Peregrine wrote:

 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.

I am saying that game interactions like AV14 melta and Lance immunity are the problems, which is a specific case more than the general Melta immunity. I don't like Melta immunity, but on the vehicles it exists on, it doesn't cause the 'screw you' interaction that it does on AV14.

 Daba wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

I am saying that game interactions like AV14 melta and Lance immunity are the problems, which is a specific case more than the general Melta immunity. I don't like Melta immunity, but on the vehicles it exists on, it doesn't cause the 'screw you' interaction that it does on AV14.

And another army had access to this same melta immunity on an AV14 model as well, under regular GW rules, at the time that this FW model was released. So they were keeping in line with how GW was designing the game.

 Daba wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

I am saying that game interactions like AV14 melta and Lance immunity are the problems, which is a specific case more than the general Melta immunity. I don't like Melta immunity, but on the vehicles it exists on, it doesn't cause the 'screw you' interaction that it does on AV14.

Plus you are paying half has much again as a standard land raider to get it.

Breng77 wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I run an Elysian Drop Troops Army list. Its 40K Approved.

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.

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! ......

Nope because I used the newest book.

Remember 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" from above.

Let me give you two other examples in your vein of thinking.

First Example - A current 40K army where you can not even buy a Codex anymore....

A guy shows up with a Sisters of Battle army at an imaginary tournament with the Witch Hunters Codex. The TO then tell him after his opponent complains " I'm sorry, you need to go find two out of print White Dwarf magazines because Game Workshops said his codex was replaced by them and they no longer sell them, so sorry you missed the message..." They wish him luck on trying to buy the magazines off somebody on Ebay...

2nd Example - Got to love electronics...

On day two of the imagery tournament guy complains his opponent is using stuff not in the opponents current Codex and can not show him the rules he is using because he is using something on an IPAD and the opponent forgot to pack his charger. NO one else in the tournament had paid for the supplement in question. What does the TO do since the guy's opponent does not now have a copy of the rules in question as required by the rules of the tournament....

Much sticker questions then looking up on a web site which is the most current codex for an army...

Yes, we know the SOB "codex" is an outlier... it's well established. It also absolutely Sucks that it's not available. So, if that's the example you choose to often compare FW rules availability to, it's really a poor one if you want it to be allowed. You'd be taking the SOB problem, and multiplying it 10x

The second example is a much better one (electronic supplements) as it's actually something that will continue to grow and, as muwhe said, the tourney community needs to learn how to handle it and embrace it.

Personally, I say bring on the digital revolution . But I view that as a much different issue than the SOB white dwarf codex, which as I said, is an absolutely crap situation to find rules and is not something anything that you want to be allowed should be compared to... as it's a horrible outlier and a general huge pain for everybody that they released the rules that way. Is that what you're saying FW rules are

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
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.

I completely disagree with the statement "FW shouldn't be used simply for the complexity it adds and the time it adds to games in a timed environment.", I feel it SHOULD be allowed because of the complexity it adds to the game. Adding more options to armies is a good thing, it is only bad for those that require easier scenarios to determine a winning list. This allows for more variation to compete with those easy to design winning army lists. Again, the power lists will still be present, but the number of lists that don't dominate but can compete rises significantly.

I do concur that it would require more pre-game time, though I think 5 minutes of time is an slightly high of an estimate. If you need 5 minutes to understand a single units rules, 40k isn't for you. Granted, less experienced gamers will require such time...but they also would with Codexes rules they are unfamiliar with. If 15-30 minutes is a breaker for you when spending time at a tournament, then I can completely understand your stance. For me, an extra half an hour at an event doesn't really affect me...still an all day event.

Webster:
ir·re·gard·less adverb \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Definition of IRREGARDLESS
Syn : regardless
Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Again, the power lists will still be present, but the number of lists that don't dominate but can compete rises significantly.

According to Peregrine, that's not true. Unless by "can compete" you mean "are only taken for fluff reasons".
And even then, it really only applies to Imperial armies (mostly IG). feth those Xenos man - who needs em.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I run an Elysian Drop Troops Army list. Its 40K Approved.

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.

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! ......

Nope because I used the newest book.

Remember 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" from above.

Let me give you two other examples in your vein of thinking.

First Example - A current 40K army where you can not even buy a Codex anymore....

A guy shows up with a Sisters of Battle army at an imaginary tournament with the Witch Hunters Codex. The TO then tell him after his opponent complains " I'm sorry, you need to go find two out of print White Dwarf magazines because Game Workshops said his codex was replaced by them and they no longer sell them, so sorry you missed the message..." They wish him luck on trying to buy the magazines off somebody on Ebay...

2nd Example - Got to love electronics...

On day two of the imagery tournament guy complains his opponent is using stuff not in the opponents current Codex and can not show him the rules he is using because he is using something on an IPAD and the opponent forgot to pack his charger. NO one else in the tournament had paid for the supplement in question. What does the TO do since the guy's opponent does not now have a copy of the rules in question as required by the rules of the tournament....

Much sticker questions then looking up on a web site which is the most current codex for an army...

Ummm...so as the to I own both the sister we dex mag, and an electronic copy, and have every available book on my own iPad....oh and I bring my charger.....

But you still missed the point....the point is not that I don't know that the newest book contains the current rules. It is that I don't even know what book the list is in. Having the sisters list replaced by a sisters book, is different than having the Elysian list in ia8 replaced by one in ia3. If I'm a tournament player and my opponent shows up with ia8 with the list how do I know it was reprinted?

The same way you know that something's been FAQ'd: you check it online.

Achilles doesnt like munchy Scarabs and haywire grenades.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The same way you know that something's been FAQ'd: you check it online.

So then you agree that using FW in a tournament setting would require not only immediate internet access at the table, but also time to search the internet before even starting the game? Granted, this can be done (albeit painstakingly) on many smartphones, but not everybody has a smartphone and not every venue has sufficient cell coverage.

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.

Um...Ceramite Plating/ Armor has been around since 2nd edition. It was a vehicle wargear card you could take on any imperial vehicle in 2nd edition. Salamanders had it as purchasable wargear for their vehicles in the Armageddon Codex in 3rd edition. It has a history of being in the game long before drop pods.

PS: Dental plan...Lisa needs braces...

Torrent of Ire wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The same way you know that something's been FAQ'd: you check it online.

So then you agree that using FW in a tournament setting would require not only immediate internet access at the table, but also time to search the internet before even starting the game? Granted, this can be done (albeit painstakingly) on many smartphones, but not everybody has a smartphone and not every venue has sufficient cell coverage.

