muwhe wrote:
@Breng77 - I am ok with IG being dominate at any given point in time as I am with any other codex. Such is the case with the game system. The alternative is TO or Community Comp a path that was well traveled once upon a time.

@Eyjio - My point was that Forgeworld units are used at Offical Warhammer World events. Last I checked Games Workshop does not really have a competitive tourney format? or am I mistaken? As for updates .. sure in some cases it took years. Which in my mind is better than never or not until we release a new codex. Some happen much quicker in the case of feedback to experimental rules they post. My point is they still have a business model that allows it and they do it. As for IA2v2. It makes zero sense for Forgeworld to update that book given the pending release of Codex: Space Marine. I would rather wait for an update to IA2v2 that accounts for the new codex then get an immediate update that is made obsolete in 6 months.

@JWhex - So back on topic .. I think we need FW in some events and I think we need some events without FW. : )

Throne of Skulls is a bit rubbish but interstore tournaments tend to be all out affairs where the only issue with competitiveness is the small player bases. I don't disagree with you (and my area uses FW in almost everything) but I don't think something which doesn't release FAQs quickly is fit for purpose - I had this issue with GW before but they seem to have picked up a lot of slack there. For IA:Apoc 2nd ed it's mostly Orks that have the issue and they really should have FAQ'd it a long time ago anyway. They've already done for for the Heresy book and IA2 2nd ed though, so that's something.

I'm voting with my feet - I won't be going to any open FW tournaments. Maybe restricted to 1 choice, but if they can fill their lists I won't be there.

So everyone wants FW just for the fluff - not what I see at tournaments. It's an excuse for mass spamming of hyperios/sabre defence platforms and the like. Cherry picking the best units from the books. Well, everyone can do that from their codex can't they like Wraiths, helldrakes, tervigons ... well the argument doesn't run through here as FW is massively tilted in the favour of IG/SM armies. So while FW opens up a great window of opportunity to them, what does it offer say Nids, Dark Eldar, Orks etc. Essentially very little.

Now with a new codex Eldar, Tau etc become competitve again - what about FW though? Is there going to be an even spread of upgrades for all armies or is it going to be 90% imperial again for the next year or two? I think we know the answer already to that one.

The main game is not balanced, but it's not totally broken. It's almost impossible to have the flavour of the different races and get balance, but at least everyone gets an even range of unit choices - certainly more so now with new releases. In FW IG have about 30 new units (proably more I don't have all the books by any stretch), Nids about 3. Imagine a game of american football where one side can take 22 players and the other 52 - ok you can only have 11 on the field at once but the ability to specialise makes the team with the larger squad odds on favourites. That's the FW game.

Vaktathi said: "if we're assuming enough artillery platforms and support to both have 9 thudd guns, an aegis line, a CCS and LC for babysitting support, and say 3 units of TLLC sabres, how many points are left for troops?"

Blackmoor already posted the list. I'm assuming you missed it? ...

I'll happily play against FW in a casual setting, since chances are it'll be for fluff/coolness. I'd never attend a tournament that allowed forgeworld though. Getting your ass handed to you by an army full of special rules that you've never heard of wouldn't be very fun.

I actually like the idea of running 2 concurrent tournaments.

This solves 2 problems.
#1. The people who don’t like forge world don’t have to deal with it.
#2. The people who like forge world get to play with it.
#3. It has the added benefit of cutting down the number of rounds to find the winner. Major GTs are 7+ game grinds and you can now find a true winner with less rounds.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Vaktathi said: "if we're assuming enough artillery platforms and support to both have 9 thudd guns, an aegis line, a CCS and LC for babysitting support, and say 3 units of TLLC sabres, how many points are left for troops?"

Blackmoor already posted the list. I'm assuming you missed it? ...

He said he put Blackmoor on ignore which means he can't see the list he posted already which conveniently answers his questions while simultaneously disproving his argument.

These games aren't played in a vacuum and yet several of the people arguing against those lists being OP are acting as if they do. Not the best way to analyze games and lists, this is why I try to steer clear of the list discussion section, too many opinions from people who only think inside the vacuum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
I actually like the idea of running 2 concurrent tournaments.

This solves 2 problems.
#1. The people who don’t like forge world don’t have to deal with it.
#2. The people who like forge world get to play with it.
#3. It has the added benefit of cutting down the number of rounds to find the winner. Major GTs are 7+ game grinds and you can now find a true winner with less rounds.

I agree this sounds much better. One of the reasons I am so excited to play in Reece's Anime Expo tournament in July is because it is capped at 32(34?) players so it will only be 5 rounds. I loved WarGamesCon last year and the BAO but 7 games is a lot of 40k especially if you aren't doing so well like me at last years WGC!

Again 2 concurrent events works well if you have a huge event, and not so well when you don't

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, I'd have to ask, if these are so unstoppable and make for such one-sided unwinnable games, and FW does so little for anyone else, why haven't IG artillery lists simply overrun and consistently dominated at FW allowed events?

How many major tournaments have we had that allowed FW so far?

A heavy artillery IG army was undefeated when going into the second to last round of the Bay Area Open but was beat by another IG army with FW when this game only went 3 rounds, otherwise it would have won. The winning IG army then advanced played a tzeentch demon army and lost because the demon player had insanely good rolls. If that demon army gets blown off the table by the forge world units like it should have it would have changed the whole FW narrative.

The Broadside Bash was won by the heavy artillery army above (He must have gotten all of his turns in).

The cost is also a barrier to entry. That IG army had $800.00 worth of Forge World in it.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, I'd have to ask, if these are so unstoppable and make for such one-sided unwinnable games, and FW does so little for anyone else, why haven't IG artillery lists simply overrun and consistently dominated at FW allowed events?

How many major tournaments have we had that allowed FW so far?

A heavy artillery IG army was undefeated when going into the second to last round of the Bay Area Open but was beat by another IG army with FW when this game only went 3 rounds, otherwise it would have won. The winning IG army then advanced played a tzeentch demon army and lost because the demon player had insanely good rolls. If that demon army gets blown off the table by the forge world units like it should have it would have changed the whole FW narrative.

The Broadside Bash was won by the heavy artillery army above (He must have gotten all of his turns in).

The cost is also a barrier to entry. That IG army had $800.00 worth of Forge World in it.

What's sad is that it's true.

I will be curious to see how WGC turns out this year. I suspect that IG will place very highly and you will see a depressed Tau presence on the top tables mainly because of Arty IG. Its a strong counter to Tau (and just about everything else).

 hippesthippo wrote:
Vaktathi said: "if we're assuming enough artillery platforms and support to both have 9 thudd guns, an aegis line, a CCS and LC for babysitting support, and say 3 units of TLLC sabres, how many points are left for troops?"

Blackmoor already posted the list. I'm assuming you missed it? ...

this one without any Thudd Guns? If there was another I will admit that I have in fact missed it, but this one has some issue (and notably lacks the aforementioned and bemoaned thudd guns)

1850 points
CCS
LC
2 Blob squads
Vets in Chimera
3 Lascannon sabers
3 Lascannon sabers
Vulture Gunship
Vendetta
2 Earthshaker batteries
2 Medusa batteries
ADL

2 Rune Priests
8 Grey Hunters w/Drop pod

Assuming the 2 blob squads are 2 units of 20 each, and from a single platoon (the smallest possible there for the list to work), we're looking at 1827pts if I'm doing my math right (and assuming the vulture is being taken with the TL Punisher cannon), and that's with zero upgrades/weapons/banners/blob commissars/etc on the Grey Hunters, Platoon and Company command squads, blob squads and Veteran squads.

Do I need to go into details about the issues with tons of squishy naked infantry (and squishy command units), total lack of appropriate weaponry for short range work and the like?

 BryllCream wrote:
I'll happily play against FW in a casual setting, since chances are it'll be for fluff/coolness. I'd never attend a tournament that allowed forgeworld though. Getting your ass handed to you by an army full of special rules that you've never heard of wouldn't be very fun.

And this is different from a new codex/White Dwarf units how?

OverwatchCNC wrote:

He said he put Blackmoor on ignore which means he can't see the list he posted already which conveniently answers his questions while simultaneously disproving his argument.

I only put him on ignore after he responded to a post not directed at him with a juvenile "that's stupid and you know nothing" post, that didn't bother to argue/counter/discuss anything I actually posted.

That's the list, yes. I don't want to say anything that might come off as mean, so I'll end it there.

 Vaktathi wrote:
this one without any Thudd Guns? If there was another I will admit that I have in fact missed it, but this one has some issue (and notably lacks the aforementioned and bemoaned thudd guns)

1850 points
CCS
LC
2 Blob squads
Vets in Chimera
3 Lascannon sabers
3 Lascannon sabers
Vulture Gunship
Vendetta
2 Earthshaker batteries
2 Medusa batteries
ADL

2 Rune Priests
8 Grey Hunters w/Drop pod

Assuming the 2 blob squads are 2 units of 20 each, and from a single platoon (the smallest possible there for the list to work), we're looking at 1827pts if I'm doing my math right (and assuming the vulture is being taken with the TL Punisher cannon), and that's with zero upgrades/weapons/banners/blob commissars/etc on the Grey Hunters, Platoon and Company command squads, blob squads and Veteran squads.

Do I need to go into details about the issues with tons of squishy naked infantry (and squishy command units), total lack of appropriate weaponry for short range work and the like?

That is the list that I faced at the Broadside Bash. It might have been a 2000 point tournament, or I might have some of the smaller units mixed up.

No one knew about the thudd guns until Adepticon which was after the Bash. It really does not matter what part of the FW artillery that you take, they are all good and interchangable. Just drop a heavy artillery platform and replace it with them and you have the same thing.

 hippesthippo wrote:
That's the list, yes. I don't want to say anything that might come off as mean, so I'll end it there.

If you have a legitimate point to make I promise I won't be too butthurt about it. I feel there are issues with that list.

It's got a good amount of long range firepower for sure, but is reliant largely on one 6 model T3 5+sv unit hiding behind and aegis line to stay in the game, is heavily reliant on one of the flyers for "oh gak something got close" support, and primarily reliant on T3 5+sv Ld7/8 infantry sporting nothing but lasguns that must leave that Ld/Command bubble for objective nabbing and a single squad or MEQ infantry, and the list only has 23pts to play with to remedy those issues.

I'm not saying it's an easy list that nobody will have any problems defeating, but there are very definitely exploitable weaknesses that many common tournament armies should be able to take advantage of and emerge victorious with as much reasonable chance of victory as most other lists they may be facing.

 Blackmoor wrote:
I actually like the idea of running 2 concurrent tournaments.

This solves 2 problems.
#1. The people who don’t like forge world don’t have to deal with it.
#2. The people who like forge world get to play with it.
#3. It has the added benefit of cutting down the number of rounds to find the winner. Major GTs are 7+ game grinds and you can now find a true winner with less rounds.

Have you ever run a big event? That would be a big pain in the donkey and the two could potentially detract in the overall draw from each other. It solves nothing.

Anyways you should wear a big sign at WGC that sez "I'm Blackmoor the dude that hates Forge World!!!".

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Anyways you should wear a big sign at WGC that sez "I'm Blackmoor the dude that hates Forge World!!!".

That might not bode well.

 Vaktathi wrote:
And this is different from a new codex/White Dwarf units how?

I will browse through a codex, and it will be discussed online - I'll have a fair idea of what i'm playing against. I don't know anything about any forgeworld, as do most 40k gamers. Why should we have to face an army we know literally nothing about when in all likelihood they'll know our codex off by heart. They'll know what strategy we're going for and what the weak point in our list is. We will have no such luxury against FW armies, even if you could browse the rules that doesn't really tell you how the army plays.

With the quick rate at which the new codices are being released I highly doubt that most players are highly familiar wih all of the new units.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
With the quick rate at which the new codices are being released I highly doubt that most players are highly familiar wih all of the new units.

There are still far better and more numerous resources online for info on new, and old, codices than for FW rules units etc.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
With the quick rate at which the new codices are being released I highly doubt that most players are highly familiar wih all of the new units.

No doubt. I was flipping through the Tau codex again last night and still picking up on units and upgrades I hadn't realized before.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
I actually like the idea of running 2 concurrent tournaments.

This solves 2 problems.
#1. The people who don’t like forge world don’t have to deal with it.
#2. The people who like forge world get to play with it.
#3. It has the added benefit of cutting down the number of rounds to find the winner. Major GTs are 7+ game grinds and you can now find a true winner with less rounds.

Have you ever run a big event? That would be a big pain in the donkey and the two could potentially detract in the overall draw from each other. It solves nothing.

Anyways you should wear a big sign at WGC that sez "I'm Blackmoor the dude that hates Forge World!!!".

#1. I canceled my plane tickets to WGC because they are allowing forge world.
#2. Most people at tournaments know me and my stance on forge world.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
With the quick rate at which the new codices are being released I highly doubt that most players are highly familiar wih all of the new units.

There are still far better and more numerous resources online for info on new, and old, codices than for FW rules units etc.

Oh Rly ?? FW has many of their rules for units available online for free.

Not really, Dozer. Just the experimental ones and outdated army lists. Check the downloads page in my signature for examples.

They have rules for the Storm Eagles, Contemptor dreadnaughts, etc... not just outdated or experimental.

Show me the contemptor rules, please.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/c/Contemptor.pdf

Here is an example of how FW destabilizes the game in a take-all-comers environment.

What saber platforms get to do is add not only a very hard to kill weapons platform, but anti-tank and all in a troop slot, but where is it really bad is the interceptor rule.

Most armies rely on fliers as their only anti-flyer defense. So what happens is that the saber defense platforms shoot down any flyers that their opponents have before they can even shoot with interceptor, and then the IG’s Vultures just fly around uncontested and destroy their opponent with 20 strength 5 shots.

So those rules stamped with the experimental stamp...

Experimental rules, outdated, and incomplete.

It is up to date. And is from the Forge World website. Dude don't lie to make your point. * Sad face *

Ummm.... The link you provided is stamped experimental, and has point costs blacked out.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It is up to date. And is from the Forge World website. Dude don't lie to make your point. * Sad face *

1. I'm not lying. Watch your mouth (er, fingers).
2. That is not up to date. The contemptor was updated in both the HH book, the Aeronautica book (mortis pattern), and IA: Apocalypse II, second edition (which is no longer on the FW site).
3. It's incomplete.

What point are you trying to make posting out-dated, experimental, incomplete pdfs?

Edit: I'm not trying to pick on you, Dozer. But the only thing that FW puts up on their download pages now are the experimental rules, which can change when they go into print.

Yes, you can still get an idea of what a unit does that way, but not every unit get that. Not even 1 in 5.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
And this is different from a new codex/White Dwarf units how?

I will browse through a codex, and it will be discussed online -

Are FW units/armies not also discussed online? I think I've seen them in the General Discussion and Tactics forums with some frequency (even if not routine). We just had several threads on the IA12 book.

Furthermore, how does one browse something like, say, the SoB codex if you didn't pick it up during the month that WD was for sale?

I'll have a fair idea of what i'm playing against. I don't know anything about any forgeworld, as do most 40k gamers. Why should we have to face an army we know literally nothing about when in all likelihood they'll know our codex off by heart.

Same thing applies to a new codex, most people don't have armies memorized the first few months they are out. Hell people are still getting used to DA's much less Tau. And most FW stuff isn't spectacularly far off the mark of what you'd normally see. If you know how a Leman Russ Battle Tank works you know how a Leman Russ Annihilator works.

They'll know what strategy we're going for and what the weak point in our list is. We will have no such luxury against FW armies

You should be able to request an opponents rules and overview them ahead of time no matter what they're playing, that's simply a common assumption at events.

One could also....buy the books. Before the inevitable cost argument arise, if you're already shelling out for multiple $50 codex books each year to keep up on the tournament scene and are updating armies to keep up with the meta, it's a marginal extra cost for magnificient books, and some are roughly codex cost (IA Aeronautica is actually cheaper...).

even if you could browse the rules that doesn't really tell you how the army plays.

so...browsing a codex you can tell how it plays, but browsing an IA list organized in the same manner you can't. I don't follow how this is so much more difficult.

 Blackmoor wrote:
If that demon army gets blown off the table by the forge world units like it should have it would have changed the whole FW narrative.

Why? Does it "change the whole narrative" every time a codex list wins a tournament decisively? Or are we going back to the ridiculous double standard where FW rules are only allowed as long as nobody would ever use them in a winning list?

The cost is also a barrier to entry. That IG army had $800.00 worth of Forge World in it.

And this doesn't apply to codex armies? You're going to be spending hundreds of dollars on making a codex IG army, on top of all the travel/hotel/etc expenses for attending a major tournament.

 BryllCream wrote:
I will browse through a codex, and it will be discussed online - I'll have a fair idea of what i'm playing against. I don't know anything about any forgeworld, as do most 40k gamers. Why should we have to face an army we know literally nothing about when in all likelihood they'll know our codex off by heart. They'll know what strategy we're going for and what the weak point in our list is. We will have no such luxury against FW armies, even if you could browse the rules that doesn't really tell you how the army plays.

