your soliloquy for you...
I never said you had to use the 40K approved, I did say it is a part of the rules. i do not particularly care what the "status quo" is or how things, how did you put it, oh yes "Resonate" ... I just believe in playing by all of the rules.
You can chose what to do.
I'm not blue in the face either....
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
And I am suggesting, as a TO who runs substantially-attended events in all forms of "FW approved/not-approved," you may be more successful in creating venues to play the way you *believe* to be "full / all rules 40k" by doing something other than trolling (however cleverly) // posting about how you believe it's one way and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.
Giving fair due to the thoughts and opinions of many other people is part of what being a TO is all about. That doesn't mean you have to also, but you'll be more convincing with your opinions.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Vaktathi wrote: hyv3mynd wrote:While the pro- FW strike team in this thread has great witty comebacks, I haven't actually seen a single presentation that would convince someone who is against FW in tournaments to change their stance.
If you'll notice, there were some non-witty responses, and there was no response from you to any of the arguments put forth in response to your claims.
You claimed that the pro- FW posters all play IG. This was retorted with statements that no, it's not just IG players or people who only play IG. I myself happen to play Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Eldar, Tau, and sometimes Sisters and Grey Knights in addition to Imperial Guard.
You claimed that your issue was with FW having more units for certain armies. It was then pointed out that already there's nothing resembling unit count balance between books currently, and that no such issue is apparently seen for White Dwarf releases, so why the double standard?
You pointed out that you can go into a store and just pickup and play with the stuff there, this was responded to by pointing out that no, there are in fact certain models, units, and even armies that aren't FW that this is not possible for, such as Sisters of Battle, Hydra Flak Tanks, etc.
All I've seen is:
"40k approved, I don't need permission"
and
"Codexes already have broken units, so what's the problem with including more?"
Any arguments that would actually convince a tyranid player push his local TO to change tournament formats?
You're misrepresenting the argument.
Someone puts forth "its broken", its responded with "X, Y, Z codex units have similar issues, why the double-standard for unit A from FW?" It's not just 'well X can do it why can't Y", there's a double standard being applied with the only justification being "it's not in a book where the title starts with "Codex:".
I can't argue specifically for a Tyranid player, you're looking for a carrot. I will respond, why do you need the carrot to let someone else have theirs? If you're going to be against FW just because it has nothing for your army and not allow other people to use their Warhammer 40,000 models to represent things from the Warhammer 40,000 universe, I can't give you anything other than you get to see cool new models and play against armies that you might otherwise not ever get to.
Yes, the pro side play other armies but the common unifying factor is IG across the board, which is beyond coincidence since FW primarily favors IG.
Yes, some codexes have more total units than others, but the bottom line is every army has a codex with multiple options from 2-8 in each FO slot. FW does not provide the same opportunities for every army.
The double standard you claim is invented. GW makes an army codex for every army. FW does not provide an army supplement for every army. They offer HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast, and Heavy options for IG but do not for tyranids, DE, and many other xenos.
I'm not denying others their "carrot". I have my codex and they have theirs. There's enough diversity and options to build limitless armies given the code codexes, fortifications, and allied matrix. Why would I push to change my tournament environment in a way that GROSSLY favors some armies over others? Using existing units as example of imbalance to justify futher imbalance doesn't work for me.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
MVBrandt wrote:And I am suggesting, as a TO who runs substantially-attended events in all forms of " FW approved/not-approved," you may be more successful in creating venues to play the way you *believe* to be "full / all rules 40k" by doing something other than trolling (however cleverly) // posting about how you believe it's one way and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.
Giving fair due to the thoughts and opinions of many other people is part of what being a TO is all about. That doesn't mean you have to also, but you'll be more convincing with your opinions.
40k Approved is legal for 40k according to the company that makes it.
There is not an opinion there.
You can run your events as you wish.
I understand to sell more tickets and to keep your elites happy, and qualm the fears of those masses of folks who may have never actually played against a 40k Approved army that think it is over balanced or pay to win as I have seen in this discussion.
I just happen to disagree.
In my mind if you say you are running a 40k event, you need to use all of the rules.
In the end it is your event.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
hyv3mynd wrote:
Yes, the pro side play other armies but the common unifying factor is IG across the board, which is beyond coincidence since FW primarily favors IG.
So was Sisters and Tau apparently.
Yes, some codexes have more total units than others, but the bottom line is every army has a codex with multiple options from 2-8 in each FO slot. FW does not provide the same opportunities for every army.
The double standard you claim is invented. GW makes an army codex for every army. FW does not provide an army supplement for every army. They offer HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast, and Heavy options for IG but do not for tyranids, DE, and many other xenos.
You'll pardon me if I have issues with this but...this really doesn't make sense to me.
GW makes a codex book with a random, unequal and *highly* variable number of units in each FoC slot for every army and that's fine. Ok, everyone is on the same page.
FW offers additional units for those armies with similar random and unequal distribution...that's where there is a problem.
I'm not denying others their "carrot". I have my codex and they have theirs. There's enough diversity and options to build limitless armies given the code codexes, fortifications, and allied matrix. Why would I push to change my tournament environment in a way that GROSSLY favors some armies over others?
So, codex updates then that massively change the meta-game are out too? I can guarantee you using the new Eldar codex against your Tyranids is going to put those nids at a much greater disadvantage than using the old book. That said, the codex books do not cover the full breadth of the 40k universe. Hell, some units have gone from being Codex to FW and back to Codex again (e.g. IG Griffon and Vanquisher) and nobody seems to have an issue when an IA units shows up in a codex (e.g. Pirhanas, Hydras...Trygons).
Again, this largely seems to boil down to "I want a carrot too", yet doesn't seem to apply to anything but FW stuff. I don't see anyone trying to use this line of thinking to refuse playing against WD units or new codex units for example.
Using existing units as example of imbalance to justify futher imbalance doesn't work for me.
That's largely been in response to the accusations that FW is severely more imbalanced than GW codex units, which such comparisons are used to show is not demonstrably true.
34390
Post by: whembly
rigeld2 wrote:
I didn't say it was ... ? I said I was scared of it. As in - it's possible for me to win but it would take exceptional luck/stupidity from my opponent. And I use a low model count Nid army - horde Nids are essentially auto-lose.
A Tervagon list? Now, THAT list scares me... all them biomancy powah!
Fair enough.
This player really didn't want to play against a dual Ravenwing/Death wing list. (well, from memory one squad of termies and rest bikes/speeders). Fortunately, he didn't face the DA player... because if the DA player has first turn, he can neuter the thudd guns by scouting forward and on first turn, turn the bikes side-ways and be 1" away. The cupcake template wouldn't be able to land w/o touching his own unit.
That's not true. The bikes are 1" away, the base of the bike is about an inch thick. Placing the center of the "cupcake" marker at the edge of the bike means you're short of hitting your own unit.
Or are you under the mistaken impression that the center of the marker must be centered on the target's base?
Well dip me in butter... I re-checked the rules book... you're right. I thought you had to center the blast hole on the target's base. Well... then, that tactic wouldn't work. THANKS!
Another list he really didn't want to play was a 5 (or 6) Landraider BA spam. The only reason he still won that game, was that the terrain was stacked to his favor... there were terrain pieces all over the place, such that the LR player had to roll for dangerous terrain multiple times per movement phase... thus, immobilising himself more often than not.
Then it wasn't a well built IG army. Tanks are something that IG just should never be afraid of.
It was a gimmick IG list for sure... all the LRs had to do was to tankshock 'em off the table.
I was playing CSM+Deamon allies... I was chopping at the bit to get matched up to him as I could deepstrike half my army easily. *shrugs*
Deep Striking is actually the thing you really don't want to do. If you fire, you're in perfect "Own me now" position for all the blasts. If you run and spread out a) you can roll a 1 b) you caused no casualties for 2 turns with that unit.
DS + run was the idea...
9594
Post by: RiTides
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:MVBrandt wrote:And I am suggesting, as a TO who runs substantially-attended events in all forms of " FW approved/not-approved," you may be more successful in creating venues to play the way you *believe* to be "full / all rules 40k" by doing something other than trolling (however cleverly) // posting about how you believe it's one way and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.
Giving fair due to the thoughts and opinions of many other people is part of what being a TO is all about. That doesn't mean you have to also, but you'll be more convincing with your opinions.
40k Approved is legal for 40k according to the company that makes it.
There is not an opinion there.
You can run your events as you wish.
I understand to sell more tickets and to keep your elites happy, and qualm the fears of those masses of folks who may have never actually played against a 40k Approved army that think it is over balanced or pay to win as I have seen in this discussion.
I just happen to disagree.
In my mind if you say you are running a 40k event, you need to use all of the rules.
In the end it is your event.
As MVBrandt basically straight-out stated, you are not doing your cause any favors here.
The man already runs 2 out of 4 events at his GT allowing FW. Talking in absolutes and still using the language of "keep your elites happy" "qualm the fears of those masses", etc... yeah, not a very convincing argument
You'll catch more flies with honey, etc etc
63000
Post by: Peregrine
hyv3mynd wrote:Yes, the pro side play other armies but the common unifying factor is IG across the board, which is beyond coincidence since FW primarily favors IG.
Except that IS a coincidence, since most of us started IG armies before the "overpowered" IG units existed. Remember, until 6th changed the artillery rules these were all mediocre at best things that nobody cared about. Most of us probably started because of the models, not the rules.
Yes, some codexes have more total units than others, but the bottom line is every army has a codex with multiple options from 2-8 in each FO slot. FW does not provide the same opportunities for every army.
I see, so as predicted you find a way to rationalize away the fact that codex favoritism is just as bad as FW favoritism. I guess C: SM getting almost twice as many units as Tau is fine, but IG getting more FW units than Tau by a similar margin is the end of the world.
They offer HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast, and Heavy options for IG but do not for tyranids, DE, and many other xenos.
And, as I've said, this is completely false. DE and Tyranids are the only xenos armies that FW doesn't make many options for. Orks, Tau, Necrons and Eldar get plenty of options (and all but Tau even get entire army lists), which means that only one third of the xenos armies are poorly supported. That is far, far short of "many other xenos".
(And let's not forget the historical reasons for that lack of balance: Tyranids got an entire book but then the Tyranid codex claimed those options, while DE were a banned subject for many years before GW redid their design.)
I'm not denying others their "carrot". I have my codex and they have theirs. There's enough diversity and options to build limitless armies given the code codexes, fortifications, and allied matrix.
Of course you're denying people stuff. GW says that certain units I have chosen for my army are part of the standard game. You are entitled to a belief that I don't deserve to be allowed to use them and should buy different ones to make a codex-only army, but don't pretend that you aren't taking anything away.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
RiTides wrote: NeedleOfInquiry wrote:MVBrandt wrote:And I am suggesting, as a TO who runs substantially-attended events in all forms of " FW approved/not-approved," you may be more successful in creating venues to play the way you *believe* to be "full / all rules 40k" by doing something other than trolling (however cleverly) // posting about how you believe it's one way and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks.
Giving fair due to the thoughts and opinions of many other people is part of what being a TO is all about. That doesn't mean you have to also, but you'll be more convincing with your opinions.
40k Approved is legal for 40k according to the company that makes it.
There is not an opinion there.
You can run your events as you wish.
I understand to sell more tickets and to keep your elites happy, and qualm the fears of those masses of folks who may have never actually played against a 40k Approved army that think it is over balanced or pay to win as I have seen in this discussion.
I just happen to disagree.
In my mind if you say you are running a 40k event, you need to use all of the rules.
In the end it is your event.
As MVBrandt basically straight-out stated, you are not doing your cause any favors here.
The man already runs 2 out of 4 events at his GT allowing FW. Talking in absolutes and still using the language of "keep your elites happy" "qualm the fears of those masses", etc... yeah, not a very convincing argument
You'll catch more flies with honey, etc etc
I too have to agree with what MVBrandt has commented. I like how he runs his tournaments. I also like how he has come to this site and express his viewpoints in a nice and yet professional manner.
52309
Post by: Breng77
So just in response to those that think codex imbalance should make additional imbalance a non issue
Codex sm + FW = 88 units
Codex tau + FW = 39 units.
So more than double 49 units more. The original gap is 20 units so the gap increases by 29 units....seems fair and balanced
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Breng77 wrote:So just in response to those that think codex imbalance should make additional imbalance a non issue
The point is that it's a blatant double standard to complain about a difference in number of units (ignoring power level of those units) favoring Imperial armies with FW rules while accepting a similar difference in number in codex units as just part of the game.
So more than double 49 units more. The original gap is 20 units so the gap increases by 29 units....seems fair and balanced
One thing you're leaving out is that many of those extra C: SM "units" are actually just Badab War characters. C: SM get a long list of slight variations on a captain or chapter master, most of them completely forgettable and only included for the sake of giving every chapter that was involved in the war at least one character. So it increases the total unit count significantly, but doesn't really add all that many new options to C: SM.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Breng77 wrote:So just in response to those that think codex imbalance should make additional imbalance a non issue
Codex sm + FW = 88 units
Codex tau + FW = 39 units.
So more than double 49 units more. The original gap is 20 units so the gap increases by 29 units....seems fair and balanced
Do all the additional units impart radical new capabilities and/or operate at such cost effectiveness as to blow everything else out of the water? If so, then balance probably won't be affected too much.
Additionally, how many of these are just characters and turret/weapon swaps or just new models for existing units, and how many are something completely new? Are you counting every single SM kit that FW sells as its own thing in this equation? 88 looks rather inflated, unless you're counting Horus Heresy stuff (which is *NOT* intended for normal games) and new models for existing units. I'm getting more of a ~20something new units for normal 40k games, if you include Characters, for SM's, not ~40.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Peregrine wrote:Breng77 wrote:So just in response to those that think codex imbalance should make additional imbalance a non issue
The point is that it's a blatant double standard to complain about a difference in number of units (ignoring power level of those units) favoring Imperial armies with FW rules while accepting a similar difference in number in codex units as just part of the game.
So more than double 49 units more. The original gap is 20 units so the gap increases by 29 units....seems fair and balanced
One thing you're leaving out is that many of those extra C: SM "units" are actually just Badab War characters. C: SM get a long list of slight variations on a captain or chapter master, most of them completely forgettable and only included for the sake of giving every chapter that was involved in the war at least one character. So it increases the total unit count significantly, but doesn't really add all that many new options to C: SM.
How is counting IC's leaving something else? Did you leave IC's out of your unit count comparison to Tau? You guys can't claim double standards are at play and then say special characters don't count because they're forgettable. How many people have forgotten sicarius, tigurius, and Cassius?
I would be thrilled if FW came out with 20 unique tyranid characters.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Vaktathi wrote:Breng77 wrote:So just in response to those that think codex imbalance should make additional imbalance a non issue
Codex sm + FW = 88 units
Codex tau + FW = 39 units.
So more than double 49 units more. The original gap is 20 units so the gap increases by 29 units....seems fair and balanced
Do all the additional units impart radical new capabilities and/or operate at such cost effectiveness as to blow everything else out of the water? If so, then balance probably won't be affected too much.
Additionally, how many of these are just characters and turret/weapon swaps or just new models for existing units, and how many are something completely new? Are you counting every single SM kit that FW sells as its own thing in this equation? 88 looks rather inflated, unless you're counting Horus Heresy stuff (which is *NOT* intended for normal games) and new models for existing units. I'm getting more of a ~20something new units for normal 40k games, if you include Characters, for SM's, not ~40.
And when the first post quoted 45 to 25 how many of those are special ics? (Hint the answer is 11). S why not count them from FW. I got my count from the Adepticon list of what was allowed in their 40k approved events not including apoc units. In addition how good units are has nothing to do with the balance between army choices. If we are going with only competitive choices, then your initial assessment is way off between sm and tau. What I am saying is that FW exacerbates the existing problem.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
hyv3mynd wrote:How is counting IC's leaving something else? Did you leave IC's out of your unit count comparison to Tau? You guys can't claim double standards are at play and then say special characters don't count because they're forgettable. How many people have forgotten sicarius, tigurius, and Cassius?
I'm just reminding everyone that the numbers are misleading and most of the C: SM "advantage" in total units is because of pointless fluff characters that nobody uses. Just like Tau are more competitive than C: SM in a codex-only game despite having fewer total units the number of units each army gets is just a number unless you look at what kind of units they get. Automatically Appended Next Post: Breng77 wrote:In addition how good units are has nothing to do with the balance between army choices.
Of course it does. What matters is power level balance between codices. If army X gets one powerful unit and 100 weak units while army Y gets three blatantly overpowered units then army Y is clearly getting more of a benefit from those rules. The fact that IG get stuff like cargo loader Sentinels or yet another Leman Russ turret variant that nobody will ever use doesn't really matter, it's just useless filler content to make a full-length book. The only time anyone cares about those units is when they're complaining about how biased FW is.