As you would need to with FAQ's and Erratas.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Achilles doesnt like munchy Scarabs and haywire grenades.

Yup... and only holds what 5 or 6 models?

It ain't THAT great. In fact, it's just an expensive gun platform on a mobile bunker chassis.

Torrent of Ire wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The same way you know that something's been FAQ'd: you check it online.

So then you agree that using FW in a tournament setting would require not only immediate internet access at the table, but also time to search the internet before even starting the game? Granted, this can be done (albeit painstakingly) on many smartphones, but not everybody has a smartphone and not every venue has sufficient cell coverage.

No I do not. I would expect the word trust would be in there but even if it was not I am sure since the TO's get a copy of the list they might check the list before the Tournament.

But to save time and effort I will bring a screenshot of what the current book is for Elysians dated the day before the event if you do the same for your Codex and any electronic supplements you want to use off the appropriate web pages...

Sound fair? What goes for one side goes for both?

I do not follow other Army Codi and generally trust my opponent to show up with the right one for him. Is there some reason I should change that view?

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
First Example - A current 40K army where you can not even buy a Codex anymore....

A guy shows up with a Sisters of Battle army at an imaginary tournament with the Witch Hunters Codex. The TO then tell him after his opponent complains " I'm sorry, you need to go find two out of print White Dwarf magazines because Game Workshops said his codex was replaced by them and they no longer sell them, so sorry you missed the message..." They wish him luck on trying to buy the magazines off somebody on Ebay...

So in your hypothetical example, someone out of the blue bought a SoB army without knowing their rules or where to find them?

2nd Example - Got to love electronics...

On day two of the imagery tournament guy complains his opponent is using stuff not in the opponents current Codex and can not show him the rules he is using because he is using something on an IPAD and the opponent forgot to pack his charger. NO one else in the tournament had paid for the supplement in question. What does the TO do since the guy's opponent does not now have a copy of the rules in question as required by the rules of the tournament....

Much sticker questions then looking up on a web site which is the most current codex for an army...

If you are at a tournament one of the requirements in the rules pack is that you must have the latest copy of your army’s codexes. If you cannot produce one you forfeit, and I know as a tournament player you already knew that. Not only that, they list what codexes are the ones that can be used.

In the Elysian Drop Troop army example, there is a good chance that the person who is playing that army has no idea where their latest rules are, and as an opponent I would have no clue to were all of them are found. Unlike GW armies where I know where to find the latest rules.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I do not follow other Army Codi and generally trust my opponent to show up with the right one for him. Is there some reason I should change that view?

Let's not pretend that codex updates that come along once every ~five years are as hard to keep track of as the many IA books with their arcane version structure. As someone else already pointed out, you've got new editions of IA Volume Two coming out that override rules in IA Volume Eight. Combined with the fact that there are twelve non-sequential yet current IA volumes, it is immensely confusing (and doubly so for people who aren't already familiar with them).

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I do not follow other Army Codi and generally trust my opponent to show up with the right one for him. Is there some reason I should change that view?

If you were a tournament player you would know the answer to that question.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I do not follow other Army Codi and generally trust my opponent to show up with the right one for him. Is there some reason I should change that view?

If you were a tournament player you would know the answer to that question.

I did and do still play tournaments, just not the big ones. I chose not to assume in a game that the other guy is going to cheat....

That's a little like the adage that only a man cheating on his wife worries about his wife cheating......


That's a hell of an attitude to have about your opponents...

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I do not follow other Army Codi and generally trust my opponent to show up with the right one for him. Is there some reason I should change that view?

If you were a tournament player you would know the answer to that question.

I did and do still play tournaments, just not the big ones. I chose not to assume in a game that the other guy is going to cheat....

That's a little like the adage that only a man cheating on his wife worries about his wife cheating......


That's a hell of an attitude to have about your opponents...

You are thinking that you need to know your opponents’ rules because he is cheating is wrong (although rules knowledge will protect you from this), but there are a lot of players out there who have a poor understanding of the game and their own rules.

If you wish to compete at a tournament you have to not only know your opponents’ rules to know what his units can and can’t do to know how to beat him, but the rules are often complex and there are a lot of grey areas (see the YMDC sub-forum). There are also local metas that play a rule a certain way with house rules and your opponent might not even be aware that they are playing it wrong, or they just simply read a rule incorrectly.

That is why FW brings a lot of complexity into a tournament that is already straining with rules issues.

To be honest I am there to play and have a good time, not to get wrapped up in what his army rules mean.

Thanks for mentioning You Make The Call on the possibility I did not know about it., I do read it pretty regularly, almost as much fun as the News and Rumors.

But still I am not going to get a copy of every codex out there just to get a better edge on beating somebody.

I learn about armies by playing them and reading the forums and I am going to trust the other guy to know his army...He has a Codex there if he needs it.

In the end it's a game, and any serious worries can be resolved by a dice roll if necessary.

It gets back to the question "Are folks getting so wrapped up in winning that they forgot the fun is supposed to be in playing, not the beating .

I know my army and I am going to trust the other guy to know his.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
But still I am not going to get a copy of every codex out there... (snip)

I learn about armies by playing them and reading the forums and I am going to trust the other guy to know his army...He has a Codex there if he needs it.

While I also play this way, I'll note that most high level tourney players will indeed have every codex.

Also:

In the end it's a game, and any serious worries can be resolved by a dice roll if necessary.

While a dice roll works great for simple things like LOS questions, for rules questions in a tourney, it's not the best solution (imo). You have to call over a judge and that can take time. Or, just give your opponent the benefit of the doubt, which I try to do... but obviously it'd be better to know the rules for both armies to speed up play and rules questions, if possible. Again, I also just try to know my own rules cold, but it's something to consider.

It gets back to the question "Are folks getting so wrapped up in winning that they forgot the fun is supposed to be in playing, not the beating .

I know my army and I am going to trust the other guy to know his.

While the second sentence here is fair to say (and again, is generally how I play) I think the first is unfairly characterizing a group of people. Knowing rules stone-cold for all aspects of the game is part of the hobby for many people, and that's part of the reason why FW inclusion horrifies them so much. It makes it a bit of a "wild wild west" rules-wise, and the amount of huge hardbound books you'd need to lug around to be ready to make a call on it would be insane!

Whereas as someone already mentioned, many folks have all the FAQs for all armies printed out and with them for an event... and soon, they'll just have them on their Ipads, along with all digitally released codii, for quick reference. FW can really throw a wrench in that, and relying on an opponent to know their own rules and not make any errors just isn't what many tournament players are going to want to do, when they're used to being able to double-check rules for any standard codex very quickly.