So what? If you don't do the research of course you'll be surprised. But we wouldn't have any sympathy for someone who didn't do the research on a codex army, so why should it be acceptable to remain ignorant of FW rules and then complain that you don't know about them?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
And this is different from a new codex/White Dwarf units how?

I will browse through a codex, and it will be discussed online -

Are FW units/armies not also discussed online? I think I've seen them in the General Discussion and Tactics forums with some frequency (even if not routine). We just had several threads on the IA12 book.

Furthermore, how does one browse something like, say, the SoB codex if you didn't pick it up during the month that WD was for sale?

I'll have a fair idea of what i'm playing against. I don't know anything about any forgeworld, as do most 40k gamers. Why should we have to face an army we know literally nothing about when in all likelihood they'll know our codex off by heart.

Same thing applies to a new codex, most people don't have armies memorized the first few months they are out. Hell people are still getting used to DA's much less Tau. And most FW stuff isn't spectacularly far off the mark of what you'd normally see. If you know how a Leman Russ Battle Tank works you know how a Leman Russ Annihilator works.

They'll know what strategy we're going for and what the weak point in our list is. We will have no such luxury against FW armies

You should be able to request an opponents rules and overview them ahead of time no matter what they're playing, that's simply a common assumption at events.

One could also....buy the books. Before the inevitable cost argument arise, if you're already shelling out for multiple $50 codex books each year to keep up on the tournament scene and are updating armies to keep up with the meta, it's a marginal extra cost for magnificient books, and some are roughly codex cost (IA Aeronautica is actually cheaper...).

even if you could browse the rules that doesn't really tell you how the army plays.

so...browsing a codex you can tell how it plays, but browsing an IA list organized in the same manner you can't. I don't follow how this is so much more difficult.

/thread. People who don't want variation in the game only want to win. People who want variation in the game are in it for the hobby of painting and modeling.

Which has nothing to do with fw, if anything fw will see less variation a tournaments than its exclusion. In fact most anti-fw people are ok with it so long as the worst abused units are not included. There are plenty of painting and modeling opporunities without forge world.

Breng77 wrote:
Which has nothing to do with fw, if anything fw will see less variation a tournaments than its exclusion. In fact most anti-fw people are ok with it so long as the worst abused units are not included.

This is often highly subjective and contentious, and many of which certainly are no worse than anything found in a codex, and if FW units are being banned, why aren't codex units of the same power level?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which has nothing to do with fw, if anything fw will see less variation a tournaments than its exclusion. In fact most anti-fw people are ok with it so long as the worst abused units are not included.

This is often highly subjective and contentious, and many of which certainly are no worse than anything found in a codex, and if FW units are being banned, why aren't codex units of the same power level?

Because the latter is part of the group of units labled "featured in codexes", that is universally accepted. The former is in the group "not featured in codexes", variations of which are found wherever you play.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which has nothing to do with fw, if anything fw will see less variation a tournaments than its exclusion. In fact most anti-fw people are ok with it so long as the worst abused units are not included.

This is often highly subjective and contentious, and many of which certainly are no worse than anything found in a codex, and if FW units are being banned, why aren't codex units of the same power level?

Because the latter is part of the group of units labled "featured in codexes", that is universally accepted. The former is in the group "not featured in codexes", variations of which are found wherever you play.

And here's where we come to the rub...why is that distinction relevant?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which has nothing to do with fw, if anything fw will see less variation a tournaments than its exclusion. In fact most anti-fw people are ok with it so long as the worst abused units are not included.

This is often highly subjective and contentious, and many of which certainly are no worse than anything found in a codex, and if FW units are being banned, why aren't codex units of the same power level?

Because the latter is part of the group of units labled "featured in codexes", that is universally accepted. The former is in the group "not featured in codexes", variations of which are found wherever you play.

And here's where we come to the rub...why is that distinction relevant?

Why is any distinction relevent? Nevertheless, it's there. Codex is the default, FW is an add-on.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which has nothing to do with fw, if anything fw will see less variation a tournaments than its exclusion. In fact most anti-fw people are ok with it so long as the worst abused units are not included.

This is often highly subjective and contentious, and many of which certainly are no worse than anything found in a codex, and if FW units are being banned, why aren't codex units of the same power level?

Vaktathi, its been explained so many times in this thread even a quick perusal would of netted your answer. You love to expound on your arguments but always distill the other sides down to its lowest common denominator. The reason why is that broken FW units almost exclusively benefit IG and Marines. You will see less diversification in tournaments as player gravitate towards the powerful FW units. The current meta is actually fairly healthy as two new codex are showing promise against the Necron dominance and Eldar are just getting started. FW will reverse those trends all skewing towards IG.

Another thing I dislike about FW is why they always seem to improve on weapons and units at have been working fine in 40k. Kheres Assault Cannon is the prime example. 4 shots on the assault cannon not enough for you? Buy now and we'll give you 6 shots! Its hilarious.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which has nothing to do with fw, if anything fw will see less variation a tournaments than its exclusion. In fact most anti-fw people are ok with it so long as the worst abused units are not included.

This is often highly subjective and contentious, and many of which certainly are no worse than anything found in a codex, and if FW units are being banned, why aren't codex units of the same power level?

Because the latter is part of the group of units labled "featured in codexes", that is universally accepted. The former is in the group "not featured in codexes", variations of which are found wherever you play.

And here's where we come to the rub...why is that distinction relevant?

Why is any distinction relevent? Nevertheless, it's there. Codex is the default, FW is an add-on.

FW is an "add-on" in as much as WD SoB is an "add-on", or any other Codex for that matter. FW is officially part of the game system as much as Codices are. An "add-on" would be Apocalypse, which fundamentally changes how the game is played.

Glocknall wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which has nothing to do with fw, if anything fw will see less variation a tournaments than its exclusion. In fact most anti-fw people are ok with it so long as the worst abused units are not included.

This is often highly subjective and contentious, and many of which certainly are no worse than anything found in a codex, and if FW units are being banned, why aren't codex units of the same power level?

Vaktathi, its been explained so many times in this thread even a quick perusal would of netted your answer. You love to expound on your arguments but always distill the other sides down to its lowest common denominator. The reason why is that broken FW units almost exclusively benefit IG and Marines.

The Eldar get an entirely new army list, a new aspect, a new type of wraithlord, multiple new flyers and hovertanks, etc. Tau get a new suit class, new flyers, skimmer units like tetras and additional hammerhead options and more. Necrons get their own artillery units, a new skimmer tank and a heavy bomber. Orks get all sorts of wacky walkers and tanks. There's a lot of stuff that isn't just IG/Imperial. Yet nobody wants to talk about that because "zomg sabres and thudd guns!" despite that many of these units are very characterful and likely would see lots of use if allowed.

You will see less diversification in tournaments as player gravitate towards the powerful FW units. The current meta is actually fairly healthy as two new codex are showing promise against the Necron dominance and Eldar are just getting started. FW will reverse those trends all skewing towards IG.

There's a lot of stuff for IG yes, there's also a good amount of stuff for Tau, Orks, Eldar, and now Necrons are getting stuff as well. This is especially true in the Flyer/anti-flyer department. I know I've been seeing lots of Barracudas, Hornets, Tetras, Warp Hunter and Nightwings of late, I don't get why it'd only be IG stuff that would overrun events.

And since when was controlling the direction of the metagame away from or towards certain armies an aim or responsibility of tournaments, as opposed to being large events where people take their toy soldiers and compete to see who can use their toys the best?

Another thing I dislike about FW is why they always seem to improve on weapons and units at have been working fine in 40k. Kheres Assault Cannon is the prime example. 4 shots on the assault cannon not enough for you? Buy now and we'll give you 6 shots! Its hilarious.

While I can understand the conceptual issue and can agree with it, GW's core design studio does the same thing (look at the new Eldar codex and all the monofilament/distort weapons), and it's not like the Contemptor with Kheres AC's is a huge balance issue being a 200something point walker.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which has nothing to do with fw, if anything fw will see less variation a tournaments than its exclusion. In fact most anti-fw people are ok with it so long as the worst abused units are not included.

This is often highly subjective and contentious, and many of which certainly are no worse than anything found in a codex, and if FW units are being banned, why aren't codex units of the same power level?

Because the latter is part of the group of units labled "featured in codexes", that is universally accepted. The former is in the group "not featured in codexes", variations of which are found wherever you play.

And here's where we come to the rub...why is that distinction relevant?

Why is any distinction relevent? Nevertheless, it's there. Codex is the default, FW is an add-on.

FW is an "add-on" in as much as WD SoB is an "add-on", or any other Codex for that matter. FW is officially part of the game system as much as Codices are. An "add-on" would be Apocalypse, which fundamentally changes how the game is played.

Not true at all FW is a self admitted "expansion" to the game, not part of the base game. Saying it is on the same level as a codex is akin to saying that dlc missions for a video game are the same as the base game. This does not make them un-official, but they are not at all the same. Lets put it this way the 40k BRB contains statlines for ever non special character that existed in the base game prior to the edition, release, it includes no previously published FW statlines. So stating that FW is the same as any base game model is false. Again this does not make them un-official but they are obviously on a different level. Perhaps think of it this way, games (including 40k) often contain basic rules, and then advanced rules. Standard 40k is the basic with no add ons, FW 40k is the advanced with all the bells and whistles.

 Enigwolf wrote:

FW is an "add-on" in as much as WD SoB is an "add-on", or any other Codex for that matter. FW is officially part of the game system as much as Codices are. An "add-on" would be Apocalypse, which fundamentally changes how the game is played.

This is simply untrue. SoB is published and printed directly by Games Workshop LTD, a subsidiary owned by Games Workshop Group PLC. Forge World is another subsidiary of Games Workshop Group PLC but otherwise unrelated to Games Workshop LTD - they have a different work force, different stores, different warehouses and produce different products. Forge World are licensed to be able to produce items for GW LTD trademarks and use their copyrights. That does not and will never make them "the same". They do not even use the same printing - Forge World books are printed in England, GWs in China. Forge World's self proclaimed officiousness is about as valid as Transformers saying they're valid for use in MTG because both are subsidiaries of Hasbro. It's marketed as "an expansion" because they are not allowed by the main company to produce additional models for the GW subsidiary and claim them to be normally usable units for any game. Please stop spreading this because it is wrong.

As to why ig perhaps because they have maybe twice as many units available as the rest of the not imperial Maine armies? Maybe because they contribute most of the perceived broken units? Which means that is what top tournament players will gravitate toward.

Eyjio wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

FW is an "add-on" in as much as WD SoB is an "add-on", or any other Codex for that matter. FW is officially part of the game system as much as Codices are. An "add-on" would be Apocalypse, which fundamentally changes how the game is played.

This is simply untrue. SoB is published and printed directly by Games Workshop LTD, a subsidiary owned by Games Workshop Group PLC. Forge World is another subsidiary of Games Workshop Group PLC but otherwise unrelated to Games Workshop LTD - they have a different work force, different stores, different warehouses and produce different products. Forge World are licensed to be able to produce items for GW LTD trademarks and use their copyrights. That does not and will never make them "the same". They do not even use the same printing - Forge World books are printed in England, GWs in China. Forge World's self proclaimed officiousness is about as valid as Transformers saying they're valid for use in MTG because both are subsidiaries of Hasbro. It's marketed as "an expansion" because they are not allowed by the main company to produce additional models for the GW subsidiary and claim them to be normally usable units for any game. Please stop spreading this because it is wrong.

Forgeworld is not a subsidiary at all actually, they're just another department at GW no different than IT or Accounting. They aren't a distinct organization, they're not even a licensed reseller, they're GW through and through. It says right on their website that they are part of Games Workshop, they aren't a subsidiary company. Their offices are in the same place everyone elses is. Their email systems are all "@gamesworkshop.co.uk" and not "@forgeworld.co.uk".

Eyjio wrote:
It's marketed as "an expansion" because they are not allowed by the main company to produce additional models for the GW subsidiary and claim them to be normally usable units for any game.

Sorry, wrong again. FW books explicitly say "these rules are official and part of standard 40k". You can nitpick all you like about how GW structures their company for accounting/legal reasons, but the simple fact is that if GW did not approve of FW's "these are official" claim it would be removed from the books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
As to why ig perhaps because they have maybe twice as many units available as the rest of the not imperial Maine armies?

Except that most of them are redundant. Who cares if IG get the Lightning and Thunderbolt, I'm not taking either of them because I have Vendettas. Meanwhile Tau might only get the Barracuda, but it will almost always replace the weak codex flyers. And that's not even counting the "fluff" units that will never appear in a competitive game, like the Sentinel cargo loader.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

FW is an "add-on" in as much as WD SoB is an "add-on", or any other Codex for that matter. FW is officially part of the game system as much as Codices are. An "add-on" would be Apocalypse, which fundamentally changes how the game is played.

This is simply untrue. SoB is published and printed directly by Games Workshop LTD, a subsidiary owned by Games Workshop Group PLC. Forge World is another subsidiary of Games Workshop Group PLC but otherwise unrelated to Games Workshop LTD - they have a different work force, different stores, different warehouses and produce different products. Forge World are licensed to be able to produce items for GW LTD trademarks and use their copyrights. That does not and will never make them "the same". They do not even use the same printing - Forge World books are printed in England, GWs in China. Forge World's self proclaimed officiousness is about as valid as Transformers saying they're valid for use in MTG because both are subsidiaries of Hasbro. It's marketed as "an expansion" because they are not allowed by the main company to produce additional models for the GW subsidiary and claim them to be normally usable units for any game. Please stop spreading this because it is wrong.

Forgeworld is not a subsidiary at all actually, they're just another department at GW no different than IT or Accounting. They aren't a distinct organization, they're not even a licensed reseller, they're GW through and through.

Again, that's not true. GW LTD has nothing to do with Forge World. They do not link them on their website and they do not own them. GW PLC owns FW. Again, they do not share a workforce, nor offices, nor production. This is why not even GW's own stores can order FW to them - it is not the same company and the profits do not go to GW LTD.

 Peregrine wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
It's marketed as "an expansion" because they are not allowed by the main company to produce additional models for the GW subsidiary and claim them to be normally usable units for any game.

Sorry, wrong again. FW books explicitly say "these rules are official and part of standard 40k". You can nitpick all you like about how GW structures their company for accounting/legal reasons, but the simple fact is that if GW did not approve of FW's "these are official" claim it would be removed from the books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
As to why ig perhaps because they have maybe twice as many units available as the rest of the not imperial Maine armies?

Except that most of them are redundant. Who cares if IG get the Lightning and Thunderbolt, I'm not taking either of them because I have Vendettas. Meanwhile Tau might only get the Barracuda, but it will almost always replace the weak codex flyers. And that's not even counting the "fluff" units that will never appear in a competitive game, like the Sentinel cargo loader.

And the more abundant broken units it provides?

Eyjio wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

FW is an "add-on" in as much as WD SoB is an "add-on", or any other Codex for that matter. FW is officially part of the game system as much as Codices are. An "add-on" would be Apocalypse, which fundamentally changes how the game is played.

This is simply untrue. SoB is published and printed directly by Games Workshop LTD, a subsidiary owned by Games Workshop Group PLC. Forge World is another subsidiary of Games Workshop Group PLC but otherwise unrelated to Games Workshop LTD - they have a different work force, different stores, different warehouses and produce different products. Forge World are licensed to be able to produce items for GW LTD trademarks and use their copyrights. That does not and will never make them "the same". They do not even use the same printing - Forge World books are printed in England, GWs in China. Forge World's self proclaimed officiousness is about as valid as Transformers saying they're valid for use in MTG because both are subsidiaries of Hasbro. It's marketed as "an expansion" because they are not allowed by the main company to produce additional models for the GW subsidiary and claim them to be normally usable units for any game. Please stop spreading this because it is wrong.

Breng77 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Which has nothing to do with fw, if anything fw will see less variation a tournaments than its exclusion. In fact most anti-fw people are ok with it so long as the worst abused units are not included.

This is often highly subjective and contentious, and many of which certainly are no worse than anything found in a codex, and if FW units are being banned, why aren't codex units of the same power level?

Because the latter is part of the group of units labled "featured in codexes", that is universally accepted. The former is in the group "not featured in codexes", variations of which are found wherever you play.

And here's where we come to the rub...why is that distinction relevant?

Why is any distinction relevent? Nevertheless, it's there. Codex is the default, FW is an add-on.

FW is an "add-on" in as much as WD SoB is an "add-on", or any other Codex for that matter. FW is officially part of the game system as much as Codices are. An "add-on" would be Apocalypse, which fundamentally changes how the game is played.

Not true at all FW is a self admitted "expansion" to the game, not part of the base game. Saying it is on the same level as a codex is akin to saying that dlc missions for a video game are the same as the base game. This does not make them un-official, but they are not at all the same. Lets put it this way the 40k BRB contains statlines for ever non special character that existed in the base game prior to the edition, release, it includes no previously published FW statlines. So stating that FW is the same as any base game model is false. Again this does not make them un-official but they are obviously on a different level. Perhaps think of it this way, games (including 40k) often contain basic rules, and then advanced rules. Standard 40k is the basic with no add ons, FW 40k is the advanced with all the bells and whistles.