What I am saying is that FW exacerbates the existing problem.
And the point is that the problem isn't actually a problem. Unit count is irrelevant, and the only reason to count up C: SM vs. Tau units is to point out that the double standard in complaining about FW favoring Imperial armies in unit count while ignoring the fact that the codices do the exact same thing.
52309
Post by: Breng77
And my point is that they favor imperial armies as evidenced by unit choices and to a considerable extent more than Gw proper. Saying that it is no different when Gw provides 50% more sm options than tau and FW provides 100+% more options is false.
So when this is show you default to well those choices are no good, which is not the point if we go with that FW produces an infinite number of viable ig choices vs say nids, daemons or dark eldar, since FW provides no good choices (maybe 1 each) for those armies.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:The fact that IG get stuff like cargo loader Sentinels or yet another Leman Russ turret variant that nobody will ever use doesn't really matter, it's just useless filler content to make a full-length book. The only time anyone cares about those units is when they're complaining about how biased FW is.
That's not correct. In this thread I went through the Adepticon list and showed that IG get more non-fluff and non-"new turret" models from FW than Codex: Tau has in total. And iirc I didn't count ICs either.
And the point is that the problem isn't actually a problem. Unit count is irrelevant, and the only reason to count up C:SM vs. Tau units is to point out that the double standard in complaining about FW favoring Imperial armies in unit count while ignoring the fact that the codices do the exact same thing.
And the codecs are relatively balanced with their current unit counts.
Adding 26 units to one codex and 3 to another, completely ignoring balance along the way changes the balance.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
So which major events that allowed the use of Forge World were won by armies including Forge World units?
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
 Chumbalaya wrote:Hey, people are talking about me. Whee!
Yeah, I rolled out my Acanthrites to various tournies, including WGC. I made a "middle tables" type list for messing around. Every game the Acanthrites not only had a ridiculous impact, they also made the game less fun. I talked to my opponents and the majority said they'd trade Acanthrites for 6 Scythes, 3 Barges, 15 Wraiths or whatever are the " OP" units from the Codex.
Good players will do well regardless of format, because they're the most knowledgeable and capable to win. The vast majority of tourney attendees are the ones who suffer from "supah sekrit pay2win" rules. And, unsurprisingly, they're the ones who keep voting to keep FW confined to "safe" zones like the Nova Narrative.
If you want your Thudd Guns or whatever in tournaments, the best way to get that started is to actually go. Big, 40 page internet arguments are fun to read, but ultimately futile. Go to events, contribute, try and run your own. Join the community and changing things get a lot easier.
You can't just come in here on page 45 and start trying to make sense and speak in a non extremist manner!. Out with you!
OT this is getting old. Those of you who want FW in tournaments I suggest 2 things.
1. Take Chumbalayas advice.
2. Play in the events run by Reece and Frontline Gaming like the Vegas Open. FW is allowed
63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:That's not correct. In this thread I went through the Adepticon list and showed that IG get more non-fluff and non-"new turret" models from FW than Codex: Tau has in total. And iirc I didn't count ICs either.
Sorry, but no. IG have a total of 29 units from FW, compared to 25 codex units for Tau. That includes:
* Two Leman Russ variants (Conqueror/Annihilator) that nobody will ever use.
* An awful transport (Centaur) that nobody will ever use.
* The old rules for three artillery platforms that are worse in every way than the artillery carriages (only kept because some people still have the OOP models).
* Three fluff support vehicles (Atlas, Trojan, powerlifter Sentinel) that are only ever going to be used in special scenarios.
* Two awful flyer transports (Arvus and Aquila) that are just wasting paper as long as the Vendetta exists.
* One flyer (Lightning) with awful third-edition rules that only exists because the model wasn't quite OOP yet.
So if we take out the clearly irrelevant units we have a total of 17 FW IG units, compared to 25 Tau codex units. Meanwhile Tau get 14 FW units of varying quality (counting all of the crisis suit and Hammerhead upgrades as one new unit each).
Adding 26 units to one codex and 3 to another, completely ignoring balance along the way changes the balance.
No it doesn't. No amount of cargo loader Sentinels will change competitive balance at all. If IG suddenly got an entire book full of 100 different variants of the cargo loader Sentinel (all equally weak) it wouldn't make even the slightest difference in what IG armies actually use. The only reason anyone would care about them at all would be to quote the total number of units as proof of "bias".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:Saying that it is no different when Gw provides 50% more sm options than tau and FW provides 100+% more options is false.
It's also false to say that it's only 50% more units from GW. C: SM get 80% more units in their codex, not 50%.
So when this is show you default to well those choices are no good, which is not the point if we go with that FW produces an infinite number of viable ig choices vs say nids, daemons or dark eldar, since FW provides no good choices (maybe 1 each) for those armies.
Armies that get good units from FW:
IG
C: SM
DA
SW
BA
BT
SoB
Tau
Eldar
Necrons
Orks
Armies that don't get good units from FW:
Demons?
CSM?
DE
Tyranids
So looks like the majority of armies get good units, while two of the armies that don't have GW to blame ( DE because GW told FW they couldn't do DE until the recent redesign was released, Tyranids because GW put all the FW Tyranid stuff in the codex).
44924
Post by: Zande4
Peregrine wrote:rigeld2 wrote:That's not correct. In this thread I went through the Adepticon list and showed that IG get more non-fluff and non-"new turret" models from FW than Codex: Tau has in total. And iirc I didn't count ICs either.
Sorry, but no. IG have a total of 29 units from FW, compared to 25 codex units for Tau. That includes:
* Two Leman Russ variants (Conqueror/Annihilator) that nobody will ever use.
* An awful transport (Centaur) that nobody will ever use.
* The old rules for three artillery platforms that are worse in every way than the artillery carriages (only kept because some people still have the OOP models).
* Three fluff support vehicles (Atlas, Trojan, powerlifter Sentinel) that are only ever going to be used in special scenarios.
* Two awful flyer transports (Arvus and Aquila) that are just wasting paper as long as the Vendetta exists.
* One flyer (Lightning) with awful third-edition rules that only exists because the model wasn't quite OOP yet.
So if we take out the clearly irrelevant units we have a total of 17 FW IG units, compared to 25 Tau codex units. Meanwhile Tau get 14 FW units of varying quality (counting all of the crisis suit and Hammerhead upgrades as one new unit each).
Adding 26 units to one codex and 3 to another, completely ignoring balance along the way changes the balance.
No it doesn't. No amount of cargo loader Sentinels will change competitive balance at all. If IG suddenly got an entire book full of 100 different variants of the cargo loader Sentinel (all equally weak) it wouldn't make even the slightest difference in what IG armies actually use. The only reason anyone would care about them at all would be to quote the total number of units as proof of "bias".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:Saying that it is no different when Gw provides 50% more sm options than tau and FW provides 100+% more options is false.
It's also false to say that it's only 50% more units from GW. C: SM get 80% more units in their codex, not 50%.
So when this is show you default to well those choices are no good, which is not the point if we go with that FW produces an infinite number of viable ig choices vs say nids, daemons or dark eldar, since FW provides no good choices (maybe 1 each) for those armies.
Armies that get good units from FW:
IG
C: SM
DA
SW
BA
BT
SoB
Tau
Eldar
Necrons
Orks
Armies that don't get good units from FW:
Demons?
CSM?
DE
Tyranids
So looks like the majority of armies get good units, while two of the armies that don't have GW to blame ( DE because GW told FW they couldn't do DE until the recent redesign was released, Tyranids because GW put all the FW Tyranid stuff in the codex).
"All the FW Tyranid stuff in the codex" You mean one.. The Trygon. The Winged variants were just upgrades at the time of their release. Tyranids only ever had 3 non- apoc things from Forgeworld, now they have 2.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Peregrine wrote:rigeld2 wrote:That's not correct. In this thread I went through the Adepticon list and showed that IG get more non-fluff and non-"new turret" models from FW than Codex: Tau has in total. And iirc I didn't count ICs either.
Sorry, but no. IG have a total of 29 units from FW, compared to 25 codex units for Tau. That includes:
* Two Leman Russ variants (Conqueror/Annihilator) that nobody will ever use.
* An awful transport (Centaur) that nobody will ever use.
* The old rules for three artillery platforms that are worse in every way than the artillery carriages (only kept because some people still have the OOP models).
* Three fluff support vehicles (Atlas, Trojan, powerlifter Sentinel) that are only ever going to be used in special scenarios.
* Two awful flyer transports (Arvus and Aquila) that are just wasting paper as long as the Vendetta exists.
* One flyer (Lightning) with awful third-edition rules that only exists because the model wasn't quite OOP yet.
So if we take out the clearly irrelevant units we have a total of 17 FW IG units, compared to 25 Tau codex units. Meanwhile Tau get 14 FW units of varying quality (counting all of the crisis suit and Hammerhead upgrades as one new unit each).
Adding 26 units to one codex and 3 to another, completely ignoring balance along the way changes the balance.
No it doesn't. No amount of cargo loader Sentinels will change competitive balance at all. If IG suddenly got an entire book full of 100 different variants of the cargo loader Sentinel (all equally weak) it wouldn't make even the slightest difference in what IG armies actually use. The only reason anyone would care about them at all would be to quote the total number of units as proof of "bias".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:Saying that it is no different when Gw provides 50% more sm options than tau and FW provides 100+% more options is false.
It's also false to say that it's only 50% more units from GW. C: SM get 80% more units in their codex, not 50%.
So when this is show you default to well those choices are no good, which is not the point if we go with that FW produces an infinite number of viable ig choices vs say nids, daemons or dark eldar, since FW provides no good choices (maybe 1 each) for those armies.
Armies that get good units from FW:
IG
C: SM
DA
SW
BA
BT
SoB
Tau
Eldar
Necrons
Orks
Armies that don't get good units from FW:
Demons?
CSM?
DE
Tyranids
So looks like the majority of armies get good units, while two of the armies that don't have GW to blame ( DE because GW told FW they couldn't do DE until the recent redesign was released, Tyranids because GW put all the FW Tyranid stuff in the codex).
I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)
To address your last piece there: Really FW could not have addressed DE or Tyranids in the last 3 years that they have been released? I'd buy the it's GWs fault prior to that but those books have been out for quite some time.
Fact is (and I believe they have said it) the FW guys are big Tread heads and IG fans which is why they produce more content for those armies than any other. Every book has imperial stuff in it because every book is Imperium Vs somebody else... Throw in that FW adds more "Broken" stuff to IG than some other units get options (most of the small options armies get crap)
Also your whole line of thinking leads toward why people don't want FW, "well most of this stuff is useless but this other stuff is really good and everyone will use it." So we don't get the advertised Moar variety, we get different spam...
47462
Post by: rigeld2
rigeld2 wrote:
Marginally more?
I missed the second salamander in there accidentally but that's still 24 "extra" models just for IG (not counting the ones shared with SoB).
Please correct me if I missed any. And before you start arguing "Well not all of those are worth the points." there isn't a single Tyranid unit from FW that's worth the points. None.
So the Adepticon list isn't accurate? Or did I miss some fluff units because I'm not familiar with them?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Enough with the "all armies have 2+ choices in each FOC" bovine gak; Templars and Sisters have one Troops Choice each. Xenos bias? No, it just means said armies don't get as many options as some others. Where's the outrage over how unfair that is? Why is diversity only seen as a bad thing when it's ForgeWorld?
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
Just to adress the FW is GW issue. It's just not true. Forge World is its own legal entity. While it may be a subsidiary of GW it is not GW. If someone sued FW then they would not be able to touch the assets of GW.
As such FW putting an "approved for 40K" stamp on things could be looked at, at best, as a license from GW. I don't see it as anything more than any other company saying that their rules/models are 40K compatable. Until GW makes an official announcement saying that FW is part of the 40K rules set then it can not be held in any higher regard than any other 3rd party company.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Because of the overwhelming difference in number of options. So we want to look at troop choices (without FOC swaps)
Templars 1
Sisters 1
Dark Angels 2
Space Marines 2
Chaos Space Marines 2
Space Wolves 2
Tau 2
Dark Eldar 2
Necrons 2
Orks 2
Grey Knights 2
Eldar 3
Imperial Guard 3(7 if you count all the different platoon options separately)
Blood Angels 5
Tyranids 5
Daemons 5
SO most armies only have 2 Troop options without force org swaps.
The problem here is that in general FW is not helping out Sisters with another troop option, or Templars with another troop option. Automatically Appended Next Post: Leo_the_Rat wrote:Just to adress the FW is GW issue. It's just not true. Forge World is its own legal entity. While it may be a subsidiary of GW it is not GW. If someone sued FW then they would not be able to touch the assets of GW.
As such FW putting an "approved for 40K" stamp on things could be looked at, at best, as a license from GW. I don't see it as anything more than any other company saying that their rules/models are 40K compatable. Until GW makes an official announcement saying that FW is part of the 40K rules set then it can not be held in any higher regard than any other 3rd party company.
I'm going to disagree here. I'm not saying it is truely part of the core game or not, but it should, due to its affiliation with GW, be considered with higher regard than other 3rd party options for GW rules. That is why we are even having a discussion, no one is on here iwth...My homebrew rules should be tournament legal.
9594
Post by: RiTides
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Enough with the "all armies have 2+ choices in each FOC" bovine gak; Templars and Sisters have one Troops Choice each. Xenos bias? No, it just means said armies don't get as many options as some others. Where's the outrage over how unfair that is? Why is diversity only seen as a bad thing when it's ForgeWorld?
Have you been living under a rock, there is tons of outrage over Sisters and Black Templars
And Black Templars are seemingly one of the next 2 codii that GW will put out, so that will be addressed!
Sisters have always been in an unfair predicament due to their treatment by GW- this is well documented. They are an outlier, an army that could almost get the squat treatment, but is allowed to soldier on with White Dwarf rules. Once Templars are re-done, 40k armies will be on a pretty level playing field due to the codii, imo. At least, as level as it ever is with GW.
Whereas fantasy will still have a few armies with something like decade-old rules, with no updates in sight
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
The diversity argument is completely irrelevant ... I don't know why ya'll are taking up several pages with it. If you want to argue many of the codices supplemented by FW expansions aren't benefitted with any desirable choices, you'd be right, but even "desirable" can be bandied about by people who just want to stick to their position for pages and pages on end. I don't get the point. You already had one person go "Oh well it doesn't matter Nids don't have anything, b/c all their good stuff is in the dex!!!" (no offense to whoever it was, just saw the response and was a little surprised by the effort to try and make any point on behalf of a position, even a patently weak one).
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
Peregrine wrote:You have a rather unconventional definition of "demonstrably false" and "evidence". So far we don't have tournament results showing that certain units are overpowered, we have theory and speculation about how they might be overpowered. And of course we also have an endless list of excuses for why it doesn't really count when there's a FW-legal tournament that isn't dominated by FW units.
You seem intelligent so I'm going to assume you're being obtuse for rhetorical purposes. But I'll play along.
The claim was that no evidence ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence) has been presented. If any evidence at all has been presented then this claim is false ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/false). If one can cite instances where evidence is presented, then this is demonstrably ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrably?show=0&t=1375365335) false. One such citation is evidence presented in the form of the utter dominance of a list taking the maximum number of Thudd Guns in the final round of the Adepticon 2013 Team Tournament, which is referenced as early as the sixth post in this thread ( http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/530411.page#5682110), and which is discussed in detail many times thereafter.
Once again, there's a difference between finding the evidence compelling and claiming that no evidence has been presented. The former is a matter of opinion. The latter is objectively false.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Leo_the_Rat wrote:Just to adress the FW is GW issue. It's just not true. Forge World is its own legal entity. While it may be a subsidiary of GW it is not GW. If someone sued FW then they would not be able to touch the assets of GW.
As such FW putting an "approved for 40K" stamp on things could be looked at, at best, as a license from GW. I don't see it as anything more than any other company saying that their rules/models are 40K compatable. Until GW makes an official announcement saying that FW is part of the 40K rules set then it can not be held in any higher regard than any other 3rd party company.
Huh? Everyone that works there is a GW employee, their emails are on the same "@games-workshop.co. uk" domain, their terms and conditions on their website are written as Games Workshop not as Forgeworld, everything on their website shows Copyright GW with no notice of "published under license" on any Forgeworld product the way there is with say, Fantasy Flight Games RPG's. It's not needed, because FW is *not* a separate legal entity.