 RiTides wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
But still I am not going to get a copy of every codex out there... (snip)

I learn about armies by playing them and reading the forums and I am going to trust the other guy to know his army...He has a Codex there if he needs it.

While I also play this way, I'll note that most high level tourney players will indeed have every codex.

Also:

In the end it's a game, and any serious worries can be resolved by a dice roll if necessary.

While a dice roll works great for simple things like LOS questions, for rules questions in a tourney, it's not the best solution (imo). You have to call over a judge and that can take time. Or, just give your opponent the benefit of the doubt, which I try to do... but obviously it'd be better to know the rules for both armies to speed up play and rules questions, if possible. Again, I also just try to know my own rules cold, but it's something to consider.

It gets back to the question "Are folks getting so wrapped up in winning that they forgot the fun is supposed to be in playing, not the beating .

I know my army and I am going to trust the other guy to know his.

While the second sentence here is fair to say (and again, is generally how I play) I think the first is unfairly characterizing a group of people. Knowing rules stone-cold for all aspects of the game is part of the hobby for many people, and that's part of the reason why FW inclusion horrifies them so much. It makes it a bit of a "wild wild west" rules-wise, and the amount of huge hardbound books you'd need to lug around to be ready to make a call on it would be insane!

Whereas as someone already mentioned, many folks have all the FAQs for all armies printed out and with them for an event... and soon, they'll just have them on their Ipads, along with all digitally released codii, for quick reference. FW can really throw a wrench in that, and relying on an opponent to know their own rules and not make any errors just isn't what many tournament players are going to want to do, when they're used to being able to double-check rules for any standard codex very quickly.

I agree with most of what you say. I have the BRB, the IG Codex, my two magazines for Sisters (how far they have fallen) and my Elysians down solid.

The last part of what you said is something I have been wondering about. A while back I sent Forge World an email and never got a response, pretty unusual for them...whatever else they are far more responsive than the other half of the company.

The question was if there were going to be electronic rule sets for sell to match what was happening on the other half of the company.

If 40K Approved equipment and army rules were to be sold electronically how would that affect the tourney scene?

The Apple stuff is updated automatically from what I can tell. I am guessing the epub stuff has updated epubs available for those that buy them.

I suspect if Forge World did it it would be more along the lines of buy the book. For a few bucks more gain access to the download.

I also suspect they would make a lot of money that way since it would eliminate the update issue..

Ok so a few things here.

1.) Assuming that players even good ones have all their rules down for their army is a big mistake. It is frequently not true, and whether they are trying to cheat or not, many good players (including the winner of the GT I host) get rules wrong all the time about their armies. Often because other players don't call them on it. Now I'm not saying you must know your opponents army front to back, but don't assume they do either.

2.)With FW it is not even an issue of trying to cheat. What happens when I have my Elysians from IA 8, and I am only following FW to see when IA8 gets updated so I get a new release. It is entirely possible for me not to know that IA3 is the new list for my army. This is not true for codices. My army gets updated when I get a new codex with the same name. Other books may add rules but not typically replace existing units (though it occasionally does happen, and it is bad when it does...even then though it is released as a supplement to X army, not in X campaign book.)

3.) I agree that FAQ updates are also not always know either, but if I want to check I just check the FAQ for my codex, I don't check an faq for a separate book entirely to see if I get updated.

Like FW or not, their decision to reprint units and army lists in different campaign books, is a bad one. It is confusing for players etc.

 RiTides wrote:
While the second sentence here is fair to say (and again, is generally how I play) I think the first is unfairly characterizing a group of people. Knowing rules stone-cold for all aspects of the game is part of the hobby for many people, and that's part of the reason why FW inclusion horrifies them so much. It makes it a bit of a "wild wild west" rules-wise, and the amount of huge hardbound books you'd need to lug around to be ready to make a call on it would be insane!

So if these players make a hobby of knowing all the rules then why can't they just know the FW rules? Why is it so important to avoid making them do any extra work? If you're going to complain about difficulty in learning the rules the people that are potentially harmed by it are the "casual" players who don't spend a ton of time learning rules.

And they don't have to bring all of the huge hardcover books because the other player is required to bring their own rules. The "rule expert" just needs to know which book the rules are located in so when they demand to see it their opponent can't show the wrong book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
So in your hypothetical example, someone out of the blue bought a SoB army without knowing their rules or where to find them?

Sure, but how is that any different from your example of someone buying an Elysian army without knowing their rules or where to find them?

Unlike GW armies where I know where to find the latest rules.

So why isn't this your fault? Why should TOs ban FW instead of you investing the effort in learning where the latest rules are? Why do we just assume that your lack of knowledge is some kind of sacred state that can not be disturbed?

 Peregrine wrote:

Unlike GW armies where I know where to find the latest rules.

So why isn't this your fault? Why should TOs ban FW instead of you investing the effort in learning where the latest rules are? Why do we just assume that your lack of knowledge is some kind of sacred state that can not be disturbed?

It is very, very easy to know where the current rules are for every GW army. Even with the red herring of SoB most people know where to at least find the rules.

I would have no idea where to find any item of FW. They are scatted over many books and hard to know what the latest rules are (see the Elysian army example).

It is very, very easy to know where the current rules are for every GW army. Even with the red herring of SoB most people know where to at least find the rules.

I just clicked over to the GW site and I can't find where their rules are mentioned. It certainly isn't in the list of all items for that faction like it is for the other ones. Nor is it in 'books' like the others. Where would a new player get this knowledge?

 Blackmoor wrote:
I would have no idea where to find any item of FW. They are scatted over many books and hard to know what the latest rules are (see the Elysian army example).

That's because you apparently haven't bothered to look. But I don't see why accommodating your lack of interest in remaining current on FW rules should be more important than allowing people to use the legal (according to GW) armies they have bought.

 motyak wrote:

It is very, very easy to know where the current rules are for every GW army. Even with the red herring of SoB most people know where to at least find the rules.

I just clicked over to the GW site and I can't find where their rules are mentioned. It certainly isn't in the list of all items for that faction like it is for the other ones. Nor is it in 'books' like the others. Where would a new player get this knowledge?

Then apparently you didn't click on a specific army. If you click on "army essentials" et viola. There's the army book.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 motyak wrote:

It is very, very easy to know where the current rules are for every GW army. Even with the red herring of SoB most people know where to at least find the rules.

I just clicked over to the GW site and I can't find where their rules are mentioned. It certainly isn't in the list of all items for that faction like it is for the other ones. Nor is it in 'books' like the others. Where would a new player get this knowledge?

Then apparently you didn't click on a specific army. If you click on "army essentials" et viola. There's the army book.