Wrong and wrong. Please prove to me where Forge World has been "self admitted" as an "expansion". On the Forge World website, the only mention of "expansion" is the Horus Heresy line, while 40k and Fantasy are mentioned apart from that. Other than that, other recognized expansions are as follows: Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Planetstrike, Planetary Empires, Death from the Skies (source: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/landing.jsp?catId=cat440311a&rootCatGameStyle=wh40k)

For those who say that FW events have less variation, my experience is the exact opposite. Its easy to see why this would be: more options mean your army both has more possibilities and has to account for more possibilities across the table. In fact, the abundance of diverse armies seems to imply that FW is really not as bad as the picture some detractors would like to paint.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Wrong and wrong. Please prove to me where Forge World has been "self admitted" as an "expansion". On the Forge World website, the only mention of "expansion" is the Horus Heresy line, while 40k and Fantasy are mentioned apart from that. Other than that, other recognized expansions are as follows: Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Planetstrike, Planetary Empires, Death from the Skies (source: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/landing.jsp?catId=cat440311a&rootCatGameStyle=wh40k)

Are you seriously using the GW LTD website to show FW isn't an expansion? Okay, let's play this absurd denail game then. Find the Forge World link: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/home.jsp It's not obvious, because it's not the same company. Why would they list it as an expansion to their game on their website when it isn't made by them and they don't share in the profits? FW and Black Library are at the bottom in small print because they are owned by the same parent company. Is this really so hard? Are you going to say BL and GW are the same next?

So lets just say each codex has a broken unit or 2 that are generally accepted. (I'm not saying these units are broken or the worst, heck I'm going out on a limb say each codex even has an op unit)

Ig= vendetta
Wolves = long fangs
Grey knights = paladins
Sisters = Celestine
Csm = heldrake
Tau = riptide
Dark angels = salvo banner in land raider
Space marines = thunder fire
Blood angels = blood talon furioso
Dark eldar = beast pack
Eldar = eldrad (in the old book who knows in the new one yet)
Ork = nob bikers
Nids = tervigon
Daemons = daemon prince kitted out.
Crons = wraiths
Templars = really nothing

So I'm having trouble even coming up with one in most books and adding FW adds (at least by perception) 4 ish more to IG (who I could have added more to prior to adding any to some books)

This is why you will see tons of ig, throw in that they can ally with damn near everyone....sand tournaments (at the top become non stop ig Fest, allowing the barracuda (that no Tau player will bother running makes no difference)

Please cite tournaments that use FW and see an overabundance both of IG and the units seen as abusive.

I'd like some evidence that the sky is falling, we're not going to just believe you 'cause you can yell it loudly.

Eyjio wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

Wrong and wrong. Please prove to me where Forge World has been "self admitted" as an "expansion". On the Forge World website, the only mention of "expansion" is the Horus Heresy line, while 40k and Fantasy are mentioned apart from that. Other than that, other recognized expansions are as follows: Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Planetstrike, Planetary Empires, Death from the Skies (source: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/landing.jsp?catId=cat440311a&rootCatGameStyle=wh40k)

Are you seriously using the GW LTD website to show FW isn't an expansion? Okay, let's play this absurd denail game then. Find the Forge World link: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/home.jsp It's not obvious, because it's not the same company. Why would they list it as an expansion to their game on their website when it isn't made by them and they don't share in the profits? FW and Black Library are at the bottom in small print because they are owned by the same parent company. Is this really so hard? Are you going to say BL and GW are the same next?

I'm laughing at the concept that you're even using the GW company organizational structure to prove your point. So you're saying that if a video game company releases a game, and hands all the post-launch patch work off to another subsidiary (in this case, another studio, which frequently happens) to take care of, all post-launch patches are to be considered "unofficial expansions"? Come on. I listed half a dozen business reasons five or six pages ago as to why Forge World is a subsidiary company contributing to the same game system - did you even read the thread, or just the first and last page?

Eyjio wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

Wrong and wrong. Please prove to me where Forge World has been "self admitted" as an "expansion". On the Forge World website, the only mention of "expansion" is the Horus Heresy line, while 40k and Fantasy are mentioned apart from that. Other than that, other recognized expansions are as follows: Cities of Death, Apocalypse, Planetstrike, Planetary Empires, Death from the Skies (source: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/landing.jsp?catId=cat440311a&rootCatGameStyle=wh40k)

Are you seriously using the GW LTD website to show FW isn't an expansion? Okay, let's play this absurd denail game then. Find the Forge World link: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/home.jsp It's not obvious, because it's not the same company. Why would they list it as an expansion to their game on their website when it isn't made by them and they don't share in the profits? FW and Black Library are at the bottom in small print because they are owned by the same parent company. Is this really so hard? Are you going to say BL and GW are the same next?

I found the link quite easily, in under 30 seconds as fate would have it, not only that but I couldn't even select my country without my cursor passing over the link to Forge World.

Look at the top tables of bao and adepticon team events...if FW were allowed consistently trickle down would happen. Asking for evidence to be provided from an up to this point limited sample is obtuse. You can also listen to top players and look at their lists for these events to see a trend. I.e. people don't buy armies for single events. Wait till after Wgc and we'll see how things look there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also an expansion is anything that expands the base game hence FW = expansion.

 Enigwolf wrote:

I'm laughing at the concept that you're even using the GW company organizational structure to prove your point. So you're saying that if a video game company releases a game, and hands all the post-launch patch work off to another subsidiary (in this case, another studio, which frequently happens) to take care of, all post-launch patches are to be considered "unofficial expansions"? Come on. I listed half a dozen business reasons five or six pages ago as to why Forge World is a subsidiary company contributing to the same game system - did you even read the thread, or just the first and last page?

You're laughing because you're wrong? It's not in any way like that analogy. It's most like if EA Sports made a new Madden, then Bioware released paid DLC that added more stuff into the game but was arguably poorly done. They're both owned by EA, sure, but that DLC is not part of the main game and so most players would have neither heard of it nor downloaded it. Just because one company says it's "official" doesn't make it so.

Also an expansion is anything that expands the base game hence Codices = expansion.

Eyjio wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

FW is an "add-on" in as much as WD SoB is an "add-on", or any other Codex for that matter. FW is officially part of the game system as much as Codices are. An "add-on" would be Apocalypse, which fundamentally changes how the game is played.

This is simply untrue. SoB is published and printed directly by Games Workshop LTD, a subsidiary owned by Games Workshop Group PLC. Forge World is another subsidiary of Games Workshop Group PLC but otherwise unrelated to Games Workshop LTD - they have a different work force, different stores, different warehouses and produce different products. Forge World are licensed to be able to produce items for GW LTD trademarks and use their copyrights. That does not and will never make them "the same". They do not even use the same printing - Forge World books are printed in England, GWs in China. Forge World's self proclaimed officiousness is about as valid as Transformers saying they're valid for use in MTG because both are subsidiaries of Hasbro. It's marketed as "an expansion" because they are not allowed by the main company to produce additional models for the GW subsidiary and claim them to be normally usable units for any game. Please stop spreading this because it is wrong.

Forgeworld is not a subsidiary at all actually, they're just another department at GW no different than IT or Accounting. They aren't a distinct organization, they're not even a licensed reseller, they're GW through and through.

Again, that's not true. GW LTD has nothing to do with Forge World. They do not link them on their website and they do not own them. GW PLC owns FW. Again, they do not share a workforce, nor offices, nor production. This is why not even GW's own stores can order FW to them - it is not the same company and the profits do not go to GW LTD.

One will note their website does state "Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2000-2013."

Eyjio wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

I'm laughing at the concept that you're even using the GW company organizational structure to prove your point. So you're saying that if a video game company releases a game, and hands all the post-launch patch work off to another subsidiary (in this case, another studio, which frequently happens) to take care of, all post-launch patches are to be considered "unofficial expansions"? Come on. I listed half a dozen business reasons five or six pages ago as to why Forge World is a subsidiary company contributing to the same game system - did you even read the thread, or just the first and last page?

You're laughing because you're wrong? It's not in any way like that analogy. It's most like if EA Sports made a new Madden, then Bioware released paid DLC that added more stuff into the game but was arguably poorly done. They're both owned by EA, sure, but that DLC is not part of the main game and so most players would have neither heard of it nor downloaded it. Just because one company says it's "official" doesn't make it so.

I'm laughing at the extent you're reaching to to prove your point when it's already clearly stated that FW IA books are officially part of the game system and meant to be used as such. And I wasn't referring to DLC, I was referring to patches. Large game development companies hand off post-launch patching and balancing to another team/studio to handle because the original design studio has to move on to develop another game, otherwise their talents are wasted in maintenance. Does that mean these patches are unofficial expansions? No.

Krellnus wrote:Also an expansion is anything that expands the base game hence Codices = expansion.

Exactly. We should all just play with our Dark Vengeance sets if we don't want expansions, right?

Nope, no codices = no units = no game at all, I also cited where stats for these units are listed in the brb, and the codices themselves are mentioned there as reference.

And more double standards showing...

 Enigwolf wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

I'm laughing at the concept that you're even using the GW company organizational structure to prove your point. So you're saying that if a video game company releases a game, and hands all the post-launch patch work off to another subsidiary (in this case, another studio, which frequently happens) to take care of, all post-launch patches are to be considered "unofficial expansions"? Come on. I listed half a dozen business reasons five or six pages ago as to why Forge World is a subsidiary company contributing to the same game system - did you even read the thread, or just the first and last page?

You're laughing because you're wrong? It's not in any way like that analogy. It's most like if EA Sports made a new Madden, then Bioware released paid DLC that added more stuff into the game but was arguably poorly done. They're both owned by EA, sure, but that DLC is not part of the main game and so most players would have neither heard of it nor downloaded it. Just because one company says it's "official" doesn't make it so.

I'm laughing at the extent you're reaching to to prove your point when it's already clearly stated that FW IA books are officially part of the game system and meant to be used as such. And I wasn't referring to DLC, I was referring to patches. Large game development companies hand off post-launch patching and balancing to another team/studio to handle because the original design studio has to move on to develop another game, otherwise their talents are wasted in maintenance. Does that mean these patches are unofficial expansions? No.

Krellnus wrote:Also an expansion is anything that expands the base game hence Codices = expansion.

Exactly. We should all just play with our Dark Vengeance sets if we don't want expansions, right?

It's not the same as a patch though - FAQs are like a patch, they add almost nothing and fix core issues. DLC adds new things, which although can be done freely in a patch is not the same. Large game companies do not hand off patch work to entirely different companies unless there is literally no choice, they are handed to small parts of the original team because those are the people who worked with the code originally, so don't have to relearn the entire thing. Again, FW saying FW is legal says nothing. GW has never done so and refuses to do so in its own tournaments, despite knowing this inhibits FW sales at Warhammer World. This isn't a hard concept.

One will note their website does state "Copyright © Games Workshop Limited 2000-2013."

GW LTD owns all of the trademarks and copyrights. They also own Black Library's copyrights. That means almost nothing - they are still separate and operate as such.

Breng77 wrote:
Nope, no codices = no units = no game at all, I also cited where stats for these units are listed in the brb, and the codices themselves are mentioned there as reference.

Pray tell, where in the rules does it instruct me to use codices if they are part of the main game?

 Krellnus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Nope, no codices = no units = no game at all, I also cited where stats for these units are listed in the brb, and the codices themselves are mentioned there as reference.

Pray tell, where in the rules does it instruct me to use codices if they are part of the main game?

p108, main rulebook.

Ok show me FW in the brb?

When you do I'll eat the double standard.

Stating that FW is not in any way an expansion of the base game, is naive. I already said that does not make it unofficial, but it also does not put it Jon the same level as a codex. Look at it this way in almost every case I need a codex to use my FW book. The opposite is not true. Therefore FW is an expansion to my codex with additional units. It is frequently also an expansion to the game with additional scenarios and rules. No different than say skies of death.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Home/Frequently_Asked_Questions.html

Q1. Is Forge World part of Games Workshop?

A1. Yes, but we operate as a small (but perfectly formed) separate division from the company that makes and sells the main Games Workshop range of products.

Eyjio wrote:
They do not link them on their website and they do not own them.

Not true at all. There's a link on the website, and their daily blog frequently shows FW models (including links to buy them) and announces new FW releases. They may keep it off the front page so an uninformed parent doesn't buy their 12 year old a Thunderhawk for christmas, but it's not exactly hard to find if you're the kind of customer would would want to buy FW stuff.

And I notice you keep ignoring the fact that if GW didn't agree with FW's "this is official and part of 40k" statements then they would remove it from the books. The same GW that sues random authors over using "space marine" is not going to permit an unauthorized statement of "this is official" to appear in book after book. Conclusion: GW approves 100% of the "officialness" statements found in books sold under their FW brand name.

Breng77 wrote:
Ok show me FW in the brb?

Why? The "it must be found in the BRB" is a rule invented by players. GW has never said "we list all legal rule sources in the BRB", and have no problem publishing expansions/WD articles/etc that contain official rules with a note saying "this is now part of the game".

Eyjio wrote:
GW has never done so and refuses to do so in its own tournaments, despite knowing this inhibits FW sales at Warhammer World.

GW also bans allies in their own tournaments, but I don't see anyone demanding a "no allies" rule just to follow what warhammer world does.

 Krellnus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Nope, no codices = no units = no game at all, I also cited where stats for these units are listed in the brb, and the codices themselves are mentioned there as reference.

Pray tell, where in the rules does it instruct me to use codices if they are part of the main game?

P.v of the introduction, pp. 3,32,44,66,108,142

@peregrin, did I say it was not official, in fact I believe I said it was official in my expansion post, I only said not part of the base game, I.e. it is an expansion of the rules, so stating FW is the same as a codex is false, when I can use my codex without the expansion and not the other way around. So the argument that it should be treated no differently is to me naive. The quote of show it to me in the brb, was a statement about it not being part of the base game. If someone knowing nothing of the game picked up the rules they would be referred to buying a codex, which if they went to the Gw website, or a lgs, they would find. What they would not find is info on FW, until they were into the hobby a decent bit more. Again this does not make it unofficial, but a new player would be much less comfortable if I through 5 books at him and said, well the rules for my army are in these 5 books.

'Just because one company says it's "official" doesn't make it so.'

Except that Forge World is owned and operated by Games Workshop. The resin pieces that have the bits attached are even stamped Games Workshop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It is up to date. And is from the Forge World website. Dude don't lie to make your point. * Sad face *

1. I'm not lying. Watch your mouth (er, fingers).
2. That is not up to date. The contemptor was updated in both the HH book, the Aeronautica book (mortis pattern), and IA: Apocalypse II, second edition (which is no longer on the FW site).
3. It's incomplete.

What point are you trying to make posting out-dated, experimental, incomplete pdfs?

Edit: I'm not trying to pick on you, Dozer. But the only thing that FW puts up on their download pages now are the experimental rules, which can change when they go into print.

Yes, you can still get an idea of what a unit does that way, but not every unit get that. Not even 1 in 5.

You are right and I apologize for posting misleading information. Sorry!

It looks like the Codex: Iyanden supplement will contain new rules approved for games of Warhammer 40,000. It's too bad they probably won't be legal in tournaments.

I mean, it isn't an official GW codex, it's the first supplemental codex. And supplemental codices currently favor Eldar armies over other armies, right?

Again apparently you miss the point entirely, if eldar get 5 supplement codices, with a good number of op units and everyone else gets 1 then yes I think people will have an issue with these books. As this is not the case yet and we on't even know what is in the book....

Well, at the very least, it helps eliminate a lot of arguments that I thought were smokescreens for the real problem, "I think some units in Forgeworld are too good and I don't want to play against them."

- Forgeworld books are expensive
- Forgeworld books require too many additional books to know the rules for every unit
- Forgeworld books are not readily available in stores
- Forgeworld books are not an official codex
- Forgeworld books have more rules for certain armies than others

Again not really, the price point issue on a single book for single book has been a non issue since 6th Ed codices released. The price issue is more of an issue with owning multiple books, which is still an issue (as there are what 13 or so FW IA books) vs 1 eldar supplement, which may or may not have new units in it. If it is just a reorg of units and a few special rules it is not as big a deal. The availability issue started to go away with the flyer book. That said it is still easier to get legally than fw (assuming no production run issues) simply due to shipping time from fw.

The not official codex is not an issue Fw is not a codex at all it is a supplement or expansion. The argument of legality had nothing to do with it being a codex and everything to do with the gw-fw relationship.

As for the more rules I already addressed that fw still is far worse in this case especially dive we don't even know if there are additional units I this book.

 Dracos wrote:
For those who say that FW events have less variation, my experience is the exact opposite. Its easy to see why this would be: more options mean your army both has more possibilities and has to account for more possibilities across the table. In fact, the abundance of diverse armies seems to imply that FW is really not as bad as the picture some detractors would like to paint.