Danny Internets wrote: Peregrine wrote:You have a rather unconventional definition of "demonstrably false" and "evidence". So far we don't have tournament results showing that certain units are overpowered, we have theory and speculation about how they might be overpowered. And of course we also have an endless list of excuses for why it doesn't really count when there's a FW-legal tournament that isn't dominated by FW units.
You seem intelligent so I'm going to assume you're being obtuse for rhetorical purposes. But I'll play along.
The claim was that no evidence ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence) has been presented. If any evidence at all has been presented then this claim is false ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/false). If one can cite instances where evidence is presented, then this is demonstrably ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demonstrably?show=0&t=1375365335) false. One such citation is evidence presented in the form of the utter dominance of a list taking the maximum number of Thudd Guns in the final round of the Adepticon 2013 Team Tournament, which is referenced as early as the sixth post in this thread ( http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/530411.page#5682110), and which is discussed in detail many times thereafter.
Once again, there's a difference between finding the evidence compelling and claiming that no evidence has been presented. The former is a matter of opinion. The latter is objectively false.
By your own definitions, your "demonstrable evidence" here is an anecdotal example from a single event, subsequently hashed over with no widespread agreement on its final standing. Hardly factual evidence of brokenness.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Legal entity / not doesn't really matter to me (I agree that it's not). But it's treated as a separate division in all other respects, including maintaining their own rulesets, not selling their books in either GW or standard hobby stores, etc.
They could easily make it much more accessible... the fact that it's treated as a boutique item is entirely because they have set it up to be that way.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Entirely true, and I really wish they would, that seems to be the biggest stumbling block, though I also don't know who's decision it was to set it up that way
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
Vaktathi wrote:By your own definitions, your "demonstrable evidence" here is an anecdotal example from a single event, subsequently hashed over with no widespread agreement on its final standing. Hardly factual evidence of brokenness.
Is there some kind of language barrier here of which I'm unaware? I do not nor have I ever claimed that this one example constitutes "factual evidence of brokenness." It does, however, demonstrate that evidence has, in fact, been presented.
For a third time, whether or not you find the evidence convincing as to whether or not FW is broken and should not be included in events is an entirely separate issue from your claim that "no evidence" has been presented in support of that assertion. Many people have made these statements and provided evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to support them. Ignoring this evidence and then claiming that it was never presented in the first place is a disingenuous mischaracterization of the opposing arguments.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Breng77 wrote:I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)
And, again, total number of units is irrelevant. What matters is quality of units, and when you look at more than how many generic and never-used C: SM HQ choices FW has filled pages with the numbers are a lot more even. Non-Imperial armies get fewer units, but mostly because they don't get the pointless "fluff" units that nobody cares about anyway (unless they're trying to "prove" bias).
To address your last piece there: Really FW could not have addressed DE or Tyranids in the last 3 years that they have been released? I'd buy the it's GWs fault prior to that but those books have been out for quite some time.
You realize that making a new book and models takes time, right? And that FW already have a schedule of stuff they're trying to do? Or would you prefer that they rush out some half-finished garbage just for the sake of "fairness"?
Fact is (and I believe they have said it) the FW guys are big Tread heads and IG fans which is why they produce more content for those armies than any other. Every book has imperial stuff in it because every book is Imperium Vs somebody else... Throw in that FW adds more "Broken" stuff to IG than some other units get options (most of the small options armies get crap)
Sure, they love IG tanks. But the point is that this love is typically expressed by making cool models with underwhelming rules, so the actual impact on competitive balance is minimal. The fact that IG hobbyists get cool cargo loader Sentinels while Tau don't get a cargo loader battlesuit is really not relevant to this discussion.
Also, all of the "broken" IG units are the result of GW changing the artillery rules in 6th. In 4th/5th edition, when the "broken" units were created, they were mediocre at best.
Also your whole line of thinking leads toward why people don't want FW, "well most of this stuff is useless but this other stuff is really good and everyone will use it." So we don't get the advertised Moar variety, we get different spam...
You'll notice that I wasn't ignoring mid-range "fair" units. For example, the Avenger is not overpowered but it's still something IG players might use. I'm only ignoring units like the Lightning or cargo loader Sentinel which are either not designed for use outside of special fluff-based scenarios or obsolete 3rd/4th-edition relics.
And yes, there will be spam. What else do you expect in tournaments? It doesn't matter what is or isn't legal, tournaments will always involve spam. So saying that people will spam the best units doesn't really say much.
52309
Post by: Breng77
Yes making a new book takes time, so am I to assume that FW is coming out with DE and Nids soon then? 3 years is a fairly substantial amount of time. Unless their goal is not to provide for all armies, but instead to write books with cool stories, and make units to fit into those stories....which I feel is likely the case, and all of those stories will involve the imperium, because so far they always have....
As far as deciding what is junk or not, I would need to do lots of research, but I get the feeling that what non-imperial armies get is also largely junk filled, (see nids, Daemons, DE) and so still leads to an imbalance of units created for various armies.
As for the Broken IG stuff, they have always had various broken units, which units those are changed with the edition, but broken units existed prior to the edition change. Furthermore, it is not just the change to 6th ed rules, it is the FAQs that FW put out concerning them that created broken units. But even if we go with the GW rules being the only cause, how is that a reason to want to including units (additional to those in the core rules), that will routinely be broken when GW changes the rules?
All of this though really matters little to me, what matters is that the community that I am a part of by and large is uncomfortable with FW inclusion, and that is the only reason I don't include it in most of my events (barring Apoc games, and the Team event I run at my GT.)
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Breng77 wrote:Yes making a new book takes time, so am I to assume that FW is coming out with DE and Nids soon then?
Actually they've mentioned plans for a DE book, the project just hasn't come together yet.
Unless their goal is not to provide for all armies
Their stated goal is to do something for every army, but to do it right. They aren't going to rush out a DE vs. Tyranids book just so everyone can have an equal amount of models.
Furthermore, it is not just the change to 6th ed rules, it is the FAQs that FW put out concerning them that created broken units.
No, it's the 6th edition rule change. The FAQs did the bare minimum to translate the 4th/5th edition rules to 6th edition. The entire balance problem is caused by GW's idiotic decision to make the meatshield crew in artillery units count as T7. Take that away and the broken units go back to being mediocre like they were in 5th.
But even if we go with the GW rules being the only cause, how is that a reason to want to including units (additional to those in the core rules), that will routinely be broken when GW changes the rules?
You would have a point if GW units were any better. After all, this is the same GW that decided there was no need to re-price the Vendetta when it became a flyer.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:Breng77 wrote:I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)
And, again, total number of units is irrelevant. What matters is quality of units, and when you look at more than how many generic and never-used C: SM HQ choices FW has filled pages with the numbers are a lot more even. Non-Imperial armies get fewer units, but mostly because they don't get the pointless "fluff" units that nobody cares about anyway (unless they're trying to "prove" bias).
That's incorrect at worst and a lie at best. Please stop perpetuating it as it's been proven otherwise.
The fact that IG hobbyists get cool cargo loader Sentinels while Tau don't get a cargo loader battlesuit is really not relevant to this discussion.
Stop with the strawman. You're not trying to convince people to allow forge world models so you can play your list full of sentinel cargo loaders.
Also, all of the "broken" IG units are the result of GW changing the artillery rules in 6th. In 4th/5th edition, when the "broken" units were created, they were mediocre at best.
Error: Relevancy not found
Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:But even if we go with the GW rules being the only cause, how is that a reason to want to including units (additional to those in the core rules), that will routinely be broken when GW changes the rules?
You would have a point if GW units were any better. After all, this is the same GW that decided there was no need to re-price the Vendetta when it became a flyer.
It's easier to kill a Vendetta than a group of Thudd Guns.
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Peregrine wrote:Breng77 wrote:I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)
And, again, total number of units is irrelevant. What matters is quality of units, and when you look at more than how many generic and never-used C: SM HQ choices FW has filled pages with the numbers are a lot more even. Non-Imperial armies get fewer units, but mostly because they don't get the pointless "fluff" units that nobody cares about anyway (unless they're trying to "prove" bias).
Maybe to some it's the quality that matters. To me it's the fact that FW is very dedicated to some armies while fully ignoring others. We're talking about tournament play here. With the core set and codexes, the game is fully playable by all armies. What's being discussed here is taking a functioning system and adding models and rules from a different label that provides biased favoritism to some armies over the others. Bias and favoritism should be kept out of tournaments, not added. Yes, some armies only have 1 troop but the fact stands that every army has a codex with selections from every FO. Forgeworld does not.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:That's incorrect at worst and a lie at best. Please stop perpetuating it as it's been proven otherwise.
You know, it's funny, this supposed "proof" seems to consist of "quality doesn't matter, I just care about total numbers".
Stop with the strawman. You're not trying to convince people to allow forge world models so you can play your list full of sentinel cargo loaders.
Stop with the strawman. I never said allowing FW is all about getting to play with cargo loader Sentinels, I said that the supposed "bias" towards IG is the result of units like the cargo loader Sentinel: things that add to the "how many units IG get" total without actually being relevant to competitive play.
Error: Relevancy not found
The point is you can't use them as an example of how FW rules are somehow lower quality or poorly tested compared to GW. The overpowered FW units are overpowered because of GW's idiotic decisions about skyfire/interceptor and artillery in 6th edition's core rules, not because FW designed them that way.
It's easier to kill a Vendetta than a group of Thudd Guns.
So what? The point is you can't complain about how FW units could become overpowered at any time because of changes in the core rules when GW blatantly ignores codex units that get to be overpowered because of changes in the core rules. It's a ridiculous double standard. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, I know that some people prefer to look at total units instead of quality units because it's easier to see the "bias" they want to see as an excuse to ban FW. However, if you want a balanced tournament game then quality of units is what matters, not how many irrelevant cargo loader Sentinels each army gets.
What's being discussed here is taking a functioning system and adding models and rules from a different label that provides biased favoritism to some armies over the others.
No, what is being discussed here is taking a functioning system and removing models and rules from it. FW is already part of the game just like everything else, if you want to justify removing it (as opposed to just declaring your arbitrary house rule) then you need to show that it is actually damaging the game badly enough that it needs to be removed. Simply quoting how many irrelevant units each army gets without considering power levels is not providing that justification.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
hyv3mynd wrote: Peregrine wrote:Breng77 wrote:I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)
And, again, total number of units is irrelevant. What matters is quality of units, and when you look at more than how many generic and never-used C: SM HQ choices FW has filled pages with the numbers are a lot more even. Non-Imperial armies get fewer units, but mostly because they don't get the pointless "fluff" units that nobody cares about anyway (unless they're trying to "prove" bias).
Maybe to some it's the quality that matters. To me it's the fact that FW is very dedicated to some armies while fully ignoring others. We're talking about tournament play here. With the core set and codexes, the game is fully playable by all armies. What's being discussed here is taking a functioning system and adding models and rules from a different label that provides biased favoritism to some armies over the others. Bias and favoritism should be kept out of tournaments, not added. Yes, some armies only have 1 troop but the fact stands that every army has a codex with selections from every FO. Forgeworld does not.
GW wants players to use FW units, by producing rulesets and models that sems to be their intention. GW fall down on the ambivilent way they themselves mention their use within the 40k game.
Question. Should GW clarify the inroduction of FW rules would you then play?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
hyv3mynd wrote:
Maybe to some it's the quality that matters. To me it's the fact that FW is very dedicated to some armies while fully ignoring others. We're talking about tournament play here.
There is something not being mentioned in this analysis.
This game was not conceived of for, designed for, or intended for tournament play.
The design studio came right out and said as such at their Open Day event last year. Tournament play is done *in spite of* the ruleset, not facilitated by it. Hell, the general deployment and terrain rules can't functionally be used for most tournaments.
The big problem, more than anything else, with large events and FW, is that conventions/standards for the big events filter down to smaller events and very often to pickup and league play and ultimately affects much more than just those events.
With the core set and codexes, the game is fully playable by all armies.
Playable, yes. Able to evenly match each other? That's another story. Balanced? Hardly. That's not something most will argue.
What's being discussed here is taking a functioning system and adding models and rules from a different label that provides biased favoritism to some armies over the others. Bias and favoritism should be kept out of tournaments, not added.
You're addressing this as if there's some semblance of perfect balance and equal access that exists to be thrown off by the introduction of FW. This is not true, it only exists insofar as yes, each codex provides *some* HQ/Elites/Troops/ FA/ HS for each army with a current codex book, nonwithstanding that some things that have had books in the past no longer due and certain units have come and gone and come again., or that fundamentally these numbers vary drastically between books.
FW adds to some of those choices, but because they don't do it equally for everyone, despite the fact that the current system doesn't even remotely do so either aside from providing at least 1 unit in each slot for everyone, it's somehow not kosher?
Yes, some armies only have 1 troop but the fact stands that every army has a codex with selections from every FO. Forgeworld does not.
All FW does is add to those selections, whether they have equal numbers or any for all armies should be irrelevant, as nothing else in the game attempts to have equal numbers for all aside from providing at least *something* for each FoC slot (which FW simply adds additional choices for). If they all of a sudden all got added to the codex books, would you still be against them?
Ultimately, you keep referring back to this point...but fundamentally all you're saying is "because I don't get anything I like, I don't want to let you have it". Well, sorry, yes, not every one of the games 16(?) factions gets a ton of cool stuff from the botique range, just as some armies don't have models for all of their codex choices, some don't have plastics, many are Direct-Order only, some armies have half a dozen troops, some only have one, some get a dozen heavy support choices while some get three.
Danny Internets wrote:
Is there some kind of language barrier here of which I'm unaware? I do not nor have I ever claimed that this one example constitutes "factual evidence of brokenness." It does, however, demonstrate that evidence has, in fact, been presented.
I guess my apologies then, I guess I wasn't considering a statement by a poster about possibly having overheard some player in a team event that may have felt bad about some sort of setup involving FW units (as in the post you linked earlier) as...well, evidence. I guess it is if you're looking at the most literal and pedantic viewpoint it qualifies, but it's certainly not particularly strong evidence...
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Mr. Burning wrote: hyv3mynd wrote: Peregrine wrote:Breng77 wrote:I like how you get to pick which units FW puts out that actually matter but when GW puts them out, well that matters...Fact remains that GW favors imperials to a smaller extent than FW (45 to 25 in our example, vs FW 43 to 14)
And, again, total number of units is irrelevant. What matters is quality of units, and when you look at more than how many generic and never-used C: SM HQ choices FW has filled pages with the numbers are a lot more even. Non-Imperial armies get fewer units, but mostly because they don't get the pointless "fluff" units that nobody cares about anyway (unless they're trying to "prove" bias).
Maybe to some it's the quality that matters. To me it's the fact that FW is very dedicated to some armies while fully ignoring others. We're talking about tournament play here. With the core set and codexes, the game is fully playable by all armies. What's being discussed here is taking a functioning system and adding models and rules from a different label that provides biased favoritism to some armies over the others. Bias and favoritism should be kept out of tournaments, not added. Yes, some armies only have 1 troop but the fact stands that every army has a codex with selections from every FO. Forgeworld does not.
GW wants players to use FW units, by producing rulesets and models that sems to be their intention. GW fall down on the ambivilent way they themselves mention their use within the 40k game.
Question. Should GW clarify the inroduction of FW rules would you then play?
Clarity of rules is a non-issue.
We're playing 40k in tournaments which is not what the game is designed for, so we're already "breaking a rule" by doing something with their game that wasn't intended by design. The reason it works is every army has a codex with enough variety to build unique armies. A vast majority of tournaments don't allow FW despite being "official" because of reasons stated by MVB, Breng, and other TO's. Namely, it would effect their attendance in a negative fashion due to unfamiliarity of units, difficulty of finding current rules, overpowered/undercosted units, and a company bias towards IG and SM.
If your question is directed towards me, the only thing that would change my stance would be FW treating each and every army on a more equal footing with available units. Think of it this way:
Imagine having 100 people, each with entrance to a dinner buffet which offers 20 items. Now imagine that the buffet offers 40 items to people who wear green shirts. Everyone will not eat all 40 items, or even like them, but more people will start wearing green shirts because people like variety.
Introducing " 40k approved" items to every tournament everywhere would encourage more and more people to shift over to IG and SM because they get more options both competitively and for the hobbyists and fluff lovers. Diversity would suffer and we'd be making backward progress as IG become the overwhelmingly represented codex both for primary and allied detachments. You even have top tier competitive players in this very thread saying they would shift over to IG. "If you can't beat them, join them" mentality would gain popularity and guard vs guard games would become the norm.
The 40k universe needs bad guys. We need a diverse selection of opponents. The best way to do that (until all armies receive equal treatment) is to keep FW out of tournaments.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
hyv3mynd wrote:Imagine having 100 people, each with entrance to a dinner buffet which offers 20 items. Now imagine that the buffet offers 40 items to people who wear green shirts. Everyone will not eat all 40 items, or even like them, but more people will start wearing green shirts because people like variety.