Well the GW AUS site must be broken then, because under the specific SOB tab in "armies" it isn't there, nor is it in essentials or the books tab under 40k. I can't even see an "army essentials" option.

If you're referring to the Sister "codex", that's already been conceded that it can't easily be acquired. So your point is?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If you're referring to the Sister "codex", that's already been conceded that it can't easily be acquired. So your point is?

My point is that it can't be brought up by people arguing against, saying that even for SOB they know where to find the rules. Because they don't. You either concede the point or not, one side can't make a point, concede it, then bring it up again.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Unlike GW armies where I know where to find the latest rules.

So why isn't this your fault? Why should TOs ban FW instead of you investing the effort in learning where the latest rules are? Why do we just assume that your lack of knowledge is some kind of sacred state that can not be disturbed?

It is very, very easy to know where the current rules are for every GW army. Even with the red herring of SoB most people know where to at least find the rules.

I would have no idea where to find any item of FW. They are scatted over many books and hard to know what the latest rules are (see the Elysian army example).

 motyak wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 motyak wrote:

It is very, very easy to know where the current rules are for every GW army. Even with the red herring of SoB most people know where to at least find the rules.

I just clicked over to the GW site and I can't find where their rules are mentioned. It certainly isn't in the list of all items for that faction like it is for the other ones. Nor is it in 'books' like the others. Where would a new player get this knowledge?

Then apparently you didn't click on a specific army. If you click on "army essentials" et viola. There's the army book.

Well the GW AUS site must be broken then, because under the specific SOB tab in "armies" it isn't there, nor is it in essentials or the books tab under 40k. I can't even see an "army essentials" option.

It's like you didn't even read the post you quoted.

edit: Actually, nevermind me, I'm just in a bad mood and argumentative. Probably better if it just goes away.

 motyak wrote:

I don't understand, he said "most people know where to at least find the rules". I was asking how. You can't call it a red herring to ding the argument of the other side, and then hand wave and say "most people know where to at least find the rules" without saying how. I'm sure I could have misunderstood him, but that's just how it read to me. Can someone explain it so I can get it?

Did I say that most people know how to buy the latest rules?

When I am playing against a SoB player (who by tournament rules has to be playing with a copy of the latest rules) I know if he has a copy of them or not.

Here the thing though how do I know what is an update and what is a different list with the same name? How do I know what units are in which book? Why as a player is it fair to assume I should spend hours (or money) finding all this out just so you an run an obscure army? Or should I just that that every fw player will make the effort to ensure they use the current rules (chances are good many won't because the rules are updated in entirely different books)

Breng77 wrote:
Here the thing though how do I know what is an update and what is a different list with the same name? How do I know what units are in which book? Why as a player is it fair to assume I should spend hours (or money) finding all this out just so you an run an obscure army? Or should I just that that every fw player will make the effort to ensure they use the current rules (chances are good many won't because the rules are updated in entirely different books)

Why should I have to do all of this so that you can play SoB? Or BT? Why can't I just limit you to playing C:SM only if you want to have a marine army?

The answer of course is that it's part of the game, just like FW units/armies. Everything GW publishes for standard 40k should be allowed in tournaments, and "but it's too much work to learn about it" should not be an excuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
When I am playing against a SoB player (who by tournament rules has to be playing with a copy of the latest rules) I know if he has a copy of them or not.

Great. Now do the same for FW rules and know if your opponent has the latest rules or not. So far the only complaint you've made is "I'm currently informed about X but not about Y, so instead of learning about Y I want to ban Y so I don't have to".

 Blackmoor wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I do not follow other Army Codi and generally trust my opponent to show up with the right one for him. Is there some reason I should change that view?

If you were a tournament player you would know the answer to that question.

Quoted for truth. All it takes is one jerk to ruin your weekend. Eventually you'll run across one - it will change your opinion.

For everybody's benefit I have found a wiki site that lists all of the codices and IA books from most recent to oldest. Included is also a short note as to what is included in each IA book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_(Warhammer_40,000) you must click on the "did you mean?" for the link to work properly.

Make of this what you will.

Very useful! Thanks Leo.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Here the thing though how do I know what is an update and what is a different list with the same name? How do I know what units are in which book? Why as a player is it fair to assume I should spend hours (or money) finding all this out just so you an run an obscure army? Or should I just that that every fw player will make the effort to ensure they use the current rules (chances are good many won't because the rules are updated in entirely different books)

Why should I have to do all of this so that you can play SoB? Or BT? Why can't I just limit you to playing C:SM only if you want to have a marine army?

The answer of course is that it's part of the game, just like FW units/armies. Everything GW publishes for standard 40k should be allowed in tournaments, and "but it's too much work to learn about it" should not be an excuse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
When I am playing against a SoB player (who by tournament rules has to be playing with a copy of the latest rules) I know if he has a copy of them or not.

Great. Now do the same for FW rules and know if your opponent has the latest rules or not. So far the only complaint you've made is "I'm currently informed about X but not about Y, so instead of learning about Y I want to ban Y so I don't have to".

Ok so since you know all this by hart please in the next hour (since you are apparently on) produce a list of all 40k approved units, and inI which book their most current rules are, as well as a list of 40k approved FW army lists and which book contains the most current list for each. Should be easy right it is no different than codices right?

Here I'll do the codex units for a few books....

Necrons- codex Necrons
Tau- codex tau
Eldar codex eldar
Daemons - codex chaos daemons
Sisters of battle - codex sisters of battle....

A bit different when all relevant units are found in one place.

Essentially my point is that I don't need to research where to find each codex unit, it is obviously in the codex for that army.

Breng77 wrote:
Ok so since you know all this by hart please in the next hour (since you are apparently on) produce a list of all 40k approved units, and inI which book their most current rules are, as well as a list of 40k approved FW army lists and which book contains the most current list for each. Should be easy right it is no different than codices right?

Why should I spend the extra time to write up something I already (mostly) have memorized? However long it takes learning that stuff is just part of wanting to play in a competitive tournament.

And I keep saying this, but coming from MTG this attitude is just absurd. If you went to a MTG tournament and tried to complain about being surprised by a card you didn't expect everyone would just laugh at you because it's your responsibility to learn everything in the game. Only in 40k is it acceptable to ban stuff because learning about it would be too hard.

A bit different when all relevant units are found in one place.

Except when they have supplements (like Tau and Eldar) and game-changing FAQs.

Essentially my point is that I don't need to research where to find each codex unit, it is obviously in the codex for that army.