Lets see, there have been 3 big events since FW was really starting to be accepted in certain areas. BAO, Broadside Bash, and Adepticon TT. Do yourself a favor and look up the top armies from those events. (hint: it has already been posted on this thread.)

..

Ok, so you looked it up? Now imagine what it will be like once everyone else has finished buying/painting their IG armies, bc it has only just started.

Breng77 wrote:
(as there are what 13 or so FW IA books)

Depends on the army. For my Tau I just need the codex and IA3. And when the codex costs $50 and Riptides are $80 each spending another $80-90 on IA3 isn't a big deal.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Now imagine what it will be like once everyone else has finished buying/painting their IG armies, bc it has only just started.

Now imagine what it will be like once the metagame shifts to counter the IG lists. That's the problem with all this speculation, you can reasonably guess one step ahead but you can't tell what the counters to the counters will be. That's why companies who make true competitive games (MTG, for example) only make changes/bans after analyzing a solid record of high-level results that include enough time for the metagame to attempt to counter the problem.

This is also for some reason assuming that IG artillery platforms are the only thing people suddenly find attractive and not Tetras, Hazard suits, Hornets, Warp Hunters, Tessaract Arks, etc and the like.


And again,even assuming a drastic swing towards one army or another, how is that different than a new codex book? And since when is maintaining the integrity of the "meta", which shifts so hard so often, the responsibility of an event/organizers?

Fundamentally tournaments are an artificial play format for Warhammer 40,000, that the game was never written for, but is all too mistaken as the arbiter of how the game should be played, and its attitudes towards Forgeworld spread out to pickup games and more casual games, like it or not. This is starting to change thankfully, but it has been a slow, laborious process. At their core, tournaments are supposed to be about bringing your plastic/metal army men and playing with other people in a large environment.

Doesn't this discussion has the same results every time?

Pro-Forgeworld for the "hobbiest" wants it.
Pro-Forgeworld for the "competitive" wants it if it works with their army.

Anti-Forgeworld for the "competitive" complains it throws off balance in a game that has armies that are absurdly out of date and in no way balanced.
Anti-Forgeworld for the "uninformed" who are making incorrect statements because they don't have the info.

Pro-Forgeworld for the "moneywatcher" because some of their models are CHEAPER than GW's.
Anti-Forgeword for the "moneywatcher" because they don't want to buy all those books and don't even know what they should buy.

FW in tournaments to me is no different that a homebrew FAQ. It has its place and not every event should allow it. Both the major indy FAQs get stuff COMPLETELY wrong, as was shown with their last two events.

Sure, if you go to the hyper-competitive events you will see more of the tough stuff and at the hobbiest events more of the fluff stuff. Just go to the events you want and stop the drama.

 Oaka wrote:
It looks like the Codex: Iyanden supplement will contain new rules approved for games of Warhammer 40,000. It's too bad they probably won't be legal in tournaments.

I mean, it isn't an official GW codex, it's the first supplemental codex. And supplemental codices currently favor Eldar armies over other armies, right?

A supplimental codex is a codex.

An Imperial Armour book is not a codex.

Therefore there's more of a case to allow codex: Iyaenden than any Forgeworld.

Has any one brought up Sisters of Battle? Our only flyer is Forgeworld, and one of our few valid heavy support options, the closest thing we have to a Land Raider for mass girl power moving the Repressor is FW only too.

Honest opinion? Just go with it. Have fun. Broken lists suck but I don't think FW inclusion is any more or less likely to create broken lists.

 Vaktathi wrote:


Fundamentally tournaments are an artificial play format for Warhammer 40,000, that the game was never written for, but is all too mistaken as the arbiter of how the game should be played, and its attitudes towards Forgeworld spread out to pickup games and more casual games, like it or not.

And this thread is specifically tackling the issue of FW in tournaments, not friendly games. In friendly games most of us don't have a problem with a Wraithseer, or Plague Drone. On the other hand TFGs who spam the broken FW stuff in their local meta are just as responsible for the negative opinion of FW.

At their core, tournaments are supposed to be about bringing your plastic/metal army men and playing with other people in a largely fair and diverse competitive environment.

Fixed that.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
There's a lot of stuff for IG yes, there's also a good amount of stuff for Tau, Orks, Eldar, and now Necrons are getting stuff as well. This is especially true in the Flyer/anti-flyer department. I know I've been seeing lots of Barracudas, Hornets, Tetras, Warp Hunter and Nightwings of late, I don't get why it'd only be IG stuff that would overrun events

And since when was controlling the direction of the metagame away from or towards certain armies an aim or responsibility of tournaments, as opposed to being large events where people take their toy soldiers and compete to see who can use their toys the best?

Because the IG stuff is far and away the best of the bunch and can be readily allied to nearly any army.

TOs already do this in mission design.

While I can understand the conceptual issue and can agree with it, GW's core design studio does the same thing (look at the new Eldar codex and all the monofilament/distort weapons), and it's not like the Contemptor with Kheres AC's is a huge balance issue being a 200 something point walker.

Therein lies the fundamental problem with FW. Simply making a beautiful model is not enough to see their product fly off the shelf. They know they have to have the rules to back it up with. Its gotta be better the codex units if their going sell units.

Breng77 wrote: If someone knowing nothing of the game picked up the rules they would be referred to buying a codex, which if they went to the Gw website, or a lgs, they would find. What they would not find is info on FW, until they were into the hobby a decent bit more.

BRB refers you to:
1) White Dwarf Daily. This refers you to FW.
2) GW website. This refers you to FW.
3) GW store. Most of them carry FW.

As a side note, Crusade of Fire talks about Boarding Marines, Contemptor Dreadnoughts, and in the Apocalypse Battle, Titans and a Greater Brass Scorpion. Strange, that's an official GW Design Studio book talking about FW models as if there isn't any problem using them in normal games.

Glocknall wrote: Its gotta be better the codex units if their going sell units.

You do realise that most codex units are better, points wise?

 Dozer Blades wrote:


You are right and I apologize for posting misleading information. Sorry!

No need for apologies, Dozer. I certainly wouldn't have called it misleading, nor am I upset. For the record, I'm PRO Forge World. My group uses the books, rules, and models in our campaign games. I'm also all for FW in tournaments IF the TO and majority of players in those tournaments want it. If they don't want it, then obviously they shouldn't bother, right? Unfortunately, if you're in the minority in your area (either pro- or anti-), then you'll have to talk to your TO about alternating FW friendly and non-FW tournaments. Best of luck to you, either way!

-Shrike- wrote:

Breng77 wrote: If someone knowing nothing of the game picked up the rules they would be referred to buying a codex, which if they went to the Gw website, or a lgs, they would find. What they would not find is info on FW, until they were into the hobby a decent bit more.

BRB refers you to:
1) White Dwarf Daily. This refers you to FW.
2) GW website. This refers you to FW.
3) GW store. Most of them carry FW.

As a side note, Crusade of Fire talks about Boarding Marines, Contemptor Dreadnoughts, and in the Apocalypse Battle, Titans and a Greater Brass Scorpion. Strange, that's an official GW Design Studio book talking about FW models as if there isn't any problem using them in normal games.

Glocknall wrote: Its gotta be better the codex units if their going sell units.

You do realise that most codex units are better, points wise?

1.) page number and is this in a section available with the mini rule book? If not then a beginner may never see it. And visiting we daily is getting further into the hobby.
2.) page number? And even then it refers you to FW where? That's right a tiny little link at the bottom of the page....so needing to look further into the hobby.
3.) no Gw store I've been to does, which is really not that many because there is maybe 1 within 2 hours of where I live.

And crusade of fire is not really standard 40k either... And hardly counts as normal games....I.e. if you include apoc as an example then Gw prime has had FW models in a book for a while now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
(as there are what 13 or so FW IA books)

Depends on the army. For my Tau I just need the codex and IA3. And when the codex costs $50 and Riptides are $80 each spending another $80-90 on IA3 isn't a big deal.
.

That is if you don't feel the need to study other books as top tournament players do then it ins about another $1000 as I buy all the books.

Talk about a conversation getting in the weeds. FW isn't necessary, at all, for fair competitive play. Adding FW 40k approved units will add a high concentration of powerful units to IG, while largely adding none to most other codices. Take that as you will.

Tournament Organizers are free to do as they please with regard to legalization. Most Tournament Organizers for the larger events present multiple opportunities; i.e., at AdeptiCon you can play FW in the Gladiator or Team Tournament or Friendly, but not in the Champs. At NOVA, y ou can play FW in the Narrative or Trios Tournament, but not in the GT or Invitational. Hooray, options! /fin

Breng77 wrote: And crusade of fire is not really standard 40k either... And hardly counts as normal games....I.e. if you include apoc as an example then Gw prime has had FW models in a book for a while now.

I'll be more specific. Leaving the apoc. example, the Boarding Marines are discussed as part of one player's army list, and this is for the normal games played as part of the campaign. They were playing standard 40k, and this player was using FW. In a GW published book.
1) and 2) I don't have the book ATM, so I can't give you page numbers, 3) I meant FW books; all the ones I've seen have carried at least a few of the books.

Anyway, there is no reason for you to buy all the IA books. A lot of top tournament players might study the codices, it doesn't mean they will buy them...

Many I know buy them all (less so now with the $50 books)and suggesting other methods is illegal so saying, well you should just steal to do it is not a good argument.

As for FW books the few times I have been to a GW I did not see them there. But again I don't have easy access to a GW store so that argument is invalid anyway. If the argument is that I should Travel 2 hours to pick up a book when I can drive 5 min to go get a codex, I think there is a slight difference. I don't have a crusade of fire book so I cannot speak to what "standard" games they were playing. Like I said I don't disbelieve that FW rules are intended for play in GW games. I said that they were not part of the "base" game, but rather a more "advanced version of the rules. Similar to how WOTC label some products as basic and some as advanced. I also stated that you need a codex to play an army you don't need FW. Which makes it an add on or expansion of the rules.

My FLGS and local GW store both allow me to use my Tamurkhan book for my Chaos Dwarf army in tournaments with no issues.

MVBrandt wrote:
Talk about a conversation getting in the weeds. FW isn't necessary, at all, for fair competitive play. Adding FW 40k approved units will add a high concentration of powerful units to IG, while largely adding none to most other codices. Take that as you will.

And IG as a stand alone codex already has a higher number of units then most other armies. Example: IG has ~50 unit entries while DE have ~30... does this mean we should start banning IG? This isn't a strong stance IMO.

Breng77, are we now arguing whether price and availability is a mitigating factor in allowing FW at tournaments?

BTW, I have Crusade of Fire. A small handful of games were played with Daemon Worlds special rules, about half (overall) with a fixed warzone trait depending on the location on the campaign map, and the remainder were normal 40k. In addition, I'm not counting the 3 "special" battles which were played differently to the rest, not as standard 40k.

It is still closer than the Difference in FW where IG adds maybe 50 more to IG and 10 to Dark Eldar.

Breng77 wrote:
It is still closer than the Difference in FW where IG adds maybe 50 more to IG and 10 to Dark Eldar.

That doesn't matter though because of the allie matrix. DE have VERY limited number of entries and VERY limited allies, most marine armies can take IG and have more entries to start as well. So IMO allies shift the meta much worse then FW. And for the record most of the "broken" combos people have mentioned....in fact ALL of them have required allies to pull off. So why are we not discussing whether of not allies are healthy for the game?

Because without allies, you would need to create a balanced codex, rather than saying "ally with Tau/Necrons/IG for your anti-air".

MVBrandt wrote:
Talk about a conversation getting in the weeds. FW isn't necessary, at all, for fair competitive play. Adding FW 40k approved units will add a high concentration of powerful units to IG, while largely adding none to most other codices. Take that as you will.

Tournament Organizers are free to do as they please with regard to legalization. Most Tournament Organizers for the larger events present multiple opportunities; i.e., at AdeptiCon you can play FW in the Gladiator or Team Tournament or Friendly, but not in the Champs. At NOVA, y ou can play FW in the Narrative or Trios Tournament, but not in the GT or Invitational. Hooray, options! /fin

No bias here.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Talk about a conversation getting in the weeds. FW isn't necessary, at all, for fair competitive play. Adding FW 40k approved units will add a high concentration of powerful units to IG, while largely adding none to most other codices. Take that as you will.

Tournament Organizers are free to do as they please with regard to legalization. Most Tournament Organizers for the larger events present multiple opportunities; i.e., at AdeptiCon you can play FW in the Gladiator or Team Tournament or Friendly, but not in the Champs. At NOVA, y ou can play FW in the Narrative or Trios Tournament, but not in the GT or Invitational. Hooray, options! /fin

No bias here.

I'm a GT going player and organizer who likes playing with his FW IG whenever allowed (which is at precisely half of the major GT's I regularly attend each year), and allows it in precisely half of the 40k events he hosts (2 out of 4).

Which way does that bias me?

You're clearly biased towards the middle ground. You have no place in modern political discourse.

Glocknall wrote:

At their core, tournaments are supposed to be about bringing your plastic/metal army men and playing with other people in a largely fair and diverse competitive environment.

Fixed that.

Since...when?

Fair has never extended outside the initial environment (attempting to control for sports, ensuring points values are equal, sometimes attempting to control things through mission type and sometimes borking it majorly), but never extended to ensuring armies don't have advantages over each other. Otherwise people would be far more concerned with necrons

We already have, and always have had, vast disparities between army power, unit availability, issues with armies being two editions behind, etc. Fair only extends to ensuring fair missions (sometimes, when TO's don't go out of their way to mess with certain types of armies), table setup, and even points matches and attempting to control sportsmanship. Beyond that, other than now-almost-totally-extirpated comp scores, fairness doesn't really factor into it. No tournament tries to make sure Sisters of Battle can match Necrons on an even footing for example.

As for diversity, tournaments have never had a responsibility to attempt to enforce diversity. A few have tried but there's a reason we have sillyness like Adepticon 2011 and the most populous army being Space Wolves with literally almost 90% of them being bandwagon codex-hopping "counts as" lists. Nobody seemed to think that was something TO's needed to directly address until "zomgforgeworld".

One can doomsay all one wants about how it'll see a huge shift to IG armies, since when did the composition of the armies present become the responsbility of TO's? Where was this concern over the armies present when SW's overran events a couple years ago? Where's the concern over necron domination at the tournament level? We see similar shifts every time a new codex is released, and most armies getting more options is not a bad thing.

And fundamentally, I also fail to see how adding in dozens of new units and a bunch of new army lists would hurt diversity, and if we're talking tournament level play here, then I'm sure the players themselves will adapt and shift to new strategies/different armies as time goes on, as they always do.

Because the IG stuff is far and away the best of the bunch and can be readily allied to nearly any army.

I'd argue that many of the units I listed above would make pretty routine appearances as well and that units like Tetras and Warp Hunters. In fact, far more than IG units, I've seen Tetras in huge numbers locally.

TOs already do this in mission design.

Is that related to controlling the composition of armies present, or just controlling their rankings and/or providing new experiences? Many still use rulebook missions or slight variations thereof.

Either way, that's another aspect that can be pursued the units people seem to be having issues with are artillery units. Design missions that emphasize mobility and a need to physically control the board and such lists will fail.

Therein lies the fundamental problem with FW. Simply making a beautiful model is not enough to see their product fly off the shelf. They know they have to have the rules to back it up with. Its gotta be better the codex units if their going sell units.

Typically not, and one will notice most FW units ported into codex books get notably better. Hydras went from 200pts to 75 and able to ignore flat-out/jink saves for example. While Contemptor Dreads are "better" in an absolute sense than normal dreads, they also end up costing about twice as much or nearly so, so their tabletop performance for the points invested isn't too dissimilar.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It is still closer than the Difference in FW where IG adds maybe 50 more to IG and 10 to Dark Eldar.

That doesn't matter though because of the allie matrix. DE have VERY limited number of entries and VERY limited allies, most marine armies can take IG and have more entries to start as well. So IMO allies shift the meta much worse then FW. And for the record most of the "broken" combos people have mentioned....in fact ALL of them have required allies to pull off. So why are we not discussing whether of not allies are healthy for the game?

Because its been don, and sans FW seems to not really create a problem with balance....Like I said my preference would be to play FW and Ban the most offensive units in it (essentially 5 IG units.) , people don't like this because they want the broken units, not the fluffy fun units.

MVBrandt wrote:
Talk about a conversation getting in the weeds. FW isn't necessary, at all, for fair competitive play. Adding FW 40k approved units will add a high concentration of powerful units to IG, while largely adding none to most other codices. Take that as you will.

Tournament Organizers are free to do as they please with regard to legalization. Most Tournament Organizers for the larger events present multiple opportunities; i.e., at AdeptiCon you can play FW in the Gladiator or Team Tournament or Friendly, but not in the Champs. At NOVA, y ou can play FW in the Narrative or Trios Tournament, but not in the GT or Invitational. Hooray, options! /fin

Interestingly the only 40k tournaments that GW actually run themselves; Throne of Skulls, doesn't allow Forgeworld.