Except that's a bad analogy. The correct analogy would be that if wearing a green shirt gave you a buffet of 40 items, 18 of which were spoiled milk, rotting meat, etc. Would you really insist that all 100 people have to go home hungry just because we can't let green shirt people have such an unfair advantage?
Introducing "40k approved" items to every tournament everywhere would encourage more and more people to shift over to IG and SM because they get more options both competitively and for the hobbyists and fluff lovers. Diversity would suffer and we'd be making backward progress as IG become the overwhelmingly represented codex both for primary and allied detachments. You even have top tier competitive players in this very thread saying they would shift over to IG. "If you can't beat them, join them" mentality would gain popularity and guard vs guard games would become the norm.
And coming from MTG this is just a joke. You don't make balance decisions for competitive games based on theory and speculation about what might happen, you base them on results. If you posted on a MTG forum arguing that WOTC ban a newly released card because you think it's going to be too powerful in tournaments you'd be laughed out of the forum. Why? Because WOTC understands that bans should only be used once there are consistent high-level tournament results to prove that a ban is needed and that the metagame can't adapt properly.
The best way to do that (until all armies receive equal treatment) is to keep FW out of tournaments.
Lol, no. The best way to do that is to re-write the rules from the beginning and then playtest them professionally. Banning FW is the lazy way to pretend that you're doing something productive without actually having to invest the effort required to do the job right. It's like congratulating yourself for fixing that leaking pipe while your house burns down around you.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Vaktathi wrote: RiTides wrote:Legal entity / not doesn't really matter to me (I agree that it's not). But it's treated as a separate division in all other respects, including maintaining their own rulesets, not selling their books in either GW or standard hobby stores, etc.
They could easily make it much more accessible... the fact that it's treated as a boutique item is entirely because they have set it up to be that way.
Entirely true, and I really wish they would, that seems to be the biggest stumbling block, though I also don't know who's decision it was to set it up that way
I added my quote that you were responding to here... just wanted to say that yours was an excellent, reasonable post! Glad to see that people on both "sides" can find common ground here
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
Peregrine wrote: hyv3mynd wrote:Imagine having 100 people, each with entrance to a dinner buffet which offers 20 items. Now imagine that the buffet offers 40 items to people who wear green shirts. Everyone will not eat all 40 items, or even like them, but more people will start wearing green shirts because people like variety.
Except that's a bad analogy. The correct analogy would be that if wearing a green shirt gave you a buffet of 40 items, 18 of which were spoiled milk, rotting meat, etc. Would you really insist that all 100 people have to go home hungry just because we can't let green shirt people have such an unfair advantage?
Introducing "40k approved" items to every tournament everywhere would encourage more and more people to shift over to IG and SM because they get more options both competitively and for the hobbyists and fluff lovers. Diversity would suffer and we'd be making backward progress as IG become the overwhelmingly represented codex both for primary and allied detachments. You even have top tier competitive players in this very thread saying they would shift over to IG. "If you can't beat them, join them" mentality would gain popularity and guard vs guard games would become the norm.
And coming from MTG this is just a joke. You don't make balance decisions for competitive games based on theory and speculation about what might happen, you base them on results. If you posted on a MTG forum arguing that WOTC ban a newly released card because you think it's going to be too powerful in tournaments you'd be laughed out of the forum. Why? Because WOTC understands that bans should only be used once there are consistent high-level tournament results to prove that a ban is needed and that the metagame can't adapt properly.
The best way to do that (until all armies receive equal treatment) is to keep FW out of tournaments.
Lol, no. The best way to do that is to re-write the rules from the beginning and then playtest them professionally. Banning FW is the lazy way to pretend that you're doing something productive without actually having to invest the effort required to do the job right. It's like congratulating yourself for fixing that leaking pipe while your house burns down around you.
You have a very interesting perspective that's pretty obviously driven by bias due to the armies you play.
I'm not making "people go hungry" or "denying their carrot" because everyone has a codex to play with and can build fully functioning tournament armies without FW inclusion.
If you want to base decisions on results, how about FW spam taking 2nd at WGC, the aforementioned Adepticon team dominating with thudd guns, and Chumbalaya mentioning how his acanthrite list ruined people day? Or the TO's who state with confidence that their tournament attendance would suffer with full " 40k approved" inclusion?
The house is not burning down. Tournaments are not dominated by broken codex units or flyers. Top finishers are diverse across the board now that we're a year past 6th ed release. The OT is "do we need FW in tournament play" and based on the results you want, the answer is "no". There isn't a single legitimate reason we NEED FW in tournament play, that the tournament scene will suffer without it.
256
Post by: Oaka
While I would prefer Forgeworld rules be allowed in tournaments, I understand they are still debatable. The one thing I hope all tournaments do is have a lenience when it comes to what Forgeworld models can 'counts-as'. Some of the models are awesome but simply don't look like a codex option.
44083
Post by: quiestdeus
We still have a long way to go if we're going to get more pages and replies than the chapterhouse lawsuit thread, I mean, um, come to a decision... so we should probably repeat these arguments a couple more times.
Vendettas and Necrons are overpowered so we should allow more overpowered units into events, just to be fair. But as we have no real evidence that anything is overpowered, we should ban all units from all events to ensure we only base our decisions on internet approved facts.
It is also definitely worth comparing 40k to MTG since they are essentially the same card-based-miniature game anyways, and their parent companies clearly have the same competitive/tournament-focused goal in mind for their products.
I know, I know, this all old hat. Instead, let us talk some more about how the fact that FW is an expansion ruleset renders all of this discussion moot. I mean, if GW and FW were the same entity then they clearly would just put the FW rules in the BRB and finally make FW legal.
I mean, all FW lists are easily replaceable by a standard codex list anyways... so I do not understand why people who want FW do not just use the cooler FW models as counts-as units in order to play standard 40k like the rest of us.
Taking a middle-ground approach where some FW is allowed, or actually just supporting events that are trying to include the entire FW line to help popularize and make it more mainstream would cause the world to end, so we better make sure we pick the right extreme to champion!
63000
Post by: Peregrine
hyv3mynd wrote:You have a very interesting perspective that's pretty obviously driven by bias due to the armies you play.
You're right, I don't like being told that I'm not welcome at an event because some third-party TO doesn't like my choice of army/units.
I'm not making "people go hungry" or "denying their carrot" because everyone has a codex to play with and can build fully functioning tournament armies without FW inclusion.
Except you are, because not everyone wants to build their armies under arbitrary house rules about what is legal. It's the same reason people hated comp-heavy events in 5th, if GW publishes something for the standard game you should be allowed to use it. I shouldn't be forced to buy a whole new codex-only army, just like you shouldn't be forced to buy a new army because I don't like your codex.
If you want to base decisions on results, how about FW spam taking 2nd at WGC, the aforementioned Adepticon team dominating with thudd guns, and Chumbalaya mentioning how his acanthrite list ruined people day? Or the TO's who state with confidence that their tournament attendance would suffer with full "40k approved" inclusion?
Yeah, I'm not impressed. That's one tournament where the "overpowered" list didn't win, one success, and one anecdote about how it wasn't "fun" (just like lots of anecdotes about how codex-only armies ruin days). If you tried to post this as justification for banning a card in MTG you'd be laughed off the forum.
There isn't a single legitimate reason we NEED FW in tournament play, that the tournament scene will suffer without it.
Other than playing the game by the rules as published by GW, you mean. But I guess it's easy to see the absence of a "need" if you define the tournament scene as only the people currently playing in major tournaments and don't count those of us who would like to play but are excluded by anti- FW policies.
PS: you don't NEED anything but C: SM to play tournaments.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:rigeld2 wrote:That's incorrect at worst and a lie at best. Please stop perpetuating it as it's been proven otherwise.
You know, it's funny, this supposed "proof" seems to consist of "quality doesn't matter, I just care about total numbers".
I thought including FW was about introducing variety?
Stop with the strawman. You're not trying to convince people to allow forge world models so you can play your list full of sentinel cargo loaders.
Stop with the strawman. I never said allowing FW is all about getting to play with cargo loader Sentinels, I said that the supposed "bias" towards IG is the result of units like the cargo loader Sentinel: things that add to the "how many units IG get" total without actually being relevant to competitive play.
Except that's not true. Calling the sub-optimal units "cargo loaders" is a massive exaggeration and you know it.
Error: Relevancy not found
The point is you can't use them as an example of how FW rules are somehow lower quality or poorly tested compared to GW. The overpowered FW units are overpowered because of GW's idiotic decisions about skyfire/interceptor and artillery in 6th edition's core rules, not because FW designed them that way.
Because it's completely not possible for FW to invent their own rules... they are required to only use GW rules.
FW is the one that gave those units the special rules they have. They are that way because FW designed them that way.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
RiTides wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:Enough with the "all armies have 2+ choices in each FOC" bovine gak; Templars and Sisters have one Troops Choice each. Xenos bias? No, it just means said armies don't get as many options as some others. Where's the outrage over how unfair that is? Why is diversity only seen as a bad thing when it's ForgeWorld?
Have you been living under a rock, there is tons of outrage over Sisters and Black Templars
And Black Templars are seemingly one of the next 2 codii that GW will put out, so that will be addressed!
The outrage hasn't been aimed at banning Codex: Imperial Guard or Codex: Space Marines due to them having too many options, because that's be insanely petty. Instead, the hopes has been aimed at bringing Templars and Sisters up to par. Why is the complete opposite true with ForgeWorld?
Templars as one of the next two Codices is only supported by a rumormonger with 50/50 accuracy and directly contradicts Hastings. It's possible, but improbable.
Bretonnia's army book is 9 years old (10 in February) whereas Codex: Black Templars is 7 years old (8 years old this November), being 2 months behind Wood Elves in age. The second-oldest Codex is Codex: Orks, which is 5 years old (6 in January). Dunno why I typed this out, seeing as it's irrelevant, but there it is.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
It's about including the entire game as published by GW, not just the units/armies that certain people favor.
Except that's not true. Calling the sub-optimal units "cargo loaders" is a massive exaggeration and you know it.
It's an exaggeration, but not much of one. The difference between the Lightning and cargo loader Sentinel is negligible in competitive play, nobody is going to use either of them unless they're deliberately sacrificing their chances of winning to play a "fluffy" list.
Because it's completely not possible for FW to invent their own rules... they are required to only use GW rules.
Of course FW is required to use GW's rules when you're talking about the core rules. That's the whole point of making new units for standard 40k, they're supposed to be compatible with the standard rules of the game. If GW decides that in 6th edition the "artillery" unit type will have X rules then what is FW supposed to do, add a whole page of rules explaining that their artillery units use completely different rules? If they did then everyone would just complain that FW stuff is too weird and different and will confuse everyone.
FW is the one that gave those units the special rules they have. They are that way because FW designed them that way.
Except it's not the unit-specific special rules that are the problem, it's the core rule changes to the artillery unit type. The only reason those units are overpowered is that 6th edition changed artillery units to always be T7 against shooting instead of randomly allocating hits and rolling against (usually) T3/AV10.
1478
Post by: warboss
RiTides wrote:Legal entity / not doesn't really matter to me (I agree that it's not). But it's treated as a separate division in all other respects, including maintaining their own rulesets, not selling their books in either GW or standard hobby stores, etc.
They could easily make it much more accessible... the fact that it's treated as a boutique item is entirely because they have set it up to be that way.
Indeed. Imperial Armour books have been out in the wild since before the 4th edition rulebook work got started. GW has *CHOSEN* for three full editions to make no mention of the legality/use of FW books. Until they do so, claims of "I can use this without your permission!" fall flat. I can and do use FW rules and products in regular 40k games; I just respect my opponents enough and both the spirit in all and the letter of most FW books to simply ask first. I've said that earlier in the thread but since a troll decides to reignite the flames apparently a few pages back, IMO it deserves restating.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 warboss wrote:GW has *CHOSEN* for three full editions to make no mention of the legality/use of FW books
Nope. GW has mentioned it many times, in every recent FW book.
1478
Post by: warboss
Peregrine wrote: warboss wrote:GW has *CHOSEN* for three full editions to make no mention of the legality/use of FW books
Nope. GW has mentioned it many times, in every recent FW book.
I think I've found the problem... it's reading comprehension. Next time, please read the entire post as I'm clearly referring to the 40k rulebooks.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
I believe it bares repeating the inevitable question... What major event has been won by a army with Forge World not including Adepticon? Wouldn't it be hilarious if Tony Kopache wins the NOVA Open with a cheesy Forge World army and why should anyone really care?
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:Because it's completely not possible for FW to invent their own rules... they are required to only use GW rules.
Of course FW is required to use GW's rules when you're talking about the core rules. That's the whole point of making new units for standard 40k, they're supposed to be compatible with the standard rules of the game. If GW decides that in 6th edition the "artillery" unit type will have X rules then what is FW supposed to do, add a whole page of rules explaining that their artillery units use completely different rules? If they did then everyone would just complain that FW stuff is too weird and different and will confuse everyone.
Immobile vehicles. The infantry models on the base are just there for looks.
Wow, that was a whole page of rules right there.
FW is the one that gave those units the special rules they have. They are that way because FW designed them that way.
Except it's not the unit-specific special rules that are the problem, it's the core rule changes to the artillery unit type. The only reason those units are overpowered is that 6th edition changed artillery units to always be T7 against shooting instead of randomly allocating hits and rolling against (usually) T3/AV10.
That's cool, you can ignore that you mentioned Interceptor/Skyfire and I was addressing that and throw random stuff like that at me.
195
Post by: Blackmoor
Dozer Blades wrote:I believe it bares repeating the inevitable question... What major event has been won by a army with Forge World not including Adepticon? Wouldn't it be hilarious if Tony Kopache wins the NOVA Open with a cheesy Forge World army and why should anyone really care?
It is very hard for any player with any list to win any major event, but I said several times that forge world IG armies have done disproportionally well at major GTs. There have been only a couple of heavy FW armies at the GTs that have allowed them so far, and they have all done well.
#1. A Forge World IG army won Kingdom Con GT
#2. Forge World armies battled it out before the final round of the Bay Area Open and the truly broken FW IG army lost in this round because the game only went 3 rounds. In the finals the Demon player won only because they had insanely good dice rolls (and this was at the height of the Tzeentch demon White Dwarf brokenness).
#3. A Forge World army almost won Wargames Con, but he had to play 2 games against the best player in the country and even after losing his last 3 games was so far ahead of the field that he still came in 3rd place.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Hey Blackmoor, is there somewhere we can see that truly broken FW IG list?
You've piqued my curiosity there.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
 Monster Rain wrote:Hey Blackmoor, is there somewhere we can see that truly broken FW IG list?
You've piqued my curiosity there.
Took me a while to find the report. since Blackmoor has not produced it.
http://punishers40k.blogspot.com/2013/03/bao-games-5-7.html
Lord Commissar
CCS
PCS
Platoon with various weapons
x5 Lascannon Sabre Platforms
x2 Medusa Artillery Batteries (Forgeworld)
x2 Basilisk Artillery Batteries (Forgeworld)
- Each had like 20 Crewmen
Vulture (Forgeworld)
RunePriest w/ Combi Melta
x9 Grey Hunters, melta, Pod
Defenseline w/ Comms Relay
Read the report , the terrible forge world list got eaten alive.....
By the way its 2/3 rds down the page. This quote is from the guy who played against the terrible list.... To be honest, this game was over before it started. i knew I could beat this list. Once my Beasts make it into combat with the little guys, his guns are toast.
I honestly do not understand why it was listed as an example of the terrible forge world scourge.
Found stuff on another event Black moor mentioned..This was his number one out of three.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/528483.page Not quite how Blackmoor described it but I also found this which may explain the whole thing..
Blackmoor wrote:I just canceled my plane ticket yesterday because I do not want to spend a lot of money to travel to a tournemant with Forge World.
Sure I can play IG and spend $800 to make 7 of my opponents miserable, but I rather just skip it.
I am still looking for the last monstrosity of forge world excess he was talking about.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
"It is very hard for any player with any list to win any major event, but I said several times that forge world IG armies have done disproportionally well at major GTs. There have been only a couple of heavy FW armies at the GTs that have allowed them so far, and they have all done well."
Could have - should have - would have.
Sorry but that is not good enough for the universal ban hammer you and others advocate. Forge World screws up the meta for you and that is the main reason why you don't like it and don't want to deal with it.
9594
Post by: RiTides
So AdeptiCon just doesn't count?