I'm not denying that FW units take a bit more work to learn, but that doesn't justify banning FW players. If it's extra work you do the extra work, just like we don't ban all non-C:SM marine armies because it would be simpler if everyone just used C:SM.

Magic is a bad example.

1.) They have multiple formats, so it is completely acceptable for players not to know every card....they need only know those relevant to their format.

2.) Furthermore they rarely reprint the same card with completely different rules.

3.) They don't wholesale add 10 sets of cards to a format at once (which is what adding all FW would be)

4.) MTG sets are all widely available...FW would be equivalent to adding some limited release set that was expensive and online order only.

AS for Supplements...the eldar supplement has no units in it and 2 pages of rules. The Tau Supplement has a very few characters in it and no other units, hardly the same.

IT is far more than a bit of work....I assume that since you could not quickly jot down which lists are current from which books and which units that would be because even you don't know all of them...and you are far more vested in knowing than most people.

The more I think about it the best way to eventually add all FW would be to start just the newest book (or IA 1 send ed maybe) and not allow any books until they are updated. This would allow players to learn a little bit at a time.to learn each set of new rules.

Just saying that everyone should do the work when the work includes either illegal action (pdf copies of the books) or lots of money spent on books is also unreasonable.

Also why should you write it up....maybe it would help everyone better implement FW....but since you're unwilling to put in the effort but everyone else should....no double standard there.

TOs and players go spend money and learn what is where, but even though I know all this...I can't be bothered....

Breng77 wrote:
1.) They have multiple formats, so it is completely acceptable for players not to know every card....they need only know those relevant to their format.

Even in a single set draft/sealed tournament, the smallest possible format you can have, you're talking about ~250 different cards. For standard, the most popular tournament format, it's around 750-1250 cards depending on when in the block cycle it is. And don't forget that each of those cards can potentially have their own rulings on how they interact with other cards, so you can't just assume that you'll just read the card text in the middle of the game and know everything.

And actually I'm being too generous to 40k here. The knowledge problem in MTG is much harder since you have to be able to do things like look at what lands your opponent has untapped and guess what they might have in their hand as a counter to your plan. In 40k all you have to be able to do is recognize when the rules someone is showing you aren't right.

AS for Supplements...the eldar supplement has no units in it and 2 pages of rules. The Tau Supplement has a very few characters in it and no other units, hardly the same.

It's still extra information to keep track of. The point is that there's a double standard where any difficulty in getting and memorizing information about non-FW units can be dealt with, but there's an endless list of excuses for why FW is just too much work.

IT is far more than a bit of work....I assume that since you could not quickly jot down which lists are current from which books and which units that would be because even you don't know all of them...and you are far more vested in knowing than most people.

You're missing the difference between "can't" and "won't". I could make a list of everything, but I'm not going to spend the time and effort on doing it because I know you're just hoping to "prove" that it's impossible to keep up with if I miss anything.

The more I think about it the best way to eventually add all FW would be to start just the newest book (or IA 1 send ed maybe) and not allow any books until they are updated. This would allow players to learn a little bit at a time.to learn each set of new rules.

Remember how you and others have complained about favoring certain armies? What do you think is going to happen when you only allow the most recent books where IG/Tau/Necrons (already very strong armies) get pretty much everything they have from FW but other armies are stuck waiting and hoping that FW will publish a book with their rules after the arbitrary cutoff point?

Just saying that everyone should do the work when the work includes either illegal action (pdf copies of the books) or lots of money spent on books is also unreasonable.

And just how do you think most people keep up with codex units?

Also why should you write it up....maybe it would help everyone better implement FW....but since you're unwilling to put in the effort but everyone else should....no double standard there.

And if I had any reason to believe that this is a sincere request for me to maintain a master list of FW rules that every TO can use I'd probably do it. But I think we both know that's not what it is.

Breng77 wrote:


Ok so since you know all this by hart please in the next hour (since you are apparently on) produce a list of all 40k approved units, and inI which book their most current rules are, as well as a list of 40k approved FW army lists and which book contains the most current list for each. Should be easy right it is no different than codices right?

Here I'll do the codex units for a few books....

Necrons- codex Necrons
Tau- codex tau
Eldar codex eldar
Daemons - codex chaos daemons
Sisters of battle - codex sisters of battle....

A bit different when all relevant units are found in one place.

Essentially my point is that I don't need to research where to find each codex unit, it is obviously in the codex for that army.

Black Templars - Codex: Black Templars, Warhammer 40,000 6ht edition Rule Book and Death From the Skies
Space Marines - Codex: Space Marines and Death From the Skies
Orks - Codex: Orks and Death From the Skies
Tau - Codex: Tau Empire and the Farsight Enclave Supplement
Eldar - Codex: Eldar and the Iyanden Supplement

Not so different after all, eh?

I keep up with codex units by playing against them. I don't own every codex and don't pirate them either.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
1.) They have multiple formats, so it is completely acceptable for players not to know every card....they need only know those relevant to their format.

Even in a single set draft/sealed tournament, the smallest possible format you can have, you're talking about ~250 different cards. For standard, the most popular tournament format, it's around 750-1250 cards depending on when in the block cycle it is. And don't forget that each of those cards can potentially have their own rulings on how they interact with other cards, so you can't just assume that you'll just read the card text in the middle of the game and know everything.

And actually I'm being too generous to 40k here. The knowledge problem in MTG is much harder since you have to be able to do things like look at what lands your opponent has untapped and guess what they might have in their hand as a counter to your plan. In 40k all you have to be able to do is recognize when the rules someone is showing you aren't right.

AS for Supplements...the eldar supplement has no units in it and 2 pages of rules. The Tau Supplement has a very few characters in it and no other units, hardly the same.

It's still extra information to keep track of. The point is that there's a double standard where any difficulty in getting and memorizing information about non-FW units can be dealt with, but there's an endless list of excuses for why FW is just too much work.

IT is far more than a bit of work....I assume that since you could not quickly jot down which lists are current from which books and which units that would be because even you don't know all of them...and you are far more vested in knowing than most people.

You're missing the difference between "can't" and "won't". I could make a list of everything, but I'm not going to spend the time and effort on doing it because I know you're just hoping to "prove" that it's impossible to keep up with if I miss anything.

The more I think about it the best way to eventually add all FW would be to start just the newest book (or IA 1 send ed maybe) and not allow any books until they are updated. This would allow players to learn a little bit at a time.to learn each set of new rules.

Remember how you and others have complained about favoring certain armies? What do you think is going to happen when you only allow the most recent books where IG/Tau/Necrons (already very strong armies) get pretty much everything they have from FW but other armies are stuck waiting and hoping that FW will publish a book with their rules after the arbitrary cutoff point?