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It is still closer than the Difference in FW where IG adds maybe 50 more to IG and 10 to Dark Eldar.

That doesn't matter though because of the allie matrix. DE have VERY limited number of entries and VERY limited allies, most marine armies can take IG and have more entries to start as well. So IMO allies shift the meta much worse then FW. And for the record most of the "broken" combos people have mentioned....in fact ALL of them have required allies to pull off. So why are we not discussing whether of not allies are healthy for the game?

Because its been don, and sans FW seems to not really create a problem with balance....Like I said my preference would be to play FW and Ban the most offensive units in it (essentially 5 IG units.) , people don't like this because they want the broken units, not the fluffy fun units.

It clearly has shifted the meta game and by that nature means it has shifted the balance, how is that hard to grasp?

FW has not been used at enough venues to make judgements on it's impact, but certainly any new introduction will shift the balance, you act like every time a new codex comes out it has no influence whatsoever which is just false.

Finally as others have pointed out ad nauseum, people already cherry pick. They cherry pick even more with the ally system.

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It is still closer than the Difference in FW where IG adds maybe 50 more to IG and 10 to Dark Eldar.

That doesn't matter though because of the allie matrix. DE have VERY limited number of entries and VERY limited allies, most marine armies can take IG and have more entries to start as well. So IMO allies shift the meta much worse then FW. And for the record most of the "broken" combos people have mentioned....in fact ALL of them have required allies to pull off. So why are we not discussing whether of not allies are healthy for the game?

Because its been don, and sans FW seems to not really create a problem with balance....Like I said my preference would be to play FW and Ban the most offensive units in it (essentially 5 IG units.) , people don't like this because they want the broken units, not the fluffy fun units.

Or they disagree with you on their power level and have issues with double standards as nobody would attempt to suggest stuff with codex units.

 ruminator wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Talk about a conversation getting in the weeds. FW isn't necessary, at all, for fair competitive play. Adding FW 40k approved units will add a high concentration of powerful units to IG, while largely adding none to most other codices. Take that as you will.

Tournament Organizers are free to do as they please with regard to legalization. Most Tournament Organizers for the larger events present multiple opportunities; i.e., at AdeptiCon you can play FW in the Gladiator or Team Tournament or Friendly, but not in the Champs. At NOVA, y ou can play FW in the Narrative or Trios Tournament, but not in the GT or Invitational. Hooray, options! /fin

Interestingly the only 40k tournaments that GW actually run themselves; Throne of Skulls, doesn't allow Forgeworld.

These are run by GW's marketing arm to drive sales to core channels, i.e. large plastic kits. They are never anything the design studio has had anything to do with and are less and less a part of the tournament scene these days.

 ruminator wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Talk about a conversation getting in the weeds. FW isn't necessary, at all, for fair competitive play. Adding FW 40k approved units will add a high concentration of powerful units to IG, while largely adding none to most other codices. Take that as you will.

Tournament Organizers are free to do as they please with regard to legalization. Most Tournament Organizers for the larger events present multiple opportunities; i.e., at AdeptiCon you can play FW in the Gladiator or Team Tournament or Friendly, but not in the Champs. At NOVA, y ou can play FW in the Narrative or Trios Tournament, but not in the GT or Invitational. Hooray, options! /fin

Interestingly the only 40k tournaments that GW actually run themselves; Throne of Skulls, doesn't allow Forgeworld.

They also don't run allies, but nice try.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It is still closer than the Difference in FW where IG adds maybe 50 more to IG and 10 to Dark Eldar.

That doesn't matter though because of the allie matrix. DE have VERY limited number of entries and VERY limited allies, most marine armies can take IG and have more entries to start as well. So IMO allies shift the meta much worse then FW. And for the record most of the "broken" combos people have mentioned....in fact ALL of them have required allies to pull off. So why are we not discussing whether of not allies are healthy for the game?

Furthermore, the majority of IG units are Apocalypse. You're considering the half a dozen Baneblade-chassis variants, for example, and other Superheavies like the Malcador and Gorgon. That brings you down to chassis variants based off of Leman Russ and Chimera hulls (many of which are Codex: IG options, which further discounts that), as well as artillery platforms. Ditto with Space Marines. Once you eliminate all the Codex variants, as well as Mark and production Forgeworld variations too, you don't have that many "new" units for IG and SM. For the rest, how different is a Leman Russ with one gun to another - they still work the same way. There's no trickery involved. As a result, there is merely an illusion that they have that much more because their pages are so much more cluttered.

Sure, once you get down to it, you may still have more IG and SM "new" units, but not by much to the next-leading one. In response to that, think about what armies the majority of the 40k fanbase plays (I'm not talking tournament, I'm talking overall player base). That's right, forces of good, i.e. Space Marines and Imperial Guard. Look at how many Space Marine codices we have - Space Marines, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Black Templars, Grey Knights, Dark Angels. Therefore, Forge World as a studio has to cater in some form or another to their target market, i.e. the player base demographics, and the releases they have are correspondingly higher in SM and IG units. It's a purely business decision that makes logical sense.

And thus, I think that I have defeated the argument of "FW adds 50 more units to IG than anyone else".

So no one has issues with the Chaos Dwarf Tamurkhan book?

Only the 40k stuff?

I love my tamurkhan book, glad it's not an issue

 Vaktathi wrote:
Since...when?

Fair has never extended outside the initial environment (attempting to control for sports, ensuring points values are equal, sometimes attempting to control things through mission type and sometimes borking it majorly), but never extended to ensuring armies don't have advantages over each other. Otherwise people would be far more concerned with necrons

We already have, and always have had, vast disparities between army power, unit availability, issues with armies being two editions behind, etc. Fair only extends to ensuring fair missions (sometimes, when TO's don't go out of their way to mess with certain types of armies), table setup, and even points matches and attempting to control sportsmanship. Beyond that, other than now-almost-totally-extirpated comp scores, fairness doesn't really factor into it. No tournament tries to make sure Sisters of Battle can match Necrons on an even footing for example.

As for diversity, tournaments have never had a responsibility to attempt to enforce diversity. A few have tried but there's a reason we have sillyness like Adepticon 2011 and the most populous army being Space Wolves with literally almost 90% of them being bandwagon codex-hopping "counts as" lists. Nobody seemed to think that was something TO's needed to directly address until "zomgforgeworld".

One can doomsay all one wants about how it'll see a huge shift to IG armies, since when did the composition of the armies present become the responsbility of TO's? Where was this concern over the armies present when SW's overran events a couple years ago? Where's the concern over necron domination at the tournament level? We see similar shifts every time a new codex is released, and most armies getting more options is not a bad thing.

And fundamentally, I also fail to see how adding in dozens of new units and a bunch of new army lists would hurt diversity, and if we're talking tournament level play here, then I'm sure the players themselves will adapt and shift to new strategies/different armies as time goes on, as they always do.

Tournament do have the responsibility to create a reasonably fair competitive environment. This does not equate with complete fairness across the board which would be completely impossible FW or not. However as it has been pointed out you have already seen the strength of IG increase in the major GTs that feature FW (Adepticon TT, BAO, Broadside Bash). The difference between Necrons taking many top spots at Adepticon is the way their missions heavily featured Kill Points and random objectives. Those play strongly to the strengths of Necrons. Now we have two codices which one will certainly prove a tough matchup for Necrons and we have yet even explored Daemons yet.

FW IG has been well documented. Its extremely strong in tournaments. Other units you mentioned are simply not as good and spread more evenly to other armies. Again were not arguing every forgeworld unit, just the broken ones which heavily favor IG and SM.

I'd argue that many of the units I listed above would make pretty routine appearances as well and that units like Tetras and Warp Hunters. In fact, far more than IG units, I've seen Tetras in huge numbers locally.

Tetras were excellent Tau units when they were starved for mobile markerlight and their codex was terribly outdated. I have local players who used them in friendly games w/o issue. I'm sure they are still in use because people will still have the models. Markerlights certainly is not a problem for the new codex.

Is that related to controlling the composition of armies present, or just controlling their rankings and/or providing new experiences? Many still use rulebook missions or slight variations thereof.

Either way, that's another aspect that can be pursued the units people seem to be having issues with are artillery units. Design missions that emphasize mobility and a need to physically control the board and such lists will fail.

I agree but it is not hard to ally in mobility or take Vendettas for IG. The problem is the enemy has to be able to hold them throughout a game. When you have strong artillery and Vulture finding where your hiding through the entire game and your unable to shift the IG due to their firepower and durability they really don't have to grab objectives when they can stay on theirs.

Breng77 wrote:
It is still closer than the Difference in FW where IG adds maybe 50 more to IG and 10 to Dark Eldar.

IG are intergalactic whores... Just about every army can ally with them. Admit it, you don't like FW.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It is still closer than the Difference in FW where IG adds maybe 50 more to IG and 10 to Dark Eldar.

IG are intergalactic whores... Just about every army can ally with them. Admit it, you don't like FW.

Trollish, just like the whiffed guess at me a few posts earlier.

I don't think it speaks to FW dislike if someone doesn't want to have to change his army to IG primary or allied in order to access the most useful goodies. As has already been pointed out, all of the even outdated mainstream codices are inclusive of powerful units. Adding FW more or less only adds powerful units to IG. People have a right to not find that very appealing if attending a tournament.

Heh, and a caveat again, b/c these convos are so long and they get missed ... I personally use FW when I can in a tourney, attend a few tourneys every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW, and host 4 tourneys for 40k at NOVA every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW.

"Tournament do have the responsibility to create a reasonably fair competitive environment. This does not equate with complete fairness across the board which would be completely impossible FW or not. However as it has been pointed out you have already seen the strength of IG increase in the major GTs that feature FW (Adepticon TT, BAO, Broadside Bash). The difference between Necrons taking many top spots at Adepticon is the way their missions heavily featured Kill Points and random objectives. Those play strongly to the strengths of Necrons. Now we have two codices which one will certainly prove a tough matchup for Necrons and we have yet even explored Daemons yet."

There are so many factors that are inherently unfair in tournaments... Lack of terrain, missions that favor certain builds, home grown FAQs (ugggggh), etc. I don't you can make a good case to support your claim.

Tournaments don't have a responsibiltiy for or against it. BUT, if a tournament attempts to create AS FAIR a situation as possible (a very noble, realistic, and achievable goal), there's very reasonable argument to be made that allowing FW harms that goal, instead of advancing it.

This is certainly the goal of the NOVA's 40k GT (and, by having parallel paths within the same event, largely achieves this for those who love win/loss, those who love battle points, and those who love older school scoring that heavily favors soft scores, plus the provision of 6th-attuned missions and uniform terrain, yada yada), which is one of the reasons we don't add in FW unit rules there. However, similarly, it's NOT a goal of the NOVA's 40k Narrative, which is meant to be fun and wide open and enthusiastic and casual (and gets a ton of attendees, and is a mainstream event in and of itself), and which DOES allow FW rules, in fact even more broadly than JUST 40k approved (though no apoc/superheavy). This is just my own personal example - you can see the exact same variety of goal, intent, and subsequent allowance at AdeptiCon, WargamesCon, Feast of Blades, etc. etc. etc.

What's not being very clearly understood is the original intent of this thread (is Forgeworld "needed"), and the related question of what a TO's responsibility is. Once they've staked a claim on what they INTEND any given event they run to be, that becomes the realm of their responsibility. There are fair arguments to be made about how FW impacts different goals and responsibilities of a TO.

And for you guys out there constantly saying 40K ISN'T MADE FOR TOURNAMENTS TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE FAIR IS STUPID, hey ... eff you buddies. You're as off base and unfair in trying to tell a hard-working TO what they can or can't do as you would be to say 40K ISN'T MADE FOR INTERNATIONALLY ATTENDED NARRATIVE EVENTS THAT MIX FLUFF WITH THE REAL WORLD, TRYING TO DO SO IS STUPID. None of it is stupid, and all of it is stupid. We're playing with toy soldiers, but at the same time, people are paying THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to travel and attend events where they have expectations (ranging from "I want a fun crazy narrative" to "I want a competitive event where I have a fair chance of not being screwed by TOO many things entirely out of my control).

TO's put a lot of time into what they do; having discussions about what they should or shouldn't do with different rule components with regard to the goals of their specific events is a reasonable thing to do. Black and white shut down brush off statements that say one or another solution is wrong across the board, on the other hand, is not reasonable.

Are you trying to make your event more fair with the missions, scoring, FAQ's, terrain, etc., that you use?
Are you trying to make your event more variable, random, laid back, casual, etc?

Those two extremes need to address the inclusion of FW in entirely different ways ... and even THEN, how a TO chooses to rule is never "wrong" (or right). It's a toy soldier game, with a set of rules that are more like guidelines, to be played as people see fit, and to be organized into events as the organizers see fit, all toward the goal of having fun and playing together and making social connections.


PS - can we all grow up a little? I know I've had to over the years, from a guy who often [unintentionally] sounded like a dick in every post I made, to someone who at least tries not to. Our hobby feels utterly plagued right now by forum flames, legal battles by litigious donkey-caves, back-biting and sniping all over the place. It's annoying already.

MVBrandt wrote:
Tournaments don't have a responsibiltiy for or against it. BUT, if a tournament attempts to create AS FAIR a situation as possible (a very noble, realistic, and achievable goal), there's very reasonable argument to be made that allowing FW harms that goal, instead of advancing it.

This is certainly the goal of the NOVA's 40k GT (and, by having parallel paths within the same event, largely achieves this for those who love win/loss, those who love battle points, and those who love older school scoring that heavily favors soft scores, plus the provision of 6th-attuned missions and uniform terrain, yada yada), which is one of the reasons we don't add in FW unit rules there. However, similarly, it's NOT a goal of the NOVA's 40k Narrative, which is meant to be fun and wide open and enthusiastic and casual (and gets a ton of attendees, and is a mainstream event in and of itself), and which DOES allow FW rules, in fact even more broadly than JUST 40k approved (though no apoc/superheavy). This is just my own personal example - you can see the exact same variety of goal, intent, and subsequent allowance at AdeptiCon, WargamesCon, Feast of Blades, etc. etc. etc.

What's not being very clearly understood is the original intent of this thread (is Forgeworld "needed"), and the related question of what a TO's responsibility is. Once they've staked a claim on what they INTEND any given event they run to be, that becomes the realm of their responsibility. There are fair arguments to be made about how FW impacts different goals and responsibilities of a TO.

And for you guys out there constantly saying 40K ISN'T MADE FOR TOURNAMENTS TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE FAIR IS STUPID, hey ... eff you buddies. You're as off base and unfair in trying to tell a hard-working TO what they can or can't do as you would be to say 40K ISN'T MADE FOR INTERNATIONALLY ATTENDED NARRATIVE EVENTS THAT MIX FLUFF WITH THE REAL WORLD, TRYING TO DO SO IS STUPID.

TO's put a lot of time into what they do; having discussions about what they should or shouldn't do with different rule components with regard to the goals of their specific events is a reasonable thing to do. Black and white shut down brush off statements that say one or another solution is wrong across the board, on the other hand, is not reasonable.

Are you trying to make your event more fair with the missions, scoring, FAQ's, terrain, etc., that you use?
Are you trying to make your event more variable, random, laid back, casual, etc?

Those two extremes need to address the inclusion of FW in entirely different ways ... and even THEN, how a TO chooses to rule is never "wrong" (or right). It's a toy soldier game, with a set of rules that are more like guidelines, to be played as people see fit, and to be organized into events as the organizers see fit, all toward the goal of having fun and playing together and making social connections.

QFT - well said, well said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:

PS - can we all grow up a little? I know I've had to over the years, from a guy who often [unintentionally] sounded like a dick in every post I made, to someone who at least tries not to. Our hobby feels utterly plagued right now by forum flames, legal battles by litigious donkey-caves, back-biting and sniping all over the place. It's annoying already.

Honestly, about two pages ago I thought we all came to an agreement that limited FW was fine for tournies, or just restrict the horribly imbalanced combinations/units.

Can a mod change the title to Do we still need forge world in 40k tournament play?

Eyjio wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

FW is an "add-on" in as much as WD SoB is an "add-on", or any other Codex for that matter. FW is officially part of the game system as much as Codices are. An "add-on" would be Apocalypse, which fundamentally changes how the game is played.

This is simply untrue. SoB is published and printed directly by Games Workshop LTD, a subsidiary owned by Games Workshop Group PLC. Forge World is another subsidiary of Games Workshop Group PLC but otherwise unrelated to Games Workshop LTD - they have a different work force, different stores, different warehouses and produce different products. Forge World are licensed to be able to produce items for GW LTD trademarks and use their copyrights. That does not and will never make them "the same". They do not even use the same printing - Forge World books are printed in England, GWs in China. Forge World's self proclaimed officiousness is about as valid as Transformers saying they're valid for use in MTG because both are subsidiaries of Hasbro. It's marketed as "an expansion" because they are not allowed by the main company to produce additional models for the GW subsidiary and claim them to be normally usable units for any game. Please stop spreading this because it is wrong.