Biggest single event tourney in the country, right? You can't ignore the biggest example and demand examples in the same statement... Of course, all the other reasons stand regardless of the balance / FW bias issue. It's not the biggest reason for me, anyway... just one of many that point to "all out" FW allowance not being as enjoyable as limited FW allowance, for me personally.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
RiTides wrote:So AdeptiCon just doesn't count?
Biggest single event tourney in the country, right? You can't ignore the biggest example and demand examples in the same statement... Of course, all the other reasons stand regardless of the balance / FW bias issue. It's not the biggest reason for me, anyway... just one of many that point to "all out" FW allowance not being as enjoyable as limited FW allowance, for me personally.
In the big tourney is not Adepticon 0-1 for Forge World? Wow. overwhelmed, so no....
76791
Post by: ff5271
FW is owned indirectly or directly by GW. And the new Apoc book includes there stuff. I have them in my games to enhance the "blowing up" part. Besides, who cares who wins. If it were that serious then all your "buddys" would pony up a hundred bucks per game and split it amongst the winners. Money is the true indicator of seriousness.
27903
Post by: Leo_the_Rat
That's why the discussion is about Tournaments. In case you're not aware there are major prizes given out at some of them.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Mr. Tides I want you to know I am in complete agreement with you... I believe the choices for Forge World should be limited. I think this would go a long ways towards making it become more universally excepted and more accepted. Adepticon has allowed the use of Forge World for a long long time and is many ways the great grand father of 40k GTs... They have a lot of experience on their side and that I greatly respect. That is why I didn't include this particular multi event in my question.
If the main and true basis for the desire to impose the ban is to cull a more tightly controlled meta that is what I mainly oppose.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Edit: Ninja'ed by Dozer, I appreciate it . And yeah, I think meta/balance are the weakest argument regarding FW... not sure why I'm participating in it . I got sucked in!
To Needle: Yes, 0-1. For the record, I love 0-1 FW events. But if a FW including list wins even with that restriction, it's a point of evidence. If you want to discuss FW in major wins, that is an objective data point that should at least be considered.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
It's only one event out of many. That is not enough for me to be a good reason for the reasons I have given
9594
Post by: RiTides
Yeah, and I actually agree with you that balance isn't the biggest issue with FW (see edit above) so I think we're largely in agreement!
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
RiTides wrote:Edit: Ninja'ed by Dozer, I appreciate it . And yeah, I think meta/balance are the weakest argument regarding FW... not sure why I'm participating in it . I got sucked in!
To Needle: Yes, 0-1. For the record, I love 0-1 FW events. But if a FW including list wins even with that restriction, it's a point of evidence. If you want to discuss FW in major wins, that is an objective data point that should at least be considered.
Ok, I looked it up. The winning team used 3 Thudd guns with a Grey Knight Army. By some strange coincidence the same team won the same team tournament last year with a Grey Knight Army....
I can see how FW made a big difference, I stand corrected.....
2012 list --
HQ
Ordo Xenos Inquisitor – Psycotroke Grenades, Rad Grenades
Troops
3x Acolyte ( LP/ CCW), Razorback: Psybolts
3x Acolyte ( LP/ CCW), Razorback: Psybolts
6x Paladin: 2x Psycannon, 2x Sword, 2x Hammer, 2x Halberd
Elites
10x Purifiers: 2x Daemon Hammer, 2x Incinerator, 2x Psycannon, Rhino: Dozer Blade, Searchlight
Heavy Support
1x Dreadnought: 2x Autocannon, Psybolt ammo
HQ
Coteaz
Troops
3x Acolyte ( LP/ CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
3x Acolyte ( LP/ CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
5x Paladin: 2x Psycannon, 1x hammer, 2x sword, 2x halberd
Elites
10x Purifiers: 2x Daemon Hammer, 2x Incinerator, 2x Psycannon, 4x Halberd, Rhino: Dozer Blade, Searchlight
Heavy Support
1x Dreadnought: 2x Autocannon, Psybolt ammo
HQ
Ordo Malleus Inquisitor: Terminator Armor, Psycannon, 3x Servo Skull
Troops
3x Acolyte ( LP/ CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
3x Acolyte ( LP/ CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
5x Paladin: 2x Master Crafted Psycannon, 1x hammer, 2x sword, 2x halberd
Elites
10x Purifiers: 2x Daemon Hammer, 2x Incinerator, 2x Psycannon, 4x Halberd, Rhino: Dozer Blade, Searchlight
Heavy Support
1x Dreadnought: 2x Autocannon, Psybolt ammo
HQ
Draigo
Troops
3x Acolyte ( LP/ CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
3x Acolyte ( LP/ CCW), Razorback: Psybolts, Searchlight
5x Paladin: 2x Master Crafted Psycannon, 1x hammer, 2x sword, 2x halberd
Heavy Support
1x Dreadnought: 2x Autocannon, Psybolt ammo
1x Dreadnought: 2x Autocannon, Psybolt ammo
Where are the Thudd guns? It had to be how they win...
8311
Post by: Target
Pleeeaaaasseee stop using us as an example, both sides. Our team did not win or lose based on thudd guns, as I mentioned on like...page less than 10 of this thread. Hell, they were in my army of the team tournament, and I think I dropped more points then anyone on our team this year, and dropped the least of anyone on our team the year before. Games are way too complex to be boiled down to 150 points of artillery.
That being said, Thudd guns are busted, they're the bearer of indirect consequences due to the edition change to artillery, and are far, far too good for what you pay - on a scale far different than even a heldrake. If they were 1 per slot, or costed 50-100% more, or many other things, they'd be okay. But they're not. But one unit is neither here nor there in this absurd debate. Just like comp, tournament formats, and all of the other major variables we've seen over time/still see, different events do things differently and that's okay. Attend what you like, don't attend what you don't, and stop trying to make everyone else conform just because you're too stubborn to be wrong on the internet - all it does is hurt the community and cause silly drama for absolutely no reason. If there's no Pro-FW events in your area to attend, do something positive and help build one - nothing you do on dakka will impact your local or even regional scene in the slightest.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Man, I thought we won cause of the Thudd Guns....I am disappoint..
9594
Post by: RiTides
Target wrote:as I mentioned on like...page less than 10 of this thread.
You're right, you squeaked in at the bottom of page 9
And agreed with your points! I do think it's an interesting data point, which is why I brought it up in the first place (actually on page 1 of this thread  ). But I also think that balance is the weakest argument for/against FW... it was just interesting more than anything, given the timing
The real question is, can you go for the 3-peat!!
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
warboss wrote: Peregrine wrote: warboss wrote:GW has *CHOSEN* for three full editions to make no mention of the legality/use of FW books
Nope. GW has mentioned it many times, in every recent FW book.
I think I've found the problem... it's reading comprehension. Next time, please read the entire post as I'm clearly referring to the 40k rulebooks.
So an expansion is released which clearly states that it is legal, but you're ignoring it because OTHER publications make no mention of it's legality??? Nowhere in any GW rulebook does it say Farsight Enclaves are legal - except in the Farsight Enclaves book. Why are Farsight Enclaves allowed but FW disallowed? quiestdeus wrote:I know, I know, this all old hat. Instead, let us talk some more about how the fact that FW is an expansion ruleset renders all of this discussion moot. I mean, if GW and FW were the same entity then they clearly would just put the FW rules in the BRB and finally make FW legal.
Again, Farsight Enclaves and Iyanden are certainly 'expansions' - do you consider these illegal for tournament play? What about additional units released in WD, or as digital downloads (sorry, Orks, no Dakkajets for you). All of these are 'expansions'.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:Immobile vehicles. The infantry models on the base are just there for looks.
Wow, that was a whole page of rules right there.
And that is really bad game design. You'd have a unit that was artillery in the previous edition, has guns and crew models, and pretty much looks exactly identical to other artillery units. But somehow it's actually a vehicle model with a bunch of decorative crew models next to it. And why does it work that way? Because of power level concerns. It's completely arbitrary and counter-intuitive, and if FW had done it that way I'm sure people would have complained about how rules like that are so confusing and we shouldn't allow them in tournaments where people won't be familiar with them.
That's cool, you can ignore that you mentioned Interceptor/Skyfire and I was addressing that and throw random stuff like that at me.
Whichever specific rule you're addressing it's still the same. The problem (smaller than the artillery rules, but still a problem) with interceptor Sabre guns only exists because of GW's idiotic decision to combine "may shoot at ground targets" and "gets a free shot at units arriving from reserve" into a single USR instead of splitting them into separate rules like anyone who isn't an idiot would have done. The result is that FW has to give out interceptor so they can still have the ability to shoot at ground targets like they used to.
(And yes, now we have the example of Tau-style optional skyfire, but I suspect that when they were trying to get the updated rules published asap nobody had come up with that idea yet.) Automatically Appended Next Post: warboss wrote:I think I've found the problem... it's reading comprehension. Next time, please read the entire post as I'm clearly referring to the 40k rulebooks.
Sorry, I didn't know that " GW doesn't mention it" was supposed to be " GW doesn't do things exactly the way I want them to".
9594
Post by: RiTides
Annnd FW just announced IA: Apocalypse... which sounds like it will have a mix of tanks, creatures, etc for various races... and, despite the title, some marked for Apocalypse only, and some for 40k
13473
Post by: carlosthecraven
Hi
As the Captain of the other team in the Final Round of the Team Tournament - I'll echo Target - please stopping using that as the example. We got outplayed in the last round, regardless of the presence of Thudd Guns on one of the two tables. They earned the title, and somehow managed to it without the Thudds in 50% of their games. 
With that being said, both teams recognize how good Thudd Guns are thanks to the shift to 6th edition. My only regret is that we didn't have a guard player in the mix to have them ourselves.
(since I only drop in every 15 pages or so, my position: slight preference to no forgeworld if given the option of two events on the same day, one with, one without; however, yes to forgeworld isn't a deal-breaker; when I used to organize tourneys, I said no, mostly because limited access to rules leading to a bad day for unsuspecting players. I will add I don't know why the pro-Forgeworld camp isn't pushing for army list inclusion. EDIT: (I forgot to add) I also respect tourney organizers right to make the decision they feel is best for their event/local players).
Also, just to lighten things up a little, here is a pic of the Mega and Meka Dreads I took to Astronomi-con Toronto playing my Dreadmob ( IA 8). Things didn't go real well thanks to only having one scoring unit of 15 boys, but it was a blast:
Cheers,
Nate
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Well said Nate. And those look awesome!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:(And yes, now we have the example of Tau-style optional skyfire, but I suspect that when they were trying to get the updated rules published asap nobody had come up with that idea yet.)
You mean other than the fact that Flyers have optional Skyfire? Oh, but that's not in the base rule boo.... oops.
And your point to the Thudd guns - rules change with editions. How is it more confusing to be an immobile vehicle with decorative dudes than to suddenly ramp up in power?
And again - it's not a page of rules. Please stop shifting the bar.
464
Post by: muwhe
Man this thread is like a bad rash that won’t go away without the fun involved in getting the rash!
@Nate - My reasons are pretty straight forward. To include the FW army lists it requires an additional layer of overhead above and beyond what we do currently at AdeptiCon to include FW units. Given only a small percentage of the players would use them the potential resources involved to include them is problematic.
The issue being that when a Forgeworld Army List gets released, eventually down the road units in that army list get updated, but the army list does not always get updates or sometimes AdeptiCon falls such that we are between an updates etc. So when an Army list has units X,Y, Z and provides rules and points for them. Eventually down the road the most current rules for unit X is in a separate book with slightly different rules and points, unit Y is in another book again with tweaked rules, etc ..
Leaving you with two choices:
1. Have the army lists play as written, with the rules and points presented for the units in that army list.
2. Create some sort of cross reference matrix for each army list for the current rules.
Very often we look at the Forgeworld Army lists and some of them could be included with little additional effort but there is always a number of them that are problematic depending on the game cycle and year.
All that said, some years the AdeptiCon Gladiator has allowed a few of them.
@Thread in general - I also feel the need to point out that as the digital products continue to develop, the problem of availability and how do we know we are using the current rules or how do we all know everyone is using the same rules is going to move from being mostly a Forgeworld issue to being a Games Workshop one.
Some of these digital products have been updated 3 or 4 times already meaning that you in some cases you could have 3 or more potentially different versions of the electronic book in the hall. Who is the gate keeper of making sure everyone is using the most updated version? Who is the gate keeper of what changes are being made to the electronic versions, the differences to the printed version, and FAQ documents? Are Epub files going to be updated in the same manner as the IBooks. What do we do when products are only available digitally and not in print?
It is a lot different from the document of record being the printed codex. To be fair we even had some issues with those and stealth reprints of army books making changes. ( Chaos and Necron books come to mind .. )
The future with digital releases is bright, I certainly have been pushing for it for a long time and we absolutely need to embrace it but comes at some costs and some definite trade-offs that the tourney community is going to have to address. Given how flexible and accommodating we all are .. that should not be a problem. : )
8305
Post by: Daba
Forge World rules break a load of 'unwritten rules' in 40k, are really inconsistent with the mainstream 40k armies equivalents, have a load of unfun units that use out of date concepts and even the new 'updated' stuff is stuck in 5th edition.
I would give a blanket 'no' for the time being, at least until they do a proper rules overhaul (and maybe get some new rules writers in who don't only play Guard).
20392
Post by: Farseer Faenyin
I really don't understand the whole 'buy to win' concept of FW. The same people that bought 2-3 Helldrakes could have bought the same cost in OP FW units and had the same effective win % at their respective type of tournaments.
I know plenty of 'I love to win, the game and fluff is irrelevant' players that feel the need to buy into and play one of the top two tournament lists available and burn as much money, if not more, on those armies as anybody who adds FW to their established armies of choice.
FW units allow armies that currently don't compete at a level equal to the top three to find more parity. FW has shown that those 'OMG you brought THAT FW model' units some people cling to will more than likely get fixed (Lucius Dreadnaught Droppod being a solid example).
While I do agree with arguements that FW rules are harder to come by and prepare for than GW Codex units, I don't think that matters. Irregardless of planning, each player should be presented with their opponents list to look at and understand before the match. This allows for tactical changes in how you play the game, and gives players the same advantage without having to study the meta environment. The only thing this hurts are the players that feel the need to know all rules that could affect their decisions and heavily research, and counter if necessary, prior to the tournament(Sorry, couldn't give two shakes for these people anyways...just my two cents).
The third main arguement is power level. I'd love to see a summary of army lists brought to FW and non-FW tournaments and those that score in the top 3. I'd imagine there is no large jump in army domination due to these FW models being so much more powerful...more than likely the 'power' acquired from these units is more linked to some players not playing against them as often or at all.
Quick summary. I've never played against a Vindicare Assassin in 6th Edition...I'm guessing I shouldn't know anything about it and be in uproar if somebody brought it to the table and sniped the key to my army with it? No...I'd suck it up and move on...just as I feel the non-FW people should do.
13473
Post by: carlosthecraven
Hi
@ Hulksmash - thanks!
@ Muhwe - I understand why Adepticon makes the decision it does (and I agree with it and, more importantly, respect your decision to draw it where you feel is best for your event.).
What I don't understand why those who argue "I must have forgeworld units because it is a legit GW product" don't also argue that "I must have forgeworld lists because they are printed in a legit GW product." It strikes me as odd to want one but not necessarily the other...
Cheers,
Nate
28365
Post by: OverwatchCNC
 Farseer Faenyin wrote:I really don't understand the whole 'buy to win' concept of FW. The same people that bought 2-3 Helldrakes could have bought the same cost in OP FW units and had the same effective win % at their respective type of tournaments.
I know plenty of 'I love to win, the game and fluff is irrelevant' players that feel the need to buy into and play one of the top two tournament lists available and burn as much money, if not more, on those armies as anybody who adds FW to their established armies of choice.
FW units allow armies that currently don't compete at a level equal to the top three to find more parity. FW has shown that those 'OMG you brought THAT FW model' units some people cling to will more than likely get fixed (Lucius Dreadnaught Droppod being a solid example).
While I do agree with arguements that FW rules are harder to come by and prepare for than GW Codex units, I don't think that matters. Irregardless of planning, each player should be presented with their opponents list to look at and understand before the match. This allows for tactical changes in how you play the game, and gives players the same advantage without having to study the meta environment. The only thing this hurts are the players that feel the need to know all rules that could affect their decisions and heavily research, and counter if necessary, prior to the tournament(Sorry, couldn't give two shakes for these people anyways...just my two cents).
The third main arguement is power level. I'd love to see a summary of army lists brought to FW and non- FW tournaments and those that score in the top 3. I'd imagine there is no large jump in army domination due to these FW models being so much more powerful...more than likely the 'power' acquired from these units is more linked to some players not playing against them as often or at all.