Just saying that everyone should do the work when the work includes either illegal action (pdf copies of the books) or lots of money spent on books is also unreasonable.

And just how do you think most people keep up with codex units?

Also why should you write it up....maybe it would help everyone better implement FW....but since you're unwilling to put in the effort but everyone else should....no double standard there.

And if I had any reason to believe that this is a sincere request for me to maintain a master list of FW rules that every TO can use I'd probably do it. But I think we both know that's not what it is.

You miss the point again....it is not that memorizing what FW units do that is too difficult, it is that I have no reasonable way (without spending a bunch of money) of obtaining the new rules for units or even knowing if they may have been updated as FW does not provide a list of units in each codex (MTG provides all the rules for their cards online on their website.) Furthermore, when I go to my LGS I can expect to see MTG players with most of the good new cards...I cannot expect that with FW, so I would have limited chances to see the units in action, and really grasp what they do.

And actually yeah it is a sincere request that if you want people to start trying to use FW, putting some effort in on your behalf instead of expecting everyone else to do the work to humor you just makes sense. Heck you don't even need to do it in this thread, but if you created a blog or page detailing which units were updated in which books, which army lists are in which books, the most recent updates, which lists replace which. Perhaps even write up various units (if you were moved to do so) it would help immensely on FW exposure and I know I as a TO would be more tempted to include rules if I did not have to do a bunch of extra work for basically no personal gain (my players are generally not in favor of it, and perhaps if I could direct them to a place to learn about it, they might be more open.) to include said rules. But what you want is for everyone else to put the effort in so you can use your units. FWI, I couldn't "prove" its impossible because I would have no idea what the correct answers even are...so there is no way I could be like...ha ha, you missed x unit being updated here...that's the whole point...I don't know when things are updated or where...and I am not willing to spend the money to find that out.

Black Templars - Codex: Black Templars, Warhammer 40,000 6ht edition Rule Book and Death From the Skies
Space Marines - Codex: Space Marines and Death From the Skies
Orks - Codex: Orks and Death From the Skies
Tau - Codex: Tau Empire and the Farsight Enclave Supplement
Eldar - Codex: Eldar and the Iyanden Supplement

Not so different after all, eh?

Ummm...yeah yeah it still is two books at most, in most cases that re-print existing rules for say one unit from WD....quite a bit different than say IG FW with 7 or 8 books, and re-prints of the same unit in multiple books, and different army lists, which are re-printed in multiple books....

Let me put it this way if the FW books were organized as follows

IA 1: DKoK
IA 2 : Red Scorpions
IA3 : Elysian Drop troops

I.e. where each army had its own "codex" and that is where the rules were, and then maybe they added

IA6: Imperial Guard - containing units for IG, DKOK, Elysian Drop troops (only new and different units not those in the existing IA books)

It would make a whole lot more sense, the rules would be more organized, and easily accessable.

Heck if they just did not reprint stuff and I knew that say IA: 8 was where I looked for elysian units and the specific rules for models represented there it would be better.

But I don't know that, when they put out a new book short of pirating it or buying it I have no idea if they updated rules for old units, in those books.

The closest analog from GW is Death From the Skies and right on the GW site it tells me what is in it

Storm Raven for SM and Templars
Updates for the flyers from Black Templars, Blood Angels, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Orks and Space Marines.

Done, now I know what units to expect in the book. it Could be a little more clear, but they also updated the codex FAQs with those flyer changes as well, so I know what they are even if I don't buy the book.

I did find a listing just like you want it's linked in my last post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_(Warhammer_40,000 just click on the "did you mean?" and you'll have what you want.

Here I'll do the codex units for a few books....

Necrons- codex Necrons
Tau- codex tau
Eldar codex eldar
Daemons - codex chaos daemons
Sisters of battle - codex sisters of battle....

A bit different when all relevant units are found in one place.


Wow, they guy lied to me when he said he had some kind of update or supplement on his IPAD with different rules... I mean its not on your list......

Where as this came from one page...

Imperial Armour Volume Three Second Edition - The Taros Campaign Tau & Elysian Drop Troops 2013
Imperial Armour Volume 12: The Fall of Orpheus Necrons, Minotaurs & Death Corps of Krieg ISBN TBA 2013
Imperial Armour Volume One Second Edition - Imperial Guard Imperial Guard ISBN XXX December 2012
Imperial Armour Aeronautica Update and compilation of fliers and anti-aircraft units for 6th Edition release of Warhammer 40k ISBN 978-190796495-4 July 2012
Imperial Armour Volume 11: The Doom of Mymeara Imperial Guard, Space Wolves & Eldar ISBN 978-1-907964-16-9 2012
Imperial Armour Apocalypse Second Edition Companion volume to Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse, containing new battle formations as well as new Apocalypse-compatible game statistics for several Forge World models ISBN 978-1-907964-67-1 2011
Imperial Armour Volume Ten - The Badab War - Part Two Siege Vanguard Assault 2011
Imperial Armour Volume Nine - The Badab War - Part One The Tyrant’s Legion ISBN 978-1-84154-995-8 2010
Imperial Armour Volume Eight - Raid on Kastorel-Novem Elysian Drop Troop, Raven Guard & Orks ISBN 978-1-84154-977-4 2010
Imperial Armour Apocalypse II Companion volume to Warhammer 40,000 Apocalypse, containing new battle formations as well as new Apocalypse-compatible game statistics for several Forge World models ISBN 978-1-84154-976-7 2009
Imperial Armour Volume Seven - The Siege of Vraks Part three Forces of the Inquisition & Chaos Renegades ISBN 978-1-84154-955-2 2009
Imperial Armour Volume Six - The Siege of Vraks Part two Death Korps of Krieg & Chaos Renegades ISBN 978-1-84154-910-1 2008
Imperial Armour Volume Five - The Siege of Vraks Part one Death Korps of Krieg, Dark Angels & Chaos Renegades ISBN 978-1-84154-851-7 2007
Imperial Armour Volume Four - The Anphelion Project Tyranids, Imperial Guard & Space Marines ISBN 1-84154-784-0 2006
Imperial Armour Volume Two - Space Marines & Forces of the Inquisition Space Marines & Forces of the Inquisition ISBN 1-84154-509-0 2004

Thanks to Leo_the_Rat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_(Warhammer_40,000 just click on the "did you mean?" and you'll have what you want.

The fact that an encyclopedia has to be consulted just to figure out what IA books contain what units and which non-sequential volumes are current demonstrates exactly why FW is a problem (at least with respect to complexity).