If you read carefully at the beginning of any FW books you will see that GW OWNS the words in the book. FW publishes but GW owns EVERYTHING. Names, models, rules all of it. Now considering how GW tends to go after anyone who threatens their IP do you REALLY believe they would let FW make that sort of claim in EVERY book since IA: Apocalypse 2nd ed if it was not true?

And if you want to really drill down to that level, my Forgeworld models have Games Workshop stamped on the sprues so they are in fact GW models.

 Oaka wrote:
Well, at the very least, it helps eliminate a lot of arguments that I thought were smokescreens for the real problem, "I think some units in Forgeworld are too good and I don't want to play against them."

- Forgeworld books are expensive Not anymore than a Codex. The IA books sure, but the rulebooks? Nope. IA: Aeronautica and IA: Apocalypse 2nd ed come in at $39 US
- Forgeworld books require too many additional books to know the rules for every unit Which is why you have rulebooks with condensed units in them. Currently about 2-3 books for FW versus 15 codices
- Forgeworld books are not readily available in stores I concede that point as it is totally true
- Forgeworld books are not an official codex Neither are White Dwarves but that did not stop people from flock to Chaos Demons when their units became OP through a White Dwarf updates now did it?
- Forgeworld books have more rules for certain armies than others Yes but the range is ever expanding, slower these days I will give you that but certain codices have more special rules than others, more heavy choices than others, more special characters than others, more EW than others. Big whoop

Personally I like my FW Eldar stuff, I don't use it in every list but I like variety and the models. Yeah I have ended up on the receiving end of a lucious assault drop pod. It happens. You either adapt and learn to think on the fly or you lose.

"Heh, and a caveat again, b/c these convos are so long and they get missed ... I personally use FW when I can in a tourney, attend a few tourneys every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW, and host 4 tourneys for 40k at NOVA every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW."

Do as I say not as I do then?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"Heh, and a caveat again, b/c these convos are so long and they get missed ... I personally use FW when I can in a tourney, attend a few tourneys every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW, and host 4 tourneys for 40k at NOVA every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW."

Do as I say not as I do then?

No not at all.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"Heh, and a caveat again, b/c these convos are so long and they get missed ... I personally use FW when I can in a tourney, attend a few tourneys every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW, and host 4 tourneys for 40k at NOVA every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW."

Do as I say not as I do then?

His point was for the purely competitive events universal FW inclusion is not suitable. For more casual, fluffy events its just fine.

Glocknall wrote:

Tournament do have the responsibility to create a reasonably fair competitive environment. This does not equate with complete fairness across the board which would be completely impossible FW or not. However as it has been pointed out you have already seen the strength of IG increase in the major GTs that feature FW (Adepticon TT, BAO, Broadside Bash). The difference between Necrons taking many top spots at Adepticon is the way their missions heavily featured Kill Points and random objectives. Those play strongly to the strengths of Necrons. Now we have two codices which one will certainly prove a tough matchup for Necrons and we have yet even explored Daemons yet.

I can't speak to the way the new books match up against crons yet because it's all still very new, however I'd argue that missions are the primary reason for Necrons showing, I'd say that, barring perhaps Eldar, they're the army best built to 6th edition even being a 5th edition army.

They can mitigate the painful impact HP's have on many others by being AV13 while Gauss weapons enable them to make more use of it against their foes than other races can, their assault units didn't rely on outflanking or transports to get stuck in and on average became even more effective with longer average and max charge distances (and swarms completely ignore terrain), they have great flyers and their flyer transport ignores all the bad stuff about being a flyer transport, Snapshots are clutch for Necrons with Tesla weaponry allowing them to fire with an average number of hits not much below what they'd normally get (snap-firing Telsa weapons effectively average a hit rate that a BS3 non-tesla weapon would while a Twin Linked tesla weapon snap firing is equivalent to an otherwise BS8 weapon. They also make excellent use of the character rules and challenges and can do more with Nightfight than just about any other army. Their mechanics are astoundingly flush with the 6E core ruleset.

FW IG has been well documented. Its extremely strong in tournaments. Other units you mentioned are simply not as good and spread more evenly to other armies. Again were not arguing every forgeworld unit, just the broken ones which heavily favor IG and SM.

And on some level I get that, but at the same time if these units showed up in a codex, nobody would bat an eye which is what puzzles me. It's the double-standard.

I don't actually even own any of the units under discussion (my FW collection consists of a bunch of DKoK infantry and some Death Riders, some Heavy Mortars, some Rapiers, 2 Hades drills, an Eldar Vampire Hunter, Eldar Scorpion, Eldar Nightwing, Chaos Decimator, some IG Chimera Autocannon turrets, a bunch of Iron Warriors dreadnoughts, and some IW Land Raider hatches), but I'm puzzled when people wouldn't simply the book title is what makes the difference between a unit being untouchable or not.

Tetras were excellent Tau units when they were starved for mobile markerlight and their codex was terribly outdated. I have local players who used them in friendly games w/o issue. I'm sure they are still in use because people will still have the models. Markerlights certainly is not a problem for the new codex.

They're still very good units that allow one to get in markerlights without having to rely on infantry options, especially to places where the infantry options may not have Los or range. People use them because they're still effective, and very often full squads of Pathfinders are simply unnecessary.

I agree but it is not hard to ally in mobility or take Vendettas for IG. The problem is the enemy has to be able to hold them throughout a game.

The enemy need not sit on them the entire game, just at the end of the game and/or if you get points throughout the game then even if they get smashed they may have so many objective points accumulated the IG may not be able to make it up.

When you have strong artillery and Vulture finding where your hiding through the entire game and your unable to shift the IG due to their firepower and durability they really don't have to grab objectives when they can stay on theirs.

If you can remove the Ld buff component and force Ld tests on/attack the Ld of the artillery, they flee, and, aside from Sabres, the resilient artillery aren't scoring units.

MVBrandt wrote:
Tournaments don't have a responsibiltiy for or against it. BUT, if a tournament attempts to create AS FAIR a situation as possible (a very noble, realistic, and achievable goal), there's very reasonable argument to be made that allowing FW harms that goal, instead of advancing it.

And yet if that's its goal, then why no mention of making any effort to control codex units?

MVBrandt wrote:And for you guys out there constantly saying 40K ISN'T MADE FOR TOURNAMENTS TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE FAIR IS STUPID, hey ... eff you buddies.

MVBrandt wrote:PS - can we all grow up a little? I know I've had to over the years, from a guy who often [unintentionally] sounded like a dick in every post I made, to someone who at least tries not to. Our hobby feels utterly plagued right now by forum flames, legal battles by litigious donkey-caves, back-biting and sniping all over the place. It's annoying already.

You're as off base and unfair in trying to tell a hard-working TO what they can or can't do as you would be to say 40K ISN'T MADE FOR INTERNATIONALLY ATTENDED NARRATIVE EVENTS THAT MIX FLUFF WITH THE REAL WORLD, TRYING TO DO SO IS STUPID. None of it is stupid, and all of it is stupid. We're playing with toy soldiers, but at the same time, people are paying THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to travel and attend events where they have expectations (ranging from "I want a fun crazy narrative" to "I want a competitive event where I have a fair chance of not being screwed by TOO many things entirely out of my control).

The point was that if you're playing a game in a manner it was never designed to be played in, why flip out about units from one source, but do absolutely nothing about units from another source?

Glocknall wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"Heh, and a caveat again, b/c these convos are so long and they get missed ... I personally use FW when I can in a tourney, attend a few tourneys every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW, and host 4 tourneys for 40k at NOVA every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW."

Do as I say not as I do then?

His point was for the purely competitive events universal FW inclusion is not suitable. For more casual, fluffy events its just fine.

He did not make a distinction in regards to the type of events he attends.

In my humble opinion, FW doesnt wreck a tourney, ALLIES wreck tournies...

SOOO much fun to take on the meta necron flying circus with...oh yeah a Riptide just to boot!!

I'm starting to wonder what the point of this thread is.

Everyone has put forth their arguments, and its circling now.

If you(being participants in this thread, including myself) aren't convinced out of your entrenched opinion, it seems unlikely that riding this merry-go-round longer is going to help.

Those of us that are TOs can make our own calls, and that's really all that matters. I think the only consensus we have reached here is that this is still an issue that is contentious.

Happy gaming everyone.

 Dracos wrote:
I'm starting to wonder what the point of this thread is.

Everyone has put forth their arguments, and its circling now.

If you(being participants in this thread, including myself) aren't convinced out of your entrenched opinion, it seems unlikely that riding this merry-go-round longer is going to help.

Those of us that are TOs can make our own calls, and that's really all that matters. I think the only consensus we have reached here is that this is still an issue that is contentious.

Happy gaming everyone.

Agreed, plus Warhammer forge hasn't even been mentioned so it's a 40k issue.

Ban the units that are the real reason people want to allow Forge World in competitive play (notably, Hyperios launchers and Sabre platforms) and the problem (such as it is) solves itself. Forge World couldn't write consistent and balanced rules if their lives depended on it, so it's up to tournament organizers to occasionally do the sensible thing and keep their events as balanced as possible. Sometimes that means an outright ban on entire books, sometimes targeted to problematic entries, sometimes making units Unique, etc. It's not rocket science.

TzeentchNet wrote:
Ban the units that are the real reason people want to allow Forge World in competitive play (notably, Hyperios launchers and Sabre platforms) and the problem (such as it is) solves itself. Forge World couldn't write consistent and balanced rules if their lives depended on it,

Have you read the rules for most of their units? I'd assume with a post like this you haven't. It's a small handful of artillery units people are complaining about, while the otherwise vast majority of FW units nobody seems to have an issue with.

so it's up to tournament organizers to occasionally do the sensible thing and keep their events as balanced as possible. Sometimes that means an outright ban on entire books, sometimes targeted to problematic entries, sometimes making units Unique, etc. It's not rocket science.

So, when does this logic apply to codex units and why not ban things like Vendettas? (speaking as someone who owns three vendettas and zero hyperios/sabre/thudd guns platforms)

 Vaktathi wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:And for you guys out there constantly saying 40K ISN'T MADE FOR TOURNAMENTS TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE FAIR IS STUPID, hey ... eff you buddies.

MVBrandt wrote:PS - can we all grow up a little? I know I've had to over the years, from a guy who often [unintentionally] sounded like a dick in every post I made, to someone who at least tries not to. Our hobby feels utterly plagued right now by forum flames, legal battles by litigious donkey-caves, back-biting and sniping all over the place. It's annoying already.

Yea I was a bit shocked by this as well...


Certainly events can be run as TO's see fit and that's fine, obviously, but I think there has been a lack of evidence put forth here to accuse FW as being OP. Lots of angry opinions but no one has had a convincing argument that FW unbalances the game any more then the silly allied matrix.

In case any one missed it, allies lets everyone cherry pick OP units already, and in very broken way considering FW lets me take tesseract AB's for necrons while allies lets me take hmmm well anything from the GK codex.

This thread has wondered but at it's heart it seems like we all want a more balanced game here, yet nobody is willing to look at the other BIGGER issues. I would love to see a large event run withOUT allies and see what fruit it bares.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Glocknall wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"Heh, and a caveat again, b/c these convos are so long and they get missed ... I personally use FW when I can in a tourney, attend a few tourneys every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW, and host 4 tourneys for 40k at NOVA every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW."

Do as I say not as I do then?

His point was for the purely competitive events universal FW inclusion is not suitable. For more casual, fluffy events its just fine.

He did not make a distinction in regards to the type of events he attends.

Mostly competitive events ... my point had nothing to do with competitiveness or casualness. It's perfectly fine for a TO to use whatever he or she pleases for their event. If you want to try to be more clear about what you THINK I think, Dozer, you can, but I've been pretty clear about it. I question a lot of the uproar about including FW, as I believe a good deal of it is people wanting to use very powerful IG units, now that Infantry is more common in the game (making artillery and the like better), flyers are more common (and FW IG has some easier-mode counters), and due to Allies most competitive gamers can find a way to shoehorn these powerful units into their lists, as has been shown on the circuit so far. I really don't have a beef, I just dislike misrepresenting positions as being about inclusiveness and fun variable FW units, when a lot of the new impetus is about hardcore competitors trying to get any advantage they can. The casual FW fans are just as loud as ever, and have every right to be. And, again, any TO has any right to do whatever they please, and people should leave off cutting them down.

Vaktathi - quite on the quote, "eff you buddies" with a little bit of a smirk to folks out there trying to tell others how they should be permitted to play their game, or run their events ... we all need to lay off and let people be free to enjoy their hobbies as they see fit.

In regard to controlling Codices when not wanting to add FW in pursuit of fair tournaments, the rationale is that Codices right now from codex-to-codex largely ARE fair. There's wide empirical evidence, and when that changes - when ONE codex is getting all the powerful units and the rest keep getting released with nothing but trash, I think you will hear people talking about pushing fairness more in "fair-as-goal" events by tweaking with codices. Fortunately, GW is pushing with each release more toward EVERY dex having powerful units (if you choose to take them), and so I simply say it's a question TO's seeking fair events should consider in a different light from TOs of events with OTHER goals as to whether they should get too invasive with this new approach by adding rules that - power-wise- only really benefit one dex (and thus have a direct impact on balance that is otherwise being arrived at, by luck or intent on GW's part).

The long and short is a reiteration of the long post I recently made above ... no right or wrong way here, just suggesting the point of the conversation should shift - not about whether FW is supposed to be legal or not by the intent of GW, or whether it's broken or not ... these are in the end only opinions that aren't going to change for those that espouse them. It would be better to talk about what motivates a TO for different event styles, and what considerations they should make for those styles with regard to FW - everything from fairness to fun. Every TO is going to come to his/her own conclusion based upon popular opinion in their region or among their attendees, and upon their own and their staff's opinions about the game. Trying to weedle out what parameters those opinions should be applied to might actually be useful, giving up and coming TOs a roadmap by which to figure out what to do more efficiently, predictably, and reliably ... thus providing the wider population of attendees a better guesstimate about what different events will set forth for them.

Do we still need greyknights? do we still needs flyers? This argument (imo) is kind of invalid because at what point do we stop? everyone will always moan about something being overpowerful etc.

I guess its just another facet that people can use if they so wish (which is never a bad thing in my view) as who wants to see the same army list? At least FW gives something different.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Glocknall wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"Heh, and a caveat again, b/c these convos are so long and they get missed ... I personally use FW when I can in a tourney, attend a few tourneys every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW, and host 4 tourneys for 40k at NOVA every year, 50% of which on the nose allow FW."

Do as I say not as I do then?

His point was for the purely competitive events universal FW inclusion is not suitable. For more casual, fluffy events its just fine.

He did not make a distinction in regards to the type of events he attends.

Umm... What?

Tournament: a series of games or contests that make up a single unit of competition (as on a professional golf tour), the championship play-offs of a league or conference, or an invitational event

He said tourney, tourneys are competitive in nature...

FW does give something different, though every codex release at this rapid pace is giving something different as well, and every army is shifting about with each new codex to deal with.

I think the point is, everyone has a different view on this in some ways. Almost every view is motivated by opinion and preference, and even those opinions/preferences are at different levels.

We've got hundreds (this is probably an exaggeration, I really don't know) of new units that have released for the codices in the past couple of months, most of which haven't even had time to see much tabletop in the tournament world. Do we still need something different? Some would say yes, some would say no.

I think the point is - with everything being different opinion wise, the conversation would be better angled toward what the objective considerations are, to which we're all going to apply our subjective opinions anyway.

For my own part, I'll continue to happily play in FW and non FW casual and competitive events country-wide, and do the same at NOVA (where we have a competitive event with FW, a casual event with FW, and a scaled casual/ competitive/casual event without, and a straight competitive event without). I'm not a FW hater, I just think as of 6th edition's meta and FW rules updates + 6th edition rules changes, IG FW are VERY, VERY good and undercosted, while no other codex really gets any power boosting from FW, just varietal adds. Even that's fine, if you don't want to restrict the IG component, but I wish people would be more forthcoming about it ... a LOT of players really, really, really want to go beat face at tournaments with their anti-flyer and scoring super tough interceptor sabres, or blast apart massive infantry formations and blobs and such with their cheap and uber durable quad guns, etc. Pre-6th, FW noise isn't as loud, mostly crying for variety and fun. Post-6th, FW noise gets super loud, including from known competitors, and right in line with TONS of players who previously couldn't access IG suddenly being able to without abandoning their other army of choice (aka, Allies). That's FINE, too! Just ... you know ... admit it if you're one of the players who actually has that as a motivation.

I don't mind clarifying for Dozer, btw. I think he's convinced he knows what I think, and can't therefore wrap his head around the fact that I actually think differently than his presumption, maybe? I don't know, I've been pretty opinionated in the past in a negative way, especially years ago, so I may have locked some readers' opinions in a way I can't easily remedy. Suffice to say, examples of events with and without FW I've played, and enjoyed every one of, in the last year include the 40k Friendly (casual, FW), Champs (competitive, no FW), and TT (competitive, FW) at AdeptiCon, as well as the BFS GT (competitive, no FW), plus as above paragraph I host competitive AND non-competitive FW AND non-FW events at NOVA (Trios, competitive, FW; Narrative, casual, FW; invitational, competitive, no FW; GT, scaled competitiveness to casual brackets, no FW).