Quick summary. I've never played against a Vindicare Assassin in 6th Edition...I'm guessing I shouldn't know anything about it and be in uproar if somebody brought it to the table and sniped the key to my army with it? No...I'd suck it up and move on...just as I feel the non- FW people should do.
Do people in this thread in the tournament section buy units to lose?
However while players should be presented with a list before the match adding in FW to the lists will lengthen the amount of pre game unit explanation necessary. In an edition of the game that already has too much time consuming pre game steps this causes a problem with timed tournament rounds. FW shouldn't be used simply for the complexity it adds and the time it adds to games in a timed environment. No matter what Peregrine says the inclusion of FW does add a significant amount of time to a match, even if it is one unit and adds only 5 minutes of explanation time spread throuout a match those 5 minutes could be the difference between a win and a loss. If the FW rules were as available and clear as to what is most recent as GW codices then I would say the time constraints would be less of an issue.
Irregardless isn't a word.
464
Post by: muwhe
@Nate - Ah, I misread your post. : )
I imagine it is rooted in the earlier books. Some of the Forgeworld Army Lists had a disclaimer with them that they were for "fun and might not be fair". So it was clear the intention of the lists to be used for theme and campaign sort of games not standard 40k.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 carlosthecraven wrote:
What I don't understand why those who argue "I must have forgeworld units because it is a legit GW product" don't also argue that "I must have forgeworld lists because they are printed in a legit GW product." It strikes me as odd to want one but not necessarily the other...
Cheers,
Nate
Dunno what thread you've been reading, because we do (you might especially want to look up Peregrine's posts, seeing as he plays a ForgeWorld army). I personally don't care about the ForgeWorld lists as I don't play them, but they ought to be just as legal as any other army list.
50463
Post by: Eldercaveman
 Daba wrote:Forge World rules break a load of 'unwritten rules' in 40k, are really inconsistent with the mainstream 40k armies equivalents, have a load of unfun units that use out of date concepts and even the new 'updated' stuff is stuck in 5th edition.
I would give a blanket 'no' for the time being, at least until they do a proper rules overhaul (and maybe get some new rules writers in who don't only play Guard).
Would you care to elaborate on some of these points? With some examples perhaps?
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
NEWS FLASH - Forge World is not auto win GTs. There is no unit that good.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:You mean other than the fact that Flyers have optional Skyfire? Oh, but that's not in the base rule boo.... oops.
Sure, flyers were there already, but GW's design intent (as of when 6th was first released) was that the way to let an AA unit shoot at ground targets at full BS was the Interceptor USR.
And your point to the Thudd guns - rules change with editions. How is it more confusing to be an immobile vehicle with decorative dudes than to suddenly ramp up in power?
It's more confusing because power level isn't confusing. If Vendettas were suddenly a 10 point model everyone would still know how they function. They'd be unbelievably overpowered, but they'd still be a straightforward transport flyer with 3x TL LCs. On the other hand, if Rhinos in one codex were suddenly infantry models with a special rule that let them 'transport' other infantry models everyone would be confused because you don't expect an obvious vehicle model to somehow have infantry rules. It's the same with artillery, if you see a unit with towed guns and crew models you expect it to be an artillery unit.
Also, are you outraged that GW allowed the ork artillery unit to suddenly increase in power? Or is it only FW units that have to remain weak just to be sure? When you answer this keep in mind that it took the tournament crowd months to figure out that thudd guns were no longer the mediocre unit they used to be, despite having way more time and playtesting games than GW/ FW could ever do.
And again - it's not a page of rules. Please stop shifting the bar.
Only if you want to be guilty of really bad design and do it your proposed way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 OverwatchCNC wrote:No matter what Peregrine says the inclusion of FW does add a significant amount of time to a match, even if it is one unit and adds only 5 minutes of explanation time spread throuout a match those 5 minutes could be the difference between a win and a loss.
If five minutes is enough to frequently make a difference in the outcome of a game then you seriously need to extend the round time and/or play at a smaller point level. Games should usually finish with a comfortable margin of error, not consistently run to the very end of the time limit so you can play the biggest possible game.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Peregrine wrote:rigeld2 wrote:You mean other than the fact that Flyers have optional Skyfire? Oh, but that's not in the base rule boo.... oops.
Sure, flyers were there already, but GW's design intent (as of when 6th was first released) was that the way to let an AA unit shoot at ground targets at full BS was the Interceptor USR.
"The only way to do it would be super sekrit special confusing rules." "Except for the example in the base rules." "Well yeah but they couldn't use those for reasons!"
And your point to the Thudd guns - rules change with editions. How is it more confusing to be an immobile vehicle with decorative dudes than to suddenly ramp up in power?
It's more confusing because power level isn't confusing. If Vendettas were suddenly a 10 point model everyone would still know how they function. They'd be unbelievably overpowered, but they'd still be a straightforward transport flyer with 3x TL LCs. On the other hand, if Rhinos in one codex were suddenly infantry models with a special rule that let them 'transport' other infantry models everyone would be confused because you don't expect an obvious vehicle model to somehow have infantry rules. It's the same with artillery, if you see a unit with towed guns and crew models you expect it to be an artillery unit.
Also, are you outraged that GW allowed the ork artillery unit to suddenly increase in power? Or is it only FW units that have to remain weak just to be sure? When you answer this keep in mind that it took the tournament crowd months to figure out that thudd guns were no longer the mediocre unit they used to be, despite having way more time and playtesting games than GW/ FW could ever do.
I'm not outraged that Thudd guns went up in power - you're reading way too much into this.
And yes - it's frustrating that they jumped in power so much. And why did it take so long when people noticed basically day 1 that TFCs got significantly better?
And again - it's not a page of rules. Please stop shifting the bar.
Only if you want to be guilty of really bad design and do it your proposed way.
They were immobile vehicles with special rules before. They're immobile vehicles with special rules after.
Holy crap that's a huge change and poor design. Throw that right out.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
rigeld2 wrote:
They were immobile vehicles with special rules before. They're immobile vehicles with special rules after.
Holy crap that's a huge change and poor design. Throw that right out.
When every other similar immobile vehicle turned into something else it'd be pretty bad design to leave one with the old rules, and exactly the sort of thing that GW (rightly) has recieved flak for previously. Just look at the Dreadknight and Riptide; they really have no business being Monstrous Creatures and yet they are, which people aren't super-happy about.
9594
Post by: RiTides
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Dunno what thread you've been reading, because we do (you might especially want to look up Peregrine's posts, seeing as he plays a ForgeWorld army). I personally don't care about the ForgeWorld lists as I don't play them, but they ought to be just as legal as any other army list.
Really, just as a blanket statement for any event? Did you see muwhe's post?
muwhe wrote:I imagine it is rooted in the earlier books. Some of the Forgeworld Army Lists had a disclaimer with them that they were for "fun and might not be fair". So it was clear the intention of the lists to be used for theme and campaign sort of games not standard 40k.
And perhaps even much more importantly:
muwhe wrote:@Nate - My reasons are pretty straight forward. To include the FW army lists it requires an additional layer of overhead above and beyond what we do currently at AdeptiCon to include FW units. Given only a small percentage of the players would use them the potential resources involved to include them is problematic.
The issue being that when a Forgeworld Army List gets released, eventually down the road units in that army list get updated, but the army list does not always get updates or sometimes AdeptiCon falls such that we are between an updates etc. So when an Army list has units X,Y, Z and provides rules and points for them. Eventually down the road the most current rules for unit X is in a separate book with slightly different rules and points, unit Y is in another book again with tweaked rules, etc ..
Leaving you with two choices:
1. Have the army lists play as written, with the rules and points presented for the units in that army list.
2. Create some sort of cross reference matrix for each army list for the current rules.
Very often we look at the Forgeworld Army lists and some of them could be included with little additional effort but there is always a number of them that are problematic depending on the game cycle and year.
All that said, some years the AdeptiCon Gladiator has allowed a few of them.
This is a good enough explanation for me, despite the fact that FW army lists are what I'd be most interested in seeing! Perhaps they would be suitable for other events (like the Gladiator, as muwhe mentions) but not full inclusion for all FW army lists in all events. If their disclaimer is to be believed, some were not ever intended for such, anyway, and they actually wrote down / said as much in the book!
Finally, this really gave me a chuckle:
muwhe wrote:The future with digital releases is bright, I certainly have been pushing for it for a long time and we absolutely need to embrace it but comes at some costs and some definite trade-offs that the tourney community is going to have to address. Given how flexible and accommodating we all are .. that should not be a problem. : )
Well said
Also, really cool Mega / Meka dreads on the last page, carlosthecraven!!
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Well I could cherry pick parts of quotes and change from past to present in mid sentence but I.m going to keep it simple, and honest....
I run an Elysian Drop Troops Army list. Its 40K Approved.
It has NO disclaimer or statement from an Apocalypse book 3 editions back pertaining to Titans and Super Heavy Vehicles about being fun and might not be fair.....You might as well apply that kind of foolishness by saying the current Necron Codex has the same relationship to another out of date book for a different game. It would be just as foolish and misleading.
My Elysian Drop Troops Army list rules are the 6th Edition Basic Rule Book, the current Imperial Guard Codex and the Taros Companion rules for Elysian Drop Troops in the IA Vol 3 Second edition printed in this year. There is no confusion over it, no mystery to which book. The newest rules for something always overrides the older, just like I quit using my old IG Codex when the newest came out.
The main difference between My Elysian list and the newest Tau stuff is you do not need batteries and an electronic device to read it, both are approved for 40K.
The other difference of course in none of the Tournaments will allow my list in their main events...even with the 40K stamp on it.
It's their events, as I have always said.
I could always run a 9 Vendetta list since the purpose has changed from have a good time to win at all cost at most of the main events for the tournaments. That they would allow...
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:I could always run a 9 Vendetta list since the purpose has changed from have a good time to win at all cost at most of the main events for the tournaments. That they would allow...
If you think 9 Vendetta lists are competitively viable (never mind overpowered) then I'm forced to wonder if you've ever even *been* to a tournament.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Danny Internets wrote: NeedleOfInquiry wrote:I could always run a 9 Vendetta list since the purpose has changed from have a good time to win at all cost at most of the main events for the tournaments. That they would allow...
If you think 9 Vendetta lists are competitively viable (never mind overpowered) then I'm forced to wonder if you've ever even *been* to a tournament.
Le t me be more explicit .I do not claim it is "competitive. It would also not be a fun list to play against. My point was the rules for regular 40 k allow it and the list would be perfectly OK for any main event at any on the tournaments while my Elysian list would not make it in the door.
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Le t me be more explicit .I do not claim it is "competitive. It would also not be a fun list to play against.
So by calling a list "win at all costs" you weren't claiming it was designed to win? Okay...
My point was the rules for regular 40 k allow it and the list would be perfectly OK for any main event at any on the tournaments while my Elysian list would not make it in the door.
So you acknowledge that FW rules fall outside the scope of "regular 40 k." Why is it then such a mystery that people oppose the inclusion of non-regular rules in tournaments? You yourself just pointed out a key difference between the two types of lists.
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Wow you're really trolling hard now Danny. Why don't you give it up? It's obvious he's not going to take your bait.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
Danny Internets wrote: NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Le t me be more explicit .I do not claim it is "competitive. It would also not be a fun list to play against.
So by calling a list "win at all costs" you weren't claiming it was designed to win? Okay...
My point was the rules for regular 40 k allow it and the list would be perfectly OK for any main event at any on the tournaments while my Elysian list would not make it in the door.
So you acknowledge that FW rules fall outside the scope of "regular" 40 k.
" Why is it then such a mystery that people oppose the inclusion of non-regular rules in tournaments? You yourself just pointed out a key difference between the two types of lists.
Just got back... So you acknowledge that FW rules fall outside the scope of "regular 40 k.
Not at all, what i meant was that people who like to use terms like "community rabble" to describe the majority of 40k players would be apposed to letting an Elysian list in.
Why is it then such a mystery that people oppose the inclusion of non-regular rules in tournaments
The mystery is why you think they are "non-regular" It says 40K Approved on it.
You yourself just pointed out a key difference between the two types of lists.
No, I just pointed out a difference between the mindset of tournaments designed for a win at all costs vs getting together to play a game and how the first is affecting the second. The professional tournament players are the tail wagging the 40k dog. As rules are set down in tournaments so do they flow down to FLGS and that affects folks who might, or might not decide to start playing 40K, and we need more players.
There are two kinds of players in 40K, those who spend an immense amount of their time in tournaments and those who do not jet to each and every tournament in America and know all the Tournament winners by first name. A small amount of the first group has let it get to their heads. You can spot them. They use terms like community rabble in forums..... , they base everything off of how many tournaments one has gone to that month... and so on. They are giants in their own minds...Then there are other like Mr Bryant whom I may disagree with on the forum about the 40K approved stuff but has distinguished himself by calmly presenting his views without insults and even injecting humor into it. If you read this Mr Bryant I wish you the best on your Tournaments.
I am opinionated, no doubt about it but the only time I have ever used the terms like rabble etc.... is when I have quoted someone else in the forums....whom I disagreed with. I can do a search for community rabble on the forums . It comes up more than once...
It's a game, most go to have fun, not too many I am aware of are building their lives around it.... We need to remember its the new players coming in who will keep this game alive.
Some think using 40K approved will scare new players off.
I think it's the attitude displayed and encouraged by the Win at all costs that will do it...
Forge World models and lists are attractive to new players. 40K approved is set up so they can use those models they have brought. How many do we lose when they find out that despite what the makers of the game say they can not bring their army into their first tournament because they do not like them.....
Remember, for everyone of us posting on these forums there are tens , if not hundreds more who never get a forum account and protest. They may never make it to a tournament. They just sell their models and move on to something else...
I suggest we remember that. Game Workshops/Forge World will never stay in business if their sole customers are folks who go to tournaments... There are a lot more folks out there.
So I suggest we loosen up. We at least need to lighten up.. If I have hurt anyone's feelings, I have not meant to. I hope all of use have the games long term interests at heart.
9594
Post by: RiTides
Needle, the term "rabble" came up over 25 pages ago and was instantly denounced by everybody! No need to stir the pot with terms like that (or, as we previously discussed, the opposite such as "elitism") in this discussion, imo.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:"The only way to do it would be super sekrit special confusing rules." "Except for the example in the base rules." "Well yeah but they couldn't use those for reasons!"
I never said the AA fix would involve confusing rules, that was about the artillery units. The problem with skyfire/interceptor comes from the fact that at the time the rules were published the Tau codex didn't exist yet and GW's current design intent was that the Interceptor USR was the way to let AA units fire at ground targets at full BS. FW's AA units just follow that precedent.
And why did it take so long when people noticed basically day 1 that TFCs got significantly better?
I have no idea why, but it did. And when 6th was first released thudd guns were an elites choice even. But somehow the tournament crowd didn't say a word about how overpowered they were until someone happened to do well in a major tournament with them, and suddenly they were the end of the world.
Anyway, the point here is that the tournament community has a lot more people and a total of a lot more playtesting time than GW/ FW. If the tournament community can't spot the balance issues with thudd guns until months after they were released and then slightly nerfed then it's unreasonable to expect FW to be so worried about their power level that they don't use the natural unit type that everyone expects them to have.
They were immobile vehicles with special rules before. They're immobile vehicles with special rules after.
No, they were artillery before. Artillery were their own unit type with their own rules in the core rulebook. And so the natural expectation is that they continue to be artillery.
8305
Post by: Daba
Eldercaveman wrote: Daba wrote:Forge World rules break a load of 'unwritten rules' in 40k, are really inconsistent with the mainstream 40k armies equivalents, have a load of unfun units that use out of date concepts and even the new 'updated' stuff is stuck in 5th edition.
I would give a blanket 'no' for the time being, at least until they do a proper rules overhaul (and maybe get some new rules writers in who don't only play Guard).
Would you care to elaborate on some of these points? With some examples perhaps?
This is not about power level, but what they do to the game. They could be overcosted and even bad, but are incredibly unfun. This isn't an extensive list, but just what comes to mind.
Assault Vehicle Drop Pods: This is basically a 'free' way of getting into assault that is specifically being clamped down on in 6th. It reduces the interaction of movement and feels horrible to be on the receiving end. Even if it is 'balanced' with points, this is something that simply should not exist in the game, and the function should be changed.
Vehicles immune to Lance and Melta: These are old concepts that are rare in the current edition. It basically takes specialist weapons designed for a purpose and poo-poos in their face. Even if the vehicle is overcosted and bad, the reason it exists seems more like a 'feth you' than a legitimate game reason, and fluff behind it seems tacked on for a gaming advantage. These 'counter-counters' shouldn't be in the game, and they have been slowly removed in mainstream 40k by GW (the SR still has is from Death from the Skies, but it remains to be seen if this changes in Codex: SM in september).