Thanks for that. Now tell me where are the current rules for Thudd guns? Lucius Pattern Drop Pods? Any other FW unit?
How about any GW IG tank? It's in Codex Imperial Guard of course.
How about any GW marine squad? It's in C:SM of course.

I have forgeworld units that I've played using old rules because I didn't realize an update came out in a book a year later. Adepticon does a large listing showing the current rules which is helpful once a year when it's current. There is a reason they don't do a 7 page "where to find the rules" document for GW units. They're all in the applicable codex.

To pretend that there isn't a difference is being purposely obtuse.

 grotblaster wrote:

To pretend that there isn't a difference is being purposely obtuse.

We're not pretending that there isn't a difference, we're pointing out that there's instances of the same in Codices that you purpousefully ignore, which is dishonest.

Other than the farsight and Iyanden expansions, what instances of the same in codices are you referring to? In those cases you are using a supplement that has all the rules for available units in your army listed together for that supplement.
The Iyanden supplement doesn't replace rules for units listed in Codex Eldar if you're playing codex Eldar.

 grotblaster wrote:
Other than the farsight and Iyanden expansions, what instances of the same in codices are you referring to? In those cases you are using a supplement that has all the rules for available units in your army listed together for that supplement.
The Iyanden supplement doesn't replace rules for units listed in Codex Eldar if you're playing codex Eldar.

Digital and paper codex's?

And these have been shown to have some quite significant differences in rules from time to time. Pre FAQ;s.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 grotblaster wrote:

To pretend that there isn't a difference is being purposely obtuse.

We're not pretending that there isn't a difference, we're pointing out that there's instances of the same in Codices that you purpousefully ignore, which is dishonest.

There are not instances, there is one instance...Death From the skies. In which codex rules are currently printed outside the normal codex (i.e. same unit different rules.). Whereas this is commonplace with FW units. Furthermore there is no case where the entire army list for a codex has been printed somewhere not in that codex. The Farsight supplement only contains a few special characters, and some wargear, no additional other units or new rules for existing units. I.e. if I have my Tau codex, I always have the updated rules, I don't need farsight. Not true for FW, where I may have my army list, and then in an entirely different book it gets re-printed.

"Other then"

"Except for"

"In this one exception"

Really???


It's beginning to sound like "Well yeah, but.....that's the way it is and yous guys and yous rules can just suck it up since we don't care whats yous say is true. Wes likes its our way"

Yes I did mean the spelling as intended. It's an example of "purposely obtuse"

RIght because one book, is obviously the same as the Mess FW makes with their rule printing...obviously...

I have a feeling I might regret posting in this thread but here but here is goes. Also if I miss that this argument was made earlier in this 52 going onto 53 page thread. I'm sorry, I didnt want to read every single page.

I understand each side of the argument on this but if GW allows FW to make official products then it should be allowed. Also as a FW user I make sure I always have the current rules on me so that if there is any questions I have it there. So it really just comes down personal responsibility to the player playing FW. Also if you're worried about FW and rules, the TO should make sure people have their up to date rules, it goes for both sides, not just FW.

 Deacis657 wrote:
Also as a FW user I make sure I always have the current rules on me so that if there is any questions I have it there. So it really just comes down personal responsibility to the player playing FW. Also if you're worried about FW and rules, the TO should make sure people have their up to date rules, it goes for both sides, not just FW.

While this is true, it creates a Lot more work for a TO to make sure of this (they don't rely on player responsibility to write lists that are the correct point values, either- honest mistakes happen all the time).

For an example of just such an honest mistake, there is one just a few posts above yours:

 grotblaster wrote:
I have forgeworld units that I've played using old rules because I didn't realize an update came out in a book a year later. Adepticon does a large listing showing the current rules which is helpful once a year when it's current. There is a reason they don't do a 7 page "where to find the rules" document for GW units. They're all in the applicable codex.

The amount of work for a TO to check that players are using the most up-to-date version of rules for any particular FW unit is crazy. Hence, AdeptiCon's amazing list. But most tournaments just don't have that kind of resources to put behind organizing what the most current rules are for units. FW needs to do it... and until they do, FW use in tournaments is not going to be nearly as widespread as it would be otherwise- simply because of the massive work a TO needs to do to allow it.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Yes I did mean the spelling as intended. It's an example of "purposely obtuse"

Admitting it to yourself is the first step on the road to change.

 RiTides wrote:

 Deacis657 wrote:
Also as a FW user I make sure I always have the current rules on me so that if there is any questions I have it there. So it really just comes down personal responsibility to the player playing FW. Also if you're worried about FW and rules, the TO should make sure people have their up to date rules, it goes for both sides, not just FW.

While this is true, it creates a Lot more work for a TO to make sure of this (they don't rely on player responsibility to write lists that are the correct point values, either- honest mistakes happen all the time).

For an example of just such an honest mistake, there is one just a few posts above yours:

 grotblaster wrote:
I have forgeworld units that I've played using old rules because I didn't realize an update came out in a book a year later. Adepticon does a large listing showing the current rules which is helpful once a year when it's current. There is a reason they don't do a 7 page "where to find the rules" document for GW units. They're all in the applicable codex.

The amount of work for a TO to check that players are using the most up-to-date version of rules for any particular FW unit is crazy. Hence, AdeptiCon's amazing list. But most tournaments just don't have that kind of resources to put behind organizing what the most current rules are for units. FW needs to do it... and until they do, FW use in tournaments is not going to be nearly as widespread as it would be otherwise- simply because of the massive work a TO needs to do to allow it.

Yeah, I completely understand that, and completely agree; but it should be the responsibility of the player to bring the rules if they want to rules FW. If people who use FW bitch about having to bring the rules they should have understood that some people have a problem with FW and in the case that it's someone new to FW they informed that people should have the rules to be able to play it.

FW does need to consolidate the rules BIG TIME. But really, from my experience it isnt to hard keeping up with FW rules, unless they keep on making just rules books like they are now with apoc . If I'm saying I playing a DKoK Siege list it's going to be in any one of the three Vraks books. IT wouldn't be in the Doom of some planet name. Plus with technology these days everything is just one google search away.

Ok see here is the part that people are not seeing coming from the TO aspect.

So I as the TO am sent a list containing FW units, Either the player includes which book he got the rules from, or he does not. IN either case I need to check to see which book contains the newest rules...then check the points costs, then if the unit is either unmarked or from the wrong book I need to email the player in question to confirm the rules.

IF it turns out he/she is using the wrong book I need to tell them that they need to rework their list using the current book. Which if they don't have it means they cannot use the list they want.

If I don't jump through all these hoops (which other than point cost checking I need not do for Codex units), then I end up with this fun situation.