 Vaktathi wrote:

They can mitigate the painful impact HP's have on many others by being AV13 while Gauss weapons enable them to make more use of it against their foes than other races can, their assault units didn't rely on outflanking or transports to get stuck in and on average became even more effective with longer average and max charge distances (and swarms completely ignore terrain), they have great flyers and their flyer transport ignores all the bad stuff about being a flyer transport, Snapshots are clutch for Necrons with Tesla weaponry allowing them to fire with an average number of hits not much below what they'd normally get (snap-firing Telsa weapons effectively average a hit rate that a BS3 non-tesla weapon would while a Twin Linked tesla weapon snap firing is equivalent to an otherwise BS8 weapon. They also make excellent use of the character rules and challenges and can do more with Nightfight than just about any other army. Their mechanics are astoundingly flush with the 6E core ruleset.

I totally agree with this. They obviously adjusted well to 6th, especially in the flyer department where their troops are untouchable until they come onto the board. However there are counters to the most common builds fully within the 6thed codices. Gunline Tau simply blow wraithwing off the table and down their flyers when they come on. Daemons have the assault to hang with wraiths and the speed to race to objectives. Eldar will perform well I think but we'll have to see there.

And on some level I get that, but at the same time if these units showed up in a codex, nobody would bat an eye which is what puzzles me. It's the double-standard.

I don't actually even own any of the units under discussion (my FW collection consists of a bunch of DKoK infantry and some Death Riders, some Heavy Mortars, some Rapiers, 2 Hades drills, an Eldar Vampire Hunter, Eldar Scorpion, Eldar Nightwing, Chaos Decimator, some IG Chimera Autocannon turrets, a bunch of Iron Warriors dreadnoughts, and some IW Land Raider hatches), but I'm puzzled when people wouldn't simply the book title is what makes the difference between a unit being untouchable or not.

The whether FW is legal standard really doesn't hold much ground for me. GW doesn't run tournaments anymore so its up to TOs to determine its legality. However it is definitely in a different class from Codex units which specifically state it is everything you need to play (insert army) in a game of 40k. FW does have similar wording but also qualifies it saying to get your opponents approval. For me really its the availability of Forgeworld that is its own biggest barrier. Its just not easy for people to get.

The enemy need not sit on them the entire game, just at the end of the game and/or if you get points throughout the game then even if they get smashed they may have so many objective points accumulated the IG may not be able to make it up. If you can remove the Ld buff component and force Ld tests on/attack the Ld of the artillery, they flee, and, aside from Sabres, the resilient artillery aren't scoring units.

That has been discussed. Trying to dig out a LC out of a blob of IG is really difficult for many armies. That's why the blob is run so much. It's not impossible, but take a lot of work. Artillery is so powerful in 6th (Ordnance) because it give long range, turn one firepower. Being able to TL it makes multiple barrage even more so. There are ways to counter it, but ironically counter artillery is probably the best....see where this is headed?







[

Sorry had to do it, but this is what this thread has turned in too.

 pities2004 wrote:



Sorry had to do it, but this is what this thread has turned in too.

It usually does.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
It is still closer than the Difference in FW where IG adds maybe 50 more to IG and 10 to Dark Eldar.

IG are intergalactic whores... Just about every army can ally with them. Admit it, you don't like FW.

Yup totally hate it it why I said I'd be ok with a few unit bans, and why I you know polled my player base To see what they wanted to do, and you am running 1/2 of my tournaments next month including FW. But yes totally hate it.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:



Sorry had to do it, but this is what this thread has turned in too.

It usually does.

Yeah. We've more or less been hearing the same arguments for the past four or five pages now.

Vaktathi wrote:Have you read the rules for most of their units?

-- Uhm, yes. Are you being actually serious here? I've even sent in playtest reports to Forge World. Where I assume they get immediately round filed since they can't even bother to update their books more than once a year or keep the rules for units straight from book to book. I mean jeeze, I've seen some pretty bizarre Forge World defense forces before, but come on son: the rules they write are not very good.

It's a small handful of artillery units people are complaining about while the otherwise vast majority of FW units nobody seems to have an issue with.

-- Well that's a shocker, because that's pretty much exactly what I said. Most FW units are actually pretty garbage for their point costs (looking at you, laughably terrible Dark Eldar flyer). Which sort of reinforces my points about their rules being bad.

So, when does this logic apply to codex units and why not ban things like Vendettas? (speaking as someone who owns three vendettas and zero hyperios/sabre/thudd guns platforms)

-- It should. But it's easier for everyone to swallow bans and limits on fringe stuff like Forge World.

This is the "umpteenth" thread on this and many more will come. I'm sure we can all agree on that! That being said. 40K rules for FW units are legal. Period. As stated throughout this post, FW books do say that you should ask your opponent if using FW is ok. If you accept entering in to a tournament, you're giving permission to your opponent by default. I don't see why so many complain about broken units from FW. Again, as said in previous pages, there are "broken" units in FW and standard 40k. If you have a hard time with particular units, plan accordingly.

Before I owned any FW stuff myself, I saw them being played on the table. My first thought was not "man those are overpowered/cheap". My first thought was "man, I wish I had some". I didn't complain because I had been beaten by an army with FW units. Besides the fact that some of them are beautiful models, I wanted to field them, so I bought some. The only thing that should be complained about is bad players. Again, as stated all over this post, if we lose the "fun", we shouldn't be playing at all. Agreed?

Right so everyone that does not like ig should quit because they have all the "fun" with FW. As to giving consent to players using FW, if I go to a FW approved event then yes I have given that consent, if I go to FW not allowed, I have effectively not given that consent. Different events for different people.

Breng77 wrote:
Right so everyone that does not like ig should quit because they have all the "fun" with FW. As to giving consent to players using FW, if I go to a FW approved event then yes I have given that consent, if I go to FW not allowed, I have effectively not given that consent. Different events for different people.

The problem with the whole "separate but equal" line is that for people like Blackmoor and myself, most of the larger events on the West Coast are FW inclusive. If that's a significant bugbear for you, then you pretty much have to give up going to the large events close to you, which sucks.

Still, if enough people vote with their wallets, current organizers will change their formats, or new event organizers will step up and offer alternatives.

Yup it sucks but that is similar to saying I don't like NOVA missions or BAO missions but events near me use them. Unless at some point all events are standardized there is no way to always get what you want. Unless you run your own events.

Hey, look. Forge World is front-page news on the GW website.

https://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=9400048

I still really don't understand the big gripe with FW units. I've played in tournaments that allowed FW and didn't use FW units myself, and I still had a great time! There's always going to be some unbalanced units/armies, as stated earlier, as new dexs and books are released. Some armies are in dire need of updating and I'm glad to see that many are. My local store has gaming tournaments and there has never been any complaints about the use of FW items. There has, however, been complaints about players and their sportsmanship (which is also included in our tourney scores). Bad players shouldn't make you allergic to FW, or anything else for that matter. Even for tournaments.........

So you assertion is that anyone who runs all the op fw IG stuff is either a bad sportsman or a bad player? Sorry I know some nice but competitive guys that will run said spam and nice guys though they may be he games won't be fun. So IMO it has nothing to do with the player in this case. As for op units bein in all books you seem to have missed the point where with fw they are more or less centralized in IG.

Why is this 15 pages? Le Sigh

 pities2004 wrote:
Why is this 15 pages? Le Sigh

To be fair, half of the posts are from annoying people who feel the need to tell everyone how disinterested they are in the discussion.

 GrimScorpio wrote:
I still really don't understand the big gripe with FW units. I've played in tournaments that allowed FW and didn't use FW units myself, and I still had a great time! There's always going to be some unbalanced units/armies, as stated earlier, as new dexs and books are released. Some armies are in dire need of updating and I'm glad to see that many are. My local store has gaming tournaments and there has never been any complaints about the use of FW items. There has, however, been complaints about players and their sportsmanship (which is also included in our tourney scores). Bad players shouldn't make you allergic to FW, or anything else for that matter. Even for tournaments.........

Some people go to tournaments to play some games of 40k and do not have any expectations.

Some people go to tournaments to compete at the highest levels.

FW has an impact on the later and not so much on the former.

And what FW units have you played against?

 Danny Internets wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
Why is this 15 pages? Le Sigh

To be fair, half of the posts are from annoying people who feel the need to tell everyone how disinterested they are in the discussion.

Half of the other half are people being too lazy to read the prior pages and just posted the same thing over again that we've heard.

As for op units bein in all books you seem to have missed the point where with fw they are more or less centralized in IG.

Except that has not always been the case and will not be the case in the future. What is “good” in 40K changes that is the one constant.

Which is exactly why I think creating some “banned” list for specific units is problematic. The changes brought about by every new Codex, Forgeworld book and FAQ update make the long term issue of determining what units are allowed and disallowed a nightmare. Your choices are either gaze into a crystal ball to try to predict what a player base may leverage and ban it or allow it and rely on the players to adapt and come up with counters. In my opinion, outright banning is not an effective long term strategy.

It sounds simple, just ban X unit. But from an event standpoint, you are publishing rules months and months in advance of the event. Collecting signups based on those rules and expectations. Over the course of those months things change new books come out, FAQ documents get published. Potentially tweaking the banned list at the last minute is not exactly fair but then again neither is leaving a flawed banned list in place given a changing a game meta in flux. So what may start off as something that sounds simple and reasonable ends up being unpalatable months later come event go time even with the best intentions.

The core issue is spamming hyper efficient units. So adopting a general 0-1 restriction for Forgeworld goes a long way to mitigate the problem.

Something else I will point out, since it seems to be a focus of this thread is on the “unfairiness” of army X getting more choices then army Y. It has been a fairly standard practice that not all codexs have the same number of choices. As others have pointed out many of those choices are superficial ones. But the key point is it is not strictly how many unit options are available that determines if something is “good” or “over powered”. To steal the Football analogy someone used earlier in this thread. So what if you get you get a choice of 50 football players… as long as I get the choice of taking Aaron Rodgers. The import thing is not the quantity of the options but the quality. All it takes is for one codex to get one unit from Forgeworld and for that one unit to be “good” and it is irrelevant how many choices they have access to selecting. It is the chronic problem we have in codex releases with having no brainer choices in key force organizational slots that leave all other options sub optimal.

Do you want more variety at events? I will get up on my soapbox for a minute .. so bare with me. I used to show up to a GT or RTT, get handed a scenario and play it no questions asked. I had zero expectations of knowing that scenario ahead of the event and I expected to be surprised. In doing so I had to account for the chance I might see anything with my army list. I had to make hard choices. I had to be prepared to adapt to whatever a tourney organizer may throw at me. I did not have weeks to playtest against the exact 4 missions I would play. I also didn’t have the option to optimize my army list to those missions get the maximum advantage.

In some ways, the sameness we now see at events is self created. We have created expectations that players will know everything before hand in the interest of “fairness”. As such players that have the means, knowledge, resources and the time to field the most efficient army for the scenario, rules and terrain mix of any given event have an advantage and will come up with the most efficient force. As with anything there are advantages and disadvantages.

 pities2004 wrote:
Why is this 15 pages? Le Sigh

Yes, you've posted that gif already.

Were you actually born in 2004? Because you sure act the bit.

muwhe wrote:

It sounds simple, just ban X unit. But from an event standpoint, you are publishing rules months and months in advance of the event. Collecting signups based on those rules and expectations. Over the course of those months things change new books come out, FAQ documents get published. Potentially tweaking the banned list at the last minute is not exactly fair but then again neither is leaving a flawed banned list in place given a changing a game meta in flux. So what may start off as something that sounds simple and reasonable ends up being unpalatable months later come event go time even with the best intentions.

The core issue is spamming hyper efficient units. So adopting a general 0-1 restriction for Forgeworld goes a long way to mitigate the problem.

I agree in principle with you here but IG have a lot of ways of manipulating the FoC. 0-1 for IG can mean 5 Sabre platforms, or 3 thudd guns, or 3 earthshaker batteries. All very potent units that can ignore FoC in one way or another. It might prevent the outright dominance of FW iG in tournaments but not homogenization. You'll see a lousy number of IG allies with a 0-1 restriction.

Do you want more variety at events? I will get up on my soapbox for a minute .. so bare with me. I used to show up to a GT or RTT, get handed a scenario and play it no questions asked. I had zero expectations of knowing that scenario ahead of the event and I expected to be surprised. In doing so I had to account for the chance I might see anything with my army list. I had to make hard choices. I had to be prepared to adapt to whatever a tourney organizer may throw at me. I did not have weeks to playtest against the exact 4 missions I would play. I also didn’t have the option to optimize my army list to those missions get the maximum advantage.

In some ways, the sameness we now see at events is self created. We have created expectations that players will know everything before hand in the interest of “fairness”. As such players that have the means, knowledge, resources and the time to field the most efficient army for the scenario, rules and terrain mix of any given event have an advantage and will come up with the most efficient force. As with anything there are advantages and disadvantages.

I really like this idea thoughI think its a little unfair though for a tournament player to shell out a thousand dollars to attend a tournament only to arrive and see the missions stacked against his faction/list. I'd prefer some kind of mission disclosure but perhaps not every mission verbatim.

Breng77 wrote:So you assertion is that anyone who runs all the op fw IG stuff is either a bad sportsman or a bad player? Sorry I know some nice but competitive guys that will run said spam and nice guys though they may be he games won't be fun. So IMO it has nothing to do with the player in this case. As for op units bein in all books you seem to have missed the point where with fw they are more or less centralized in IG.

You're missing the point. No, those bringing IG stuff are not automatically bad players. It's just how they'd like to play. It's not just IG that has some pretty strong FW stuff either. Did you see the new Necron stuff? Stronger FW units just need to be dealt with in a different manner.

Same with Strong 40k units. ie Thunderfire cannons. I've seen more than one in a game before, and that chews up infantry like no other. Shooting at them tends to be fruitless due to the T7 and average 3+ cover. I outflank or DS, then assualt next turn. That almost guarentees me that they'll only fire for 1 more turn.

How about Necrons and their RP? Drop the whole unit and they don't get to roll it.

What about IG FW executioner Tank. It's still just a Tank. How about a full armoured regiment? Again, all tanks with 3 hull points, just need melta, armourbane (for CC), or lascannons (or equiv).

I've never had a hard time being defeated repeatedly by the same list in tournaments. To me, that meant I had flaws in my list and needed to adjust weak points in my list for the next tournament. The point is to have a list that's flexable enough to deal with whatever is thrown against you. Just because a list creams you, doesnt mean they'll fair that well against other lists.

Then again, as per the quote below, I guess I'm one of those players who play for fun with no expectations, not necessarily just to win.

Blackmoor wrote:

 GrimScorpio wrote:
I still really don't understand the big gripe with FW units. I've played in tournaments that allowed FW and didn't use FW units myself, and I still had a great time! There's always going to be some unbalanced units/armies, as stated earlier, as new dexs and books are released. Some armies are in dire need of updating and I'm glad to see that many are. My local store has gaming tournaments and there has never been any complaints about the use of FW items. There has, however, been complaints about players and their sportsmanship (which is also included in our tourney scores). Bad players shouldn't make you allergic to FW, or anything else for that matter. Even for tournaments.........

Some people go to tournaments to play some games of 40k and do not have any expectations.

Some people go to tournaments to compete at the highest levels.

FW has an impact on the later and not so much on the former.

And what FW units have you played against?

DKOK, IG armoured company, Chaos decimator, Tau tetras, Tau hammerhead w/ plasmacannon turrets, various SM vehicle variants, Necron Tomb stalker, Necron Acanthrites, just to name a few. This doesn't include APOC games, but we're talking about 40k legal only on this thread.

 Blackmoor wrote:
Some people go to tournaments to play some games of 40k and do not have any expectations.

Some people go to tournaments to compete at the highest levels.

FW has an impact on the later and not so much on the former.

Nonsense. If I go to a tournament to play some games of 40k then banning FW has a huge impact on me. It's the difference between playing some games of 40k and finding something else to do that weekend instead of attending an event where I am clearly not welcome.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
Some people go to tournaments to play some games of 40k and do not have any expectations.

Some people go to tournaments to compete at the highest levels.

FW has an impact on the later and not so much on the former.

Nonsense. If I go to a tournament to play some games of 40k then banning FW has a huge impact on me. It's the difference between playing some games of 40k and finding something else to do that weekend instead of attending an event where I am clearly not welcome.

But you don't go to major tournaments to play 40k so it has zero impact on you.

I don't recall Forgeworld being a necessity for tournament play at all. So what is the point of this thread?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I don't recall Forgeworld being a necessity for tournament play at all. So what is the point of this thread?