Wraithseer powers: 6th edition, apart from some squad upgrade guys (and even some of them obey it) use random tables for psykers and their powers, and are generated from a list based on mastery. Why is the Wraithseer stuck in 5th edition with it's set powers? It seems like the designer was married to those powers; if so, why not make them a random table, and recost the Wraithseer? Maybe because it takes effort? This one stinks of laziness and/or being overly nostalgic to 5th edition.
Warp Hunter weapon: This weapon flies in the face of the other Distort weapons that GW have made. It basically shares none of the common features every single one of the other weapons have apart from the 'distort' special rule, which isn't the only thing that ties the weapons together. The way they've done is as if a Contemptor Dreadnaught's Lascannons were different to normal, and behaved exactly like twin-linked Multilasers. Mind-boggling and random.
And these are the ones that I could think of right now; I don't have access to many of the books but I'm sure there are a plethora of other mistakes and problems in them.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Daba wrote:Assault Vehicle Drop Pods: This is basically a 'free' way of getting into assault that is specifically being clamped down on in 6th. It reduces the interaction of movement and feels horrible to be on the receiving end. Even if it is 'balanced' with points, this is something that simply should not exist in the game, and the function should be changed.
Apparently no longer exists as of the new IA Apocalypse book. This is a 5th edition relic that is going away in the first 6th edition book to include the dread pod.
These 'counter-counters' shouldn't be in the game, and they have been slowly removed in mainstream 40k by GW (the SR still has is from Death from the Skies, but it remains to be seen if this changes in Codex:SM in september).
You have a strange definition of "removed" if it includes printing new units with the rule. There's no reason to believe that the Stormraven's rules will change in the foreseeable future, and since DftS is a 6th edition book GW clearly supports having melta immunity as part of the game.
And let's not forget that the Avatar, in the most recent codex, still has its traditional melta immunity that goes beyond what the FW tanks get.
Why is the Wraithseer stuck in 5th edition with it's set powers?
Because the new Eldar codex and its psychic powers table wasn't out yet when the Wraithseer's rules were updated for 6th.
Warp Hunter weapon: This weapon flies in the face of the other Distort weapons that GW have made. It basically shares none of the common features every single one of the other weapons have apart from the 'distort' special rule, which isn't the only thing that ties the weapons together.
You realize that you're talking about a unit from before the current Eldar codex, right? When the Warp Hunter's rules were published its gun worked just like other distort weapons. The only reason it's different is that it hasn't been updated to match the new codex yet.
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
Dozer Blades wrote:Wow you're really trolling hard now Danny. Why don't you give it up? It's obvious he's not going to take your bait.
If you really insist on being a douchebag, please feel free to send me a PM. Otherwise, kindly shut up.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Oooh, the e-peens are out.
I'm glad I stayed subscribed to this thread.
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:There are two kinds of players in 40K, those who spend an immense amount of their time in tournaments and those who do not jet to each and every tournament in America and know all the Tournament winners by first name. A small amount of the first group has let it get to their heads. You can spot them. They use terms like community rabble in forums..... , they base everything off of how many tournaments one has gone to that month... and so on. They are giants in their own minds...Then there are other like Mr Bryant whom I may disagree with on the forum about the 40K approved stuff but has distinguished himself by calmly presenting his views without insults and even injecting humor into it. If you read this Mr Bryant I wish you the best on your Tournaments.
I am opinionated, no doubt about it but the only time I have ever used the terms like rabble etc.... is when I have quoted someone else in the forums....whom I disagreed with. I can do a search for community rabble on the forums . It comes up more than once...
Not sure why you're taking such offense at the term "rabble." Whenever you have large groups of people engaging in discussion without any barrier to entry the discourse tends towards to be disorganized and full of uninformed opinions. That's just the nature of people and the community on Dakka is no exception.
Forge World models and lists are attractive to new players. 40K approved is set up so they can use those models they have brought. How many do we lose when they find out that despite what the makers of the game say they can not bring their army into their first tournament because they do not like them.....
In what world are players new to 40k going out and building Forgeworld armies as their introduction to the game? I've introduced at least a dozen people to 40k and have met hundreds more who play and I've never come across anyone who started the hobby with FW units/armies. The only people I know who even own any FW models (and this represents a small minority) are those who have been playing and collecting for many years. And even then, those I know who own FW models usually buy them as replacements for standard GW models. Those that buy FW models without GW rules seem to represent a minority within a minority.
EDIT: Misread your post
59251
Post by: Dozer Blades
Danny Internets wrote: Dozer Blades wrote:Wow you're really trolling hard now Danny. Why don't you give it up? It's obvious he's not going to take your bait.
If you really insist on being a douchebag, please feel free to send me a PM. Otherwise, kindly shut up.
I rest my case.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
I had to google that....
I was drinking a soda when I read it.... good thing I had a spare keyboard.....never going to get that soda out of the old one....
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Danny Internets wrote:In what world are players new to 40k going out and building Forgeworld armies as their introduction to the game?
In this world. I had my first Barracuda before I even finished building my battleforce, and my IG army was started from day one as a FW army.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
My only army is a Death Korps of Krieg Siege Regiment
57651
Post by: davou
by choice, and if there was an issue you could absolutely play it as a core IG army.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 davou wrote:by choice, and if there was an issue you could absolutely play it as a core IG army.
But why should they have to spend the time and money to build a different army? DKoK is a legal army according to GW, and not all of its models can be used in a codex IG army. This is about as reasonable as telling a DA player that their army is banned, but it's ok because they can just play C: SM with their models.
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
davou wrote:
by choice, and if there was an issue you could absolutely play it as a core IG army.
Without FW units? No, not at all, unless everything count as everything else.
8305
Post by: Daba
Peregrine, I'm talking about the really new FW IAA book. They put some previews up and the Wraithseer was really lazily updated (they even misprinted it) and has set powers. The Warp Hunter gun I'm talking about is not the old version which I do understand was just old and un-updated. The new one in IAA is completely mangled and makes no sense as a distort weapon; worse than if they kept it as is (though the old one was OP).
The Avatars melta and flame immunity is a different thing due to being an MC and also has a legacy reason for it. The FW ones have no excuse, and is on a vehicle which is different.
47598
Post by: motyak
They put some previews up and the Wraithseer was really lazily updated (they even misprinted it) and has set powers.
Well of course it has set powers, wasn't Doom released in 2011, while 6th dropped in 2012? Or does wiki lie to me...wouldn't be the first time. If it did though, it'd explain both the Wraithseer and the Warp Hunter differences to current ways that it works. And The FW ones have no excuse, and is on a vehicle which is different.
What about the stormraven and what not? That's a vehicle, and has been updated for 6th and retained the rule.
8305
Post by: Daba
The Wiki is not up to date I'm afraid; I'm referring to the update that's happening next Friday, and there are previews up on the FW site.
The Stormraven has no excuse either, but I'm waiting for C:SM in September to see if it retains it. Currently, only legacy codices use it, so I'm wondering if it will be changed in a proper overhaul codex rather than an update 'patch'. The thing about the Storm Raven is it's only AV12 too, which makes a world of difference compared with AV14 (and the AV14 having Lance immunity as well).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Daba wrote:Peregrine, I'm talking about the really new FW IAA book. They put some previews up and the Wraithseer was really lazily updated (they even misprinted it) and has set powers. The Warp Hunter gun I'm talking about is not the old version which I do understand was just old and un-updated. The new one in IAA is completely mangled and makes no sense as a distort weapon; worse than if they kept it as is (though the old one was OP).
I'm not going to make any judgements based on blurry pictures that may or may not even be edited to avoid giving away free copies of the rules. But even if the Warp Hunter isn't really the same as other distort weapons who cares? Giving different stats for a weapon is hardly "breaking the design rules" in any meaningful way, it's just making a vehicle less effective than you might want it to be. That's not even close to being in the same category as pre-nerf dread pods, which did legitimately break a design rule of 6th until they got different rules.
As for the Wraithseer, having fixed psychic powers breaks a design rule, but do you really want to have a unit with its own special random table? When you answer this keep in mind that the Wraithseer should probably keep the ability to take more than one power no matter what you do with random vs. fixed, and the difference between having three fixed powers and picking from a random table of two powers and a primaris power is pretty neglibile (and of course if you want to give it the ability to take three powers it's nonexistent).
The Avatars melta and flame immunity is a different thing due to being an MC and also has a legacy reason for it. The FW ones have no excuse, and is on a vehicle which is different.
How exactly is it different? So far in 6th edition we have codex vehicles with melta immunity and a codex MC with even better melta immunity. So it's hardly "breaking the design rules" for FW to have vehicles with melta immunity, especially when most of them are flyers like the melta-immune codex flyer.
47598
Post by: motyak
But the smaller Storm one (I forget the name, the little stubby one) that was written for 6th has that same rule, and it was written with 6th well in mind as opposed to the stormraven when it first dropped with BA. So I very much doubt that it'd be dropped, if the smaller version of it that was written with 6th in mind was given it.
And are they actually updating Doom already? I thought they would go through the IA books from oldest to newest, that is really surprising.
8305
Post by: Daba
Peregrine wrote: Daba wrote:Peregrine, I'm talking about the really new FW IAA book. They put some previews up and the Wraithseer was really lazily updated (they even misprinted it) and has set powers. The Warp Hunter gun I'm talking about is not the old version which I do understand was just old and un-updated. The new one in IAA is completely mangled and makes no sense as a distort weapon; worse than if they kept it as is (though the old one was OP).
I'm not going to make any judgements based on blurry pictures that may or may not even be edited to avoid giving away free copies of the rules. But even if the Warp Hunter isn't really the same as other distort weapons who cares? Giving different stats for a weapon is hardly "breaking the design rules" in any meaningful way, it's just making a vehicle less effective than you might want it to be. That's not even close to being in the same category as pre-nerf dread pods, which did legitimately break a design rule of 6th until they got different rules.
As for the Wraithseer, having fixed psychic powers breaks a design rule, but do you really want to have a unit with its own special random table? When you answer this keep in mind that the Wraithseer should probably keep the ability to take more than one power no matter what you do with random vs. fixed, and the difference between having three fixed powers and picking from a random table of two powers and a primaris power is pretty neglibile (and of course if you want to give it the ability to take three powers it's nonexistent).
I told you, it's not about power level but verisimilitude. The Warp Hunter cannon breaks that a bit too much. From what I read of it, the weapon is really effective (apparently it has better expected outcome against AV14 than the old version or even the S10 large blast version) and powerful, but just not what the weapon type should behave like. If they wanted a weapon to behave like that, they should have made a new tank. Arguably, the versimillitude is the most important thing in 40k. This one isn't breaking design rules but is going against precedent for a weapon type; it's on the level of a Demolisher cannon behaving like a higher rate of fire Heavy Bolter.
Rather than it's own random table, maybe it should be rolling off the existing ones? I mean some of the powers are almost the same as existing table powers. It's just really unoptimised to me, and for a centrepiece model, a really 'stuck in 5th' sort of thing.
How exactly is it different? So far in 6th edition we have codex vehicles with melta immunity and a codex MC with even better melta immunity. So it's hardly "breaking the design rules" for FW to have vehicles with melta immunity, especially when most of them are flyers like the melta-immune codex flyer.
It's a background thing (which goes way deeper than 'excuse armour' the Stormraven or FW vehicles get; it's ingrained into setting quite deeply), and being in Melta / Flamer range of the Avatar is bad (because you're in charge range), while on a vehicle it's good (because vehicles are vulnerable in close combat). You go around countering those unit types in completely different ways. The other matter is what other weapons it can be wounded/damaged by. The Avatar takes wounds from small arms, while AV14 vehicles are only taken out by S8 or above, unless they have special properties (which are specifically designed for it), however the immunity takes away from these specific properties. The Avatar's immunity is a bit silly, but in the larger game is much less of a problem thanks to it not countering one of the few actual specific counters to its unit type.
Also, the Death from the Skies seems like a 'light patch'. It didn't change the Vendetta points cost, and no one really admits that that cost is appropriate, so it looks like they're waiting for another codex release to change it. And even then, Ceramite Plating isn't so bad on AV11 / 12 vehicles as it is on AV14 ones.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Daba wrote:I told you, it's not about power level but verisimilitude.
So now we're banning units because we don't like the fluff? Game balance wise it looks fine, and it doesn't break any fundamental design rules. It's like arguing that the new BT codex needs to be banned because there's a unit with AP 4 bolters.
Rather than it's own random table, maybe it should be rolling off the existing ones? I mean some of the powers are almost the same as existing table powers. It's just really unoptimised to me, and for a centrepiece model, a really 'stuck in 5th' sort of thing.
But the whole point of it is that it isn't a standard HQ, it does its own special thing. You might prefer a farseer in a wraithlord body, but the existing wraithseer isn't a problem.
And so what if it's unoptimized? Are we banning units now because they're too weak?
It's a background thing (which goes way deeper than 'excuse armour' the Stormraven or FW vehicles get; it's ingrained into setting quite deeply), and being in Melta / Flamer range of the Avatar is bad (because you're in charge range), while on a vehicle it's good (because vehicles are vulnerable in close combat). You go around countering those unit types in completely different ways. The other matter is what other weapons it can be wounded/damaged by. The Avatar takes wounds from small arms, while AV14 vehicles are only taken out by S8 or above, unless they have special properties (which are specifically designed for it), however the immunity takes away from these specific properties. The Avatar's immunity is a bit silly, but in the larger game is much less of a problem thanks to it not countering one of the few actual specific counters to its unit type.
But now we're moving away from fundamental design rules and into the fine points of balancing individual units. Your initial argument was that FW breaks fundamental design rules, like giving out melta immunity when it supposedly isn't allowed anymore. But the evidence is indisputable that GW considers "immune to melta" a valid thing for a unit to have in 6th.
Also, the Death from the Skies seems like a 'light patch'. It didn't change the Vendetta points cost, and no one really admits that that cost is appropriate, so it looks like they're waiting for another codex release to change it. And even then, Ceramite Plating isn't so bad on AV11 / 12 vehicles as it is on AV14 ones.
This is all your personal speculation. There's no reason at all to believe that GW is going to remove melta immunity from the Stormraven, and it's ridiculous to argue that FW units need to be banned for breaking design rules on the assumption that it will happen.
52309
Post by: Breng77
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:Well I could cherry pick parts of quotes and change from past to present in mid sentence but I.m going to keep it simple, and honest....
I run an Elysian Drop Troops Army list. Its 40K Approved.
It has NO disclaimer or statement from an Apocalypse book 3 editions back pertaining to Titans and Super Heavy Vehicles about being fun and might not be fair.....You might as well apply that kind of foolishness by saying the current Necron Codex has the same relationship to another out of date book for a different game. It would be just as foolish and misleading.
My Elysian Drop Troops Army list rules are the 6th Edition Basic Rule Book, the current Imperial Guard Codex and the Taros Companion rules for Elysian Drop Troops in the IA Vol 3 Second edition printed in this year. There is no confusion over it, no mystery to which book. The newest rules for something always overrides the older, just like I quit using my old IG Codex when the newest came out.
The main difference between My Elysian list and the newest Tau stuff is you do not need batteries and an electronic device to read it, both are approved for 40K.
The other difference of course in none of the Tournaments will allow my list in their main events...even with the 40K stamp on it.
It's their events, as I have always said.
I could always run a 9 Vendetta list since the purpose has changed from have a good time to win at all cost at most of the main events for the tournaments. That they would allow...
And here is where the confusion comes in, you Elysian list comes com imperial armor 3, but wait my opponent shows up wi an Elysian list from imperial armor 8. I need to know that this is in 2 books and that 3 second Ed is newer than 8? And is this different from the list found in IA 4 which is seemingly a different veteran Elysian list? This is not confusing at all!
As for later people claiming their first army was FW I would suggest you are the distinct minority and Peregrin I believe you said you played your buddies army for a while before acquiring your own...was this also all FW? What we see as standard is dependent on how we get into the game...and I would suggest that for most people it is through kits found I. Their lgs and not FW.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Breng77 wrote:And here is where the confusion comes in, you Elysian list comes com imperial armor 3, but wait my opponent shows up wi an Elysian list from imperial armor 8. I need to know that this is in 2 books and that 3 second Ed is newer than 8? And is this different from the list found in IA 4 which is seemingly a different veteran Elysian list? This is not confusing at all!
Yes, if you're afraid of people using obsolete rules then you should do the research and bring a list of where all the rules are to every tournament. Just like you have to bring a copy of every codex FAQ/update if you're afraid of people using obsolete or edited FAQs.