Player shows up at my RTT (people don't always send lists, but as long as I am not full up I don't turn people away, maybe the missed sending me their list), with the wrong book, I then must tell them they are not welcome to play....which is a total fail.

You can say it is their responsibility to get the rules right, but when you want players to show up, turning players away is bad.

Breng77 wrote:
Ok see here is the part that people are not seeing coming from the TO aspect.

So I as the TO am sent a list containing FW units, Either the player includes which book he got the rules from, or he does not. IN either case I need to check to see which book contains the newest rules...then check the points costs, then if the unit is either unmarked or from the wrong book I need to email the player in question to confirm the rules.

IF it turns out he/she is using the wrong book I need to tell them that they need to rework their list using the current book. Which if they don't have it means they cannot use the list they want.

If I don't jump through all these hoops (which other than point cost checking I need not do for Codex units), then I end up with this fun situation.

Player shows up at my RTT (people don't always send lists, but as long as I am not full up I don't turn people away, maybe the missed sending me their list), with the wrong book, I then must tell them they are not welcome to play....which is a total fail.

You can say it is their responsibility to get the rules right, but when you want players to show up, turning players away is bad.

So I am failing to see it through a TO eyes seeing i've never been one. I can only imagine that it can be stressful and hectic but that comes with the role of TO. I also am coming from a more casual gamer perspective see I don't play tourneys often.

The only response I have to that is that make it clear that you need some form of the rules. If my friends ever need to barrow one of my books it's not a problem they know that if they lose it it's their head.

The issue is not that they won't bring the rules, it is that they may not realize until too late that they are using the wrong ones quoit possible extensive fact checking on my part. Furthermore plenty of more casual Tories don't even require submitted lists, which means it is entirely possible for someone to play the entire event using the wrong rules. I'm not saying all this cannot be done, or handled but it seems to be the belief that there is little difference between FW and codex units and it is simply untrue.

Breng77 wrote:
I'm not saying all this cannot be done, or handled but it seems to be the belief that there is little difference between FW and codex units and it is simply untrue.

If you wouldn't mind Breng, would you mind explaining what difference there is. From what I can tell there isnt much of a difference besides where the rules are located, at least that's what I see. It is FW fault for doing a poor job at consolidating their rules so it's easy to find out what units are where and which book has the latest book and that's about it . But I've never been a TO so I don't know all the issues that come with it and i've only have done a few tourneys and hope to do more.

I also hope I don't come across as rude or belligerent, I not trying to do so. But you know... It's the internet

He... He literally just explained the difference.

It is essentially that As a TO to appropriately check lists with fw I need to know which hooks contain the most recent publications of each unit. Making said list is not a small undertaking. Throw on top of that paging though a bunch of separate books for points costs (which could be less than standard but could also be much more). But mostly it is generating and maintaining a list of current fw units for referencing.

@rigeld2 I wasn't sure if there was anymore....


@Breng77 And yeah, Like I said, It really comes down to FW fault for doing a poor job about keeping it all in one place.

The amount of work for a TO to check that players are using the most up-to-date version of rules for any particular FW unit is crazy. Hence, AdeptiCon's amazing list. But most tournaments just don't have that kind of resources to put behind organizing what the most current rules are for units. FW needs to do it... and until they do, FW use in tournaments is not going to be nearly as widespread as it would be otherwise- simply because of the massive work a TO needs to do to allow it.

This is very true! Allowing a subset of Forge World is a lot easier for many people. Hopefully the new book (which looks very similar to Imperial Armour Apocalypse Second Edition) and Aeronautica will help to facilitate this type of approach for say mid tiered events that don't have as many resources to draw from for their staff.

The issue I have with those books is they are a large part of the problem, unless we are only allowing the units as they appear in those book reprinting compilations of units with updated rules, exacerbates the issue. Now if those books were simple re-prints...I.e. same rules but just all the units without the campaign book extras I'd be totally for it. The problem with that would be that it makes updating all the units difficult if they want the rules between campaign books and compilations consistent.

I think you're throwing out the baby with the bath water so to speak - basically it seems there is no viable solution for you and I pretty much have to disagree with what you just posted. Sorry mate.

There is absolutely a viable solution....several actually.

1.). Someone pro FW creates and updates a database of FW units and lists and the most recent FW publications of those units that players and TOs can use as reference.

2.)FW stops reprinting units with updated rules, I. Different books. If x unit is found in ia 5 that is the only is book in which its rules reside. Then if they decide to print a compilation of units, it needs to be just a reprint of rules not an update. Then rules in both need to be updated simultaneously. Perhaps what this means is the compilation book needs to be a digital release or constantly faq'd to keep it up to date with the other releases.

3.) I would like to see compilation books be per army. That way if I want to find the imperial guard units there is only one book I need refer to...which if consistently updated...makes thing much easier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The current problem with say IA :apoc second Ed is that unless we decide to ignore updates that happen outside it I cannot just say we will only use units in that book and aeronautica and ignore the rest of the books for FW implementation. Otherwise someone will complain at their unit has been updated and we should use the current rules not the outdated one.

Breng77 wrote:

1.). Someone pro FW creates and updates a database of FW units and lists and the most recent FW publications of those units that players and TOs can use as reference.

Ive already done this for TO's in the UK, so it does exist. Apparently FW are making their own tho, when that come out who knows.

Is the list available online? Or do you just provide it to those uk TOs? Does it get updated with each release or just for specific tournaments?

Adepticon has a similar list for just units but it is only updated for adepticon, and thus not so useful when new releases come out.

Its available to all its just not available online yet but will be soon I hope through the 40k Global Podcast website or infact anyone else who wishes to host it (just get in contact), it is constantly kept upto date as I buy every IA book as soon as they are available to me as I find them fantastic books to own and have a lot of FW models so need the rules as soon as their out to try new things..

If anyone wants a copy pm me your email and ill send it to you, but it will be having a massive update next week due to the release of the new IA Apocalypse book so ill be sending it out then.

That's great, Boomstick, and a globally available list like that which is frequently updated would go a long way towards addressing the issues with FW! And towards coming up with a viable solution for it's inclusion in events with less resources, as Dozer Blades and Breng77 indicated the need for (and that possibility of, with a bit of work!).

Forgeworld had a list once and they could be working on anther one.

The working AdeptiCon list is current it just has not been updated on the website : )

The issue is these sort of lists are only viable if they are maintained which can be a task ..

So what you're saying is we need an AdeptiCon team mole

muwhe wrote:
The working AdeptiCon list is current it just has not been updated on the website : )

The issue is these sort of lists are only viable if they are maintained which can be a task.