As for later people claiming their first army was FW I would suggest you are the distinct minority
Of course we're in the minority. But the question here is why is it acceptable to tell people they aren't welcome because they didn't pick one of the armies you approve of?
and Peregrin I believe you said you played your buddies army for a while before acquiring your own..
Nope. I played a total of one small intro game with my friend's orks before buying my first Tau models (and my first FW Tau models followed soon after that). By the time I had even enough to play a 1000 point game I already had several FW units.
8305
Post by: Daba
Unoptimised = not optimised to fit into the current game paradigm, not effectiveness.
Also, GW have confirmed that fluff leads the design process. They have said it's the most important thing, which leads to the models and then the rules come from the models.
There is a world of difference with AV14 being immune to Melta and Lance, and AV12 or below being immune to Lance(!) and Melta, or a monstrous creature that can be wounded by every weapons in the game immune to it.
Ultimately, there are two different concerns:
Tournament play needs the tournament organisers to know the rules and being able to reference them. The way FW rules are arranged are not conducive to this, and add another level of complexity that they simply cannot afford to have, on top of legacy rules that don't fit into the game. Also, because of the relative proliferation, players generally know more of what to expect from GW codices than a list from a FW book (which may or may not be the most up to date version of that).
The other concern is out of tournaments, but playing in the 'setting'; this requires a level of verisimilitude for a 'cinematic' game, where FW's badly designed gamist rules don't fit in.
So if you are on friendly enough terms with the other player, there's nothing stopping you from playing FW or a fan supplement or your own written codex.
If FW get their act together and compile their lists into dedicated books (so you don't have some vague 'Imperial Armour X' where you don't know what armies they contain in), and maybe put all 'codex expansion' units in one book which is kept reasonably up to date, it would be easier for Tournaments to start bringing them in.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Daba wrote:Also, GW have confirmed that fluff leads the design process. They have said it's the most important thing, which leads to the models and then the rules come from the models.
Sure, but what does that have to do with tournament balance and whether things need to be banned? The Warp Hunter might not be the most fluffy unit ever (in your subjective opinion), but it doesn't do anything that is outside the normal design rules for what a unit can do. If FW changed the name of the gun from "d-whatever" to "big gun" you'd have nothing to complain about.
There is a world of difference with AV14 being immune to Melta and Lance, and AV12 or below being immune to Lance(!) and Melta, or a monstrous creature that can be wounded by every weapons in the game immune to it.
And now again you're talking about the fine points of balance instead of whether or not the fundamental design rules are obeyed. The simple fact is that the FW melta-immune units don't break any fundamental design rules because GW is quite happy to have melta immunity be part of the game.
Also, we're talking about one unit with immunity to lances. One very expensive Land Raider variant with minimal transport capacity that got a lot less durable now that it can die to HP loss. It's not a cargo loader Sentinel, but I don't see anyone talking about it having a place in competitive lists.
The other concern is out of tournaments, but playing in the 'setting'; this requires a level of verisimilitude for a 'cinematic' game, where FW's badly designed gamist rules don't fit in.
That's your personal opinion. IMO they fit just fine. But that's entirely off-topic for a thread about tournaments.
If FW get their act together and compile their lists into dedicated books (so you don't have some vague 'Imperial Armour X' where you don't know what armies they contain in), and maybe put all 'codex expansion' units in one book which is kept reasonably up to date, it would be easier for Tournaments to start bringing them in.
Do you also want to ban codex supplements from tournaments? Because those suffer from the exact same problem, and GW seems to be in the process of making them a common event.
50463
Post by: Eldercaveman
Daba wrote:Unoptimised = not optimised to fit into the current game paradigm, not effectiveness.
Also, GW have confirmed that fluff leads the design process. They have said it's the most important thing, which leads to the models and then the rules come from the models.
There is a world of difference with AV14 being immune to Melta and Lance, and AV12 or below being immune to Lance(!) and Melta, or a monstrous creature that can be wounded by every weapons in the game immune to it.
So tell me fluff wise,why would the once all powerful Imperium put Ceramite Plating on their mid-strength tanks, but not their most highly armoured ones, why not protect them more?
I'm as big a fluff bunny as the next guy, but when you start to get down to writing fluff rules, then you break the game.
8305
Post by: Daba
Drop Pods.
50463
Post by: Eldercaveman
Sorry, I missed that, could you be a little more vague for me?
52309
Post by: Breng77
Peregrine wrote:Breng77 wrote:And here is where the confusion comes in, you Elysian list comes com imperial armor 3, but wait my opponent shows up wi an Elysian list from imperial armor 8. I need to know that this is in 2 books and that 3 second Ed is newer than 8? And is this different from the list found in IA 4 which is seemingly a different veteran Elysian list? This is not confusing at all!
Yes, if you're afraid of people using obsolete rules then you should do the research and bring a list of where all the rules are to every tournament. Just like you have to bring a copy of every codex FAQ/update if you're afraid of people using obsolete or edited FAQs.
As for later people claiming their first army was FW I would suggest you are the distinct minority
Of course we're in the minority. But the question here is why is it acceptable to tell people they aren't welcome because they didn't pick one of the armies you approve of?
and Peregrin I believe you said you played your buddies army for a while before acquiring your own..
Nope. I played a total of one small intro game with my friend's orks before buying my first Tau models (and my first FW Tau models followed soon after that). By the time I had even enough to play a 1000 point game I already had several FW units.
You still miss the point, I don't have to do research for FAQs there is one current FAQ for each book, called surprisingly Codex:_____ FAQ. Where as the IA books are all different numbers etc. So again I need to know what lists are in each book, what models are in each book, which books is the newest book with each model and each list. Whether lists are updates, or different lists with similar names (don't DkoK have 2 or 3 different army lists that are separate not updates.) It is also entirely possible for people who use those armies not to know they got updated, and bring the wrong rules (unless the TOs are going to declare which units and lists from which book are legal.) Also on the FAQ front I can feel comfortable with that because I can also safely assume that most TOs will bring them...I cannot assume the same with IA books, nor would I think I should call a TO to vet the rules in one. Or should I do that for every FW player "Judge....just wanted to make sure this is the newest FW book containing the rules for these units." If you cannot see this as a bigger issue that FAQs I don't know what to tell you. It is one of the reasons when I first thought of FW I believed it should be limited to only specific books (only the newest 2 for each faction, or maybe only books that have been released since 6th, or have a second edition, not sure)
9594
Post by: RiTides
50 pages! Huzzah (or somesuch )
1478
Post by: warboss
Peregrine wrote:
Yes, if you're afraid of people using obsolete rules then you should do the research and bring a list of where all the rules are to every tournament. Just like you have to bring a copy of every codex FAQ/update if you're afraid of people using obsolete or edited FAQs.
Sorry but not the same thing. Every 40k player knows that you find the Necron rules in the Necron codex and most every tourney player already knows what the current codex cover looks like. If they're not familiar with the codex cover, they can simply look over to the 40k section in most game stores to double check. Do you find the Krieg rules in the Krieg IA book? It's not the same thing as making sure that the list you're using from IA4 is using the newer rules for one unit/vehicle from IAA2 (1st edition) as well as the new rules for another vehicle in IAA (6th edition)...not to be confused with the IAA1 (second edition) that had the same vehicle with now obsolete rules after only a year and a half... and all that is assuming that they actually *KNOW* where the updated rules are which means they'd have to purchase multiple expensive books to research *YOUR* list. You're comparing apples to basketballs in the codex/ FW current rules comparison. The ability to fact check which units/armies in a FW list should be the tourney organizer's responsibility and frankly it's only feasible for the largest national tournies to do so. It might be different if FW actually got off their lazy butts and published their own updated list of where to find everything in its latest format all in one handy file but they don't. The only thing we have is Adepticon lists and those are updated only once a year (assuming they continue to do so) and therefore miss several FW books in between updates.
57651
Post by: davou
 Bobthehero wrote: davou wrote:
by choice, and if there was an issue you could absolutely play it as a core IG army.
Without FW units? No, not at all, unless everything count as everything else.
a guardsman is a guardsman, mask or no. You can (and should) absolutely giv the core IG dex a shot when you feel a little shoehorned into the DKOK lists.
arent most of your tanks counting as anyhow?
51866
Post by: Bobthehero
Not getting tanks, ever, right the best I could is something like 2 squads of veterans (with 2 plasma, a flamer and a melta), a Comissar Lord, a Valkyrie, a Hellhound and 2 squads of Stormtroopers.
The Earthshakers won't do for a proper Basilisk stand in and the Centaur is too small to proxy for anything.
I'd have a lousy list that would'nt even be close to 1500 pts.
8305
Post by: Daba
The Ceramite rule has no reason to exist. Fluffwise, it's for surviving atmospheric entry, but the model famous for it, the Drop Pod, lacks any such rule.
With your aforementioned statement about Ceramite Plating on their mid-strength vehicles, it is absurd, but it's not something that makes sense for the mid-strength vehicles either. It messes up the gameplay for high AV vehicles, but it doesn't have a strong enough case, thanks to the existence of drop pods, to exist for mid-vehicles either; it was purely a rule based on gameplay advantage.
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
I told you, it's not about power level but verisimilitude....
This? Verisimilitude is a philosophical concept that distinguishes between the truth and the falsity of assertions and hypotheses. The problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory.
I am not getting what you are saying if we are using the definition above.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
warboss wrote: Peregrine wrote:
Yes, if you're afraid of people using obsolete rules then you should do the research and bring a list of where all the rules are to every tournament. Just like you have to bring a copy of every codex FAQ/update if you're afraid of people using obsolete or edited FAQs.
Sorry but not the same thing. Every 40k player knows that you find the Necron rules in the Necron codex and most every tourney player already knows what the current codex cover looks like. If they're not familiar with the codex cover, they can simply look over to the 40k section in most game stores to double check.
Where do you find the Sisters of Battle rules?
464
Post by: muwhe
It might be different if FW actually got off their lazy butts and published their own updated list of where to find everything in its latest format all in one handy file but they don't.
Well, I am not really objective here but I will defend Forgeworld on this point. They are anything but “lazy”, and a lot of the time what AdeptiCon does with Forgeworld would not be possible without the input and cooperation of Forgeworld / Games Workshop / Black Library. It just is not always evident. To do what Forgeworld does with the staff they have I think is pretty remarkable and very much speaks to a veteran audience that remembers the hobby a bit differently.
So when people ask me why support Forgeworld and their work. It really has very little to do with what has been discussed in this thread. The biggest reason is because they still are capable of doing things I love .. Previews of upcoming models, and books. discounts on bundles, experimental rules and listening to the community. All they need to do is bring resin bits to shows !
8305
Post by: Daba
NeedleOfInquiry wrote:I told you, it's not about power level but verisimilitude....
This? Verisimilitude is a philosophical concept that distinguishes between the truth and the falsity of assertions and hypotheses. The problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory.
I am not getting what you are saying if we are using the definition above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude_%28narrative%29
"In a broader sense, verisimilitude refers to the believability of a narrative—the extent to which a narrative appears realistic, likely, or plausible (regardless of whether it is actually fictional or non-fictional)."
9594
Post by: RiTides
muwhe wrote:So when people ask me why support Forgeworld and their work. It really has very little to do with what has been discussed in this thread. The biggest reason is because they still are capable of doing things I love .. Previews of upcoming models, and books. discounts on bundles, experimental rules and listening to the community. All they need to do is bring resin bits to shows !
I think that's very fair to say... a lot of what FW does is amazing! And has nothing to do with their rules format. The models certainly, are gorgeous.
I've picked up a fair number of chaos dwarfs from them, and the fact that they were able to listen to feedback and put out something that people had wanted for so long is awesome. They even take feedback from the members of chaos dwarfs online for their FAQs and the like. So I am a big fan in that regard
It has been an expensive proposition even for the rules of my chaos dwarfs, though (unrelated to the above). I bought the Tamurkhan book from FW, the new WoC army book just for the hellcannon page, and Storm of Magic for the taurus and lamassu entries. I've also had the Tamurkahn book re-bound with just the rules for the chaos dwarfs in a smaller section I can bring to games / show to opponents easier / etc. And I'm going to remove the few sheets from those other books and have them laminated so that they're easy to reference, too. But in the end, I think it will be worth it to use these gorgeous models which thankfully have a lot of acceptance in the fantasy meta (likely because the rules are all, mostly, in just one book and it is easy to reference... and everyone has been wanting chaos dwarfs for so long!).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
A guardsman is. All the artillery/flyers/etc are not.
You can (and should) absolutely giv the core IG dex a shot when you feel a little shoehorned into the DKOK lists.
Who said anything about feeling shoehorned? I'm perfectly happy with my rules the way they are, the only reason I'd ever need to use different ones is because someone says I'm not welcome if I don't play my army the way they want me to. And TBH I'd rather sit at home and watch paint dry than attend an event with that kind of house rule.
Daba wrote:The Ceramite rule has no reason to exist. Fluffwise, it's for surviving atmospheric entry, but the model famous for it, the Drop Pod, lacks any such rule.
Probably because the drop pod itself has little reason to exist and is just an excuse to make you pay $35 for the privilege of deep striking your marines. It plays no real part in the battle so whether or not it is immune to melta makes no difference.
Also, fluff-wise the drop pod might have the same ceramite plating, but I seriously doubt it has it on the inside once the doors are open.
With your aforementioned statement about Ceramite Plating on their mid-strength vehicles, it is absurd, but it's not something that makes sense for the mid-strength vehicles either. It messes up the gameplay for high AV vehicles, but it doesn't have a strong enough case, thanks to the existence of drop pods, to exist for mid-vehicles either; it was purely a rule based on gameplay advantage.
Sigh. Again, you're talking about the fine points of game balance, not whether or not FW's melta-immune rules break basic rules of game design like you claimed.
76921
Post by: Torrent of Ire
Peregrine wrote:
Probably because the drop pod itself has little reason to exist and is just an excuse to make you pay $35 for the privilege of deep striking your marines. It plays no real part in the battle so whether or not it is immune to melta makes no difference.
lolwut? Aside from safely and accurately deepstriking models, one of the most useful aspects of the Drop Pod is area denial. They're also great for blocking static units' line of sight. When taken in multiples, both of these aspects can be used to great effect.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Torrent of Ire wrote:lolwut? Aside from safely and accurately deepstriking models, one of the most useful aspects of the Drop Pod is area denial. They're also great for blocking static units' line of sight. When taken in multiples, both of these aspects can be used to great effect.
Yeah, but let's be honest here, do you really think that GW had this in mind instead of just an opportunity to sell another model when they changed drop pods from a standard deep strike to a shiny new model? I doubt they put very much thought into designing the drop pod's rules once it arrives. Just look at the fact that they still haven't bothered to say anything about whether you have to have the doors open or not for LOS purposes for a good example of how lazy they are about it.
But anyway, I've already pointed out that drop pods don't get melta immunity because once they land and open their doors their vulnerable interior is certainly not protected against a melta shot. "Drop pods aren't immune to melta therefore GW doesn't think anything else should be" is a nonsense argument.
8305
Post by: Daba
That's backwards justification. They didn't think of Ceramite plate until after the Drop pod was created. It is a gamist rule with excuse fluff to justify it.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Daba wrote:That's backwards justification. They didn't think of Ceramite plate until after the Drop pod was created. It is a gamist rule with excuse fluff to justify it.
And, again, who cares? Your point was that ceramite plating on FW units breaks the fundamental design rules and does something GW doesn't want in the game. Which is a ridiculous argument when GW has published melta-immune units (including the exact same ceramite plating rule) in 6th edition and shows no sign of changing that trend. You can argue all you want that the Stormraven shouldn't be immune to melta, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether FW and GW are playing by the same rules.
8305
Post by: Daba
Ceramite plating is fundamentally made much worse in it's effect on the game on AV14 units, something you keep conveniently forgetting.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Daba wrote:Ceramite plating is fundamentally made much worse in it's effect on the game on AV14 units, something you keep conveniently forgetting.
Which is completely different than your original claim that FW is playing by different rules and breaking GW's fundamental design rules. We could argue endlessly about whether having a very small number of melta-immune AV 14 units is a good thing but you can not argue that melta immunity is somehow against GW's unwritten design rules.
PS: in DFTS the Storm Talon gained ceramite plating even though the 5th edition version didn't have it.
47598
Post by: motyak
When did FW create the LR which is the source of all these problems by the way? Before or after the release of the newest Necron codex.
edit: The achilles (is that the right one?) seems to have been released back when GW had AV14 vehicles that ignored melta as well. I'm just helping with context here.
|
|