Did you read the OP? Blackmoor laid out his intentions with this thread pretty clearly, whether you agree with him or not.

yes and I just re-read it. there really was no necessity to have Forgeworld in tournaments and I really see no reason to bring them in unless it is a special tournament.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
yes and I just re-read it. there really was no necessity to have Forgeworld in tournaments and I really see no reason to bring them in unless it is a special tournament.

While I completely agree with the second part of your statement the purpose is to illustrate that many of the reasons given by TOs and other in favor of including FW are either gone or obsolete in some way.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
But you don't go to major tournaments to play 40k so it has zero impact on you.

Of course it has an impact on me. I want to go to major tournaments to play 40k, but the people running them keep saying "you are not welcome".

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
While I completely agree with the second part of your statement the purpose is to illustrate that many of the reasons given by TOs and other in favor of including FW are either gone or obsolete in some way.

Well, many of the less important ones. The OP conveniently neglects the best reason, that GW has said that FW is part of the game and house rules that arbitrarily ban options that an individual TO doesn't like are bad. Just like all the comp-heavy tournaments that were laughed at (for good reasons) in 5th.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I don't recall Forgeworld being a necessity for tournament play at all. So what is the point of this thread?

The premise of "need" has been long dropped from this discussion - you don't "need" anything in this context. You don't need Forge World, you don't need codices, you don't need to play 40k at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
But you don't go to major tournaments to play 40k so it has zero impact on you.

Of course it has an impact on me. I want to go to major tournaments to play 40k, but the people running them keep saying "you are not welcome".

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
While I completely agree with the second part of your statement the purpose is to illustrate that many of the reasons given by TOs and other in favor of including FW are either gone or obsolete in some way.

Well, many of the less important ones. The OP conveniently neglects the best reason, that GW has said that FW is part of the game and house rules that arbitrarily ban options that an individual TO doesn't like are bad. Just like all the comp-heavy tournaments that were laughed at (for good reasons) in 5th.

If you really wanted to go to a tournament you would just take your DKOK and use them with the Imperial Guard Codex. I rather get the impression you get more enjoyment complaining that you are unwelcome.

I seem to recall you as saying that you really only had a smallish 40k collection but a rather impressive amount of apocalypse units. Your whole "woe is me" I am unwelcome at tournaments mantra is kind of sad, man up like the rest of us and get a tournament army if you TRULY are interested in going to a tournament.

"My army list has 3 Kroot Great Knarlocs in it."

"I don't want to play against Forgeworld units, they're not official."

"Ok, well I brought a list where they are counts-as Heldrakes, then."

"On the other hand, it might be interesting to play against some new units I've never faced before."

I think having two different types of tournaments is the best solution. I don't like that most of them are called 40k 'tournaments', because that implies a competitive atmosphere. I would consider the ones that I attend, that allow Forgeworld, to be 40k events. The only problem is that many TOs will copy and paste the rules for the biggest, most competitive tournaments, for their smaller, local ones, and those rules usually disallow FW. It's really on the shoulders of the TO to determine what type of atmosphere they are trying to achieve, but I think we've mentioned that dozens of times by now.

muwhe wrote:

As for op units bein in all books you seem to have missed the point where with fw they are more or less centralized in IG.

Except that has not always been the case and will not be the case in the future. What is “good” in 40K changes that is the one constant.

Which is exactly why I think creating some “banned” list for specific units is problematic. The changes brought about by every new Codex, Forgeworld book and FAQ update make the long term issue of determining what units are allowed and disallowed a nightmare. Your choices are either gaze into a crystal ball to try to predict what a player base may leverage and ban it or allow it and rely on the players to adapt and come up with counters. In my opinion, outright banning is not an effective long term strategy.

It sounds simple, just ban X unit. But from an event standpoint, you are publishing rules months and months in advance of the event. Collecting signups based on those rules and expectations. Over the course of those months things change new books come out, FAQ documents get published. Potentially tweaking the banned list at the last minute is not exactly fair but then again neither is leaving a flawed banned list in place given a changing a game meta in flux. So what may start off as something that sounds simple and reasonable ends up being unpalatable months later come event go time even with the best intentions.

The core issue is spamming hyper efficient units. So adopting a general 0-1 restriction for Forgeworld goes a long way to mitigate the problem.

Something else I will point out, since it seems to be a focus of this thread is on the “unfairiness” of army X getting more choices then army Y. It has been a fairly standard practice that not all codexs have the same number of choices. As others have pointed out many of those choices are superficial ones. But the key point is it is not strictly how many unit options are available that determines if something is “good” or “over powered”. To steal the Football analogy someone used earlier in this thread. So what if you get you get a choice of 50 football players… as long as I get the choice of taking Aaron Rodgers. The import thing is not the quantity of the options but the quality. All it takes is for one codex to get one unit from Forgeworld and for that one unit to be “good” and it is irrelevant how many choices they have access to selecting. It is the chronic problem we have in codex releases with having no brainer choices in key force organizational slots that leave all other options sub optimal.

Do you want more variety at events? I will get up on my soapbox for a minute .. so bare with me. I used to show up to a GT or RTT, get handed a scenario and play it no questions asked. I had zero expectations of knowing that scenario ahead of the event and I expected to be surprised. In doing so I had to account for the chance I might see anything with my army list. I had to make hard choices. I had to be prepared to adapt to whatever a tourney organizer may throw at me. I did not have weeks to playtest against the exact 4 missions I would play. I also didn’t have the option to optimize my army list to those missions get the maximum advantage.

In some ways, the sameness we now see at events is self created. We have created expectations that players will know everything before hand in the interest of “fairness”. As such players that have the means, knowledge, resources and the time to field the most efficient army for the scenario, rules and terrain mix of any given event have an advantage and will come up with the most efficient force. As with anything there are advantages and disadvantages.

Nice post, muwhe! I think the 0-1 restriction is great for many events. But if folks want to run more FW than that in an event, I think some kind of prohibited/limited list would help.

Just caught up on this thread after vacation. Lots of great points, cheers for those who made thoughtful posts like the above, and Mannahnin's, MVBrandt's, etc. There's a lot of facets to this and it helps to see folks' thought-out opinions on it, which are usually not black and white but rather some shade of grey

JWhex wrote:
If you really wanted to go to a tournament you would just take your DKOK and use them with the Imperial Guard Codex. I rather get the impression you get more enjoyment complaining that you are unwelcome.

So what am I going to use my Avengers for? And my earthshaker guns? And my Hades drills? None of that works as a codex list.

I seem to recall you as saying that you really only had a smallish 40k collection but a rather impressive amount of apocalypse units. Your whole "woe is me" I am unwelcome at tournaments mantra is kind of sad, man up like the rest of us and get a tournament army if you TRULY are interested in going to a tournament.

So the solution to TOs imposing ridiculous house rules is to buy an entire additional army that I have no interest in building or painting just so I can follow them? And you think this counts as making me welcome at those events?

 Blackmoor wrote:

Oh yes, I am opening up this can of worms again.

There was a push after the release of 6th edition to include forge world in tournament play and we were seeing it being adopted into tournaments.

Some of the reasons why were:

#1. Forge World will be embraced by Games Workshop soon so we might as well go ahead and include it.
We all know what happened here, this turned out to be just a rumor.

#2. Alot of codex’s have no way to deal with flyers and Forge World is the only way they can get Skyfire.
Well that was a lot of codexes ago. Let’s take a look at them:
Chaos Space marines
Dark Angels
Chaos Demons
Tau
Eldar
Space Marines (Coming soon)
Also don’t forget the Skies of Blood supplement

GW has been working overtime and cranking out the 6th edition books so now most of them are 6th edition compatible. Almost every army now has some way of dealing with flyers and those that don’t Forge World will not help them. The funny thing is that it really only helped out IG and SM armies who really did not need any help with skyfire. There were also unintended consequences to having all of these units that have skyfire/interceptor. Sure it kept the Necron armies away, but what happens is that you end up hurting armies that are viable builds that use reserves to get onto the board, and it also hurts armies that would like to use fliers (as a means of their only flier defense or for fun) get screwed.

Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.

#3. The codexes are getting tired and old, and this will bring a lot of new and interesting units to everyone’s armies.
That sure was a lot of codexes ago. So if you do not have a lot of new toys to play with, you can ally in new and exciting units to your existing army. Also if this is your argument for including forge world in competitive tournaments. I will point to the fact that all you see over and over again are the same units (saber platforms) and the other broken ones since no one uses the fluffy choices.


So now looking back at Forge World in tournaments I have to ask…do we need it?

Yes, we do need it. Don't bitch about the Hyperios or Sabre platforms. Of course your opponent is trying to blow you away. You are doing the same thing.
You ran a cheesed out wound allocated draigo wing thru most of 5th. Now I take it your worried that your draigo wing can't stand up to that much firepower.....

Adapt. Forge World is not going away and I suspect will become even more common in tournament play. The rules are considered official now and don't require opponents consent.

 Peregrine wrote:

JWhex wrote:
If you really wanted to go to a tournament you would just take your DKOK and use them with the Imperial Guard Codex. I rather get the impression you get more enjoyment complaining that you are unwelcome.

So what am I going to use my Avengers for? And my earthshaker guns? And my Hades drills? None of that works as a codex list.
Now I'm not sure the exact scale of all those models, but you cannot counts as anything? The Avenger could not count as a Vendetta?Allied Storm Talon? Allied Helldrake? The Earth shaker can't count as a basilistk? I honestly don't know I just find it hard to believe that with a minimal ammount of work this could not be made to work as counts as. Furthermore do you only own enough models to bring a list that must include these this in order to compete? IF so I'll tackle that in my answer to your second question.

I seem to recall you as saying that you really only had a smallish 40k collection but a rather impressive amount of apocalypse units. Your whole "woe is me" I am unwelcome at tournaments mantra is kind of sad, man up like the rest of us and get a tournament army if you TRULY are interested in going to a tournament.

So the solution to TOs imposing ridiculous house rules is to buy an entire additional army that I have no interest in building or painting just so I can follow them? And you think this counts as making me welcome at those events?

So if the answer is that you don't own enough IG to make a viable list for an event without FW, why can I not say the same about FW inclusion. FW has only recently been accepted by anyone, and only recently been any indication that it is to be used in standard games (though it still asks for opponent's consent to play against unfamiliar models) so is it fair for you to ask me to spend a bunch of money on in the FW case an entire army if I want to compete at a high level? IS this making me as a competitor welcome at these events? Sure you can say well you can still attend but you won't do well, and I ask again do you not own enough models of any army, IG or otherwise that can "count as" enough to meet tournament points levels? IF so you are as welcome at those events as I am in a FW allowed event.

Using terms like "house rules" is simply going to make your argument be ignored, as it's well established that 40k requires rules FAQs / clarifications / etc to work for any tournament, and most come with a packet listing these now. Whether a TO should be giving "consent" to FW use is, of course, the point of this discussion (and in what circumstances). Yay or nay, it will have to be listed in the packet... hence the discussion

These calls are made by the TO, not individual players, in a tourney setting.

You mentioned wanting to see what happened at Wargames Con when you were on the 11th Company....

1st: Necrons (Ork allies - no forgeworld)
2nd: Chaos Daemons - (no forgeworld)
3rd: IG (forgeworld)
4th: Chaos Daemons (CSM allies - no forgeworld)

Results are in.

In regards to your statements about FW being too expensive. You can quite easily convert many existing plastic models to represent FW units at a lower cost. This point has been brought up before.

However, I find your point about non-tournament players being the ones advocating for FW while the tournament players are the ones impacted a pretty good point. I am certainly not a "hardcore" tournament player. I bring FW to events I play in and regularly get crushed by guys without FW units. Probably says something about my playing ability....

Regardless, your point holds some merit, which is why I haven't piped up in here earlier. However, the results of BoLs Con... excuse me... Wargamescon would seem to say that FW isn't the auto-win button it is frequently (and erroneously) portrayed as.

Well so far this thread is 100% forgeworld 40k not fantasy,

I have never had any issues playing my Chaos Dwarfs from Tamurkhan, I own all the forgeworld models and always get praises. I guess 40k there is just soo much stuff out there it's harder for people to accept it?

 cvtuttle wrote:
You mentioned wanting to see what happened at Wargames Con when you were on the 11th Company....

1st: Necrons (Ork allies - no forgeworld)
2nd: Chaos Daemons - (no forgeworld)
3rd: IG (forgeworld)
4th: Chaos Daemons (CSM allies - no forgeworld)

Results are in.

Regardless, your point holds some merit, which is why I haven't piped up in here earlier. However, the results of BoLs Con... excuse me... Wargamescon would seem to say that FW isn't the auto-win button it is frequently (and erroneously) portrayed as.

I saw those results and it just left me with more questions like:
#1. Why was there no Tau on in the top 16?
#2. Did the missions impact armies with FW?
#3. How many people brought FW, and did they take the broken units?

It is interesting that there were only 9 IG armies, so the odds of them being heavy FW is pretty low. I would like to know how many vultures where there, as well as quad guns, and heavy artillery platforms.

And Carl, if everyone played like you do I would have no issue with FW. It is only when it is abused is it unbalancing.

Edit: I did note that attendance was down this year, and I am courious why. I am not saying it was because of FW but I would like to know why even though there is now way of knowing.

 cvtuttle wrote:
You mentioned wanting to see what happened at Wargames Con when you were on the 11th Company....

1st: Necrons (Ork allies - no forgeworld)
2nd: Chaos Daemons - (no forgeworld)
3rd: IG (forgeworld)
4th: Chaos Daemons (CSM allies - no forgeworld)

Results are in.

In regards to your statements about FW being too expensive. You can quite easily convert many existing plastic models to represent FW units at a lower cost. This point has been brought up before.

However, I find your point about non-tournament players being the ones advocating for FW while the tournament players are the ones impacted a pretty good point. I am certainly not a "hardcore" tournament player. I bring FW to events I play in and regularly get crushed by guys without FW units. Probably says something about my playing ability....

Regardless, your point holds some merit, which is why I haven't piped up in here earlier. However, the results of BoLs Con... excuse me... Wargamescon would seem to say that FW isn't the auto-win button it is frequently (and erroneously) portrayed as.

While I will again caveat in advance that I play with FW at half the events I attend, and allow FW at half the events I host (2/4), I think the evaluation of FW's impact is on the "average" tournament gamer, not the top tables. What were average players with thudd guns and sabres and vultures doing to people in the mid-tables ... I don't think any of us should have ALL that much sympathy for the top tier competitors, who are going to maybe not LIKE the inclusion of FW, but are going to prepare for it regardless (I'm one of these players, a multi-GT winner who doesn't particularly LIKE having to prepare for FW, but does so well enough and even happily brings it to his own advantage when permitted).

Relic07 wrote:

Yes, we do need it. Don't bitch about the Hyperios or Sabre platforms. Of course your opponent is trying to blow you away. You are doing the same thing.
You ran a cheesed out wound allocated draigo wing thru most of 5th. Now I take it your worried that your draigo wing can't stand up to that much firepower.....

Adapt. Forge World is not going away and I suspect will become even more common in tournament play. The rules are considered official now and don't require opponents consent.

I have played against Draigowing many times with both my Chaos and Eldar and I have never lost to it. Draigowing has a lot of exploitable weaknesses. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a good way to kill FW artillery.

Imo, I can understand why FW should not be allowed as I know the team at FW have even stated (im sure its on one of their videos on their YouTube channel) that there stuff is not really for Competitive play and more for scenario play for their books so they can make it as OP as they like, hence why there are some units that really hurt quite a few armies without FW in FW allowed events.

Put it this way, in a few years when they release more Horus Heresy stuff there will be an Emperor model guaranteed to be released. Now imagine a 40k tourney that allows FW... Every Marine army now will contain The Emperor and I am assured that he will be THE chuck Norris if 40k (c'mon its Big E)... now would you think it would be fair if you were playing against The Emperor of Mankind on the table?

And thus is why imo why FW is banned in tourneys because even with restrictions there will be that player who will bring in a maximum squad of "FW unit X" or "SC X" to the table, and call me old fashioned but I like to know what I am fighting.

 happygolucky wrote:
Imo, I can understand why FW should not be allowed as I know the team at FW have even stated (im sure its on one of their videos on their YouTube channel) that there stuff is not really for Competitive play and more for scenario play

So did the core GW design studio about 40k 6th edition at their open day event.

The only time FW has commented on using their rules as potentially inappropriate in normal games (besides Apoc units) is Horus Heresy lists and units, since they're specifically designed for use against each other and often at higher points values than normal games.

 happygolucky wrote:
Imo, I can understand why FW should not be allowed as I know the team at FW have even stated (im sure its on one of their videos on their YouTube channel) that there stuff is not really for Competitive play and more for scenario play for their books so they can make it as OP as they like, hence why there are some units that really hurt quite a few armies without FW in FW allowed events.
.

Please post link to video. I have never heard this said, either on video or from audience members of a FW Seminar, other than for their 30k material (Horus Heresy: Betrayal).

MVBrandt wrote:

 cvtuttle wrote:
You mentioned wanting to see what happened at Wargames Con when you were on the 11th Company....

1st: Necrons (Ork allies - no forgeworld)
2nd: Chaos Daemons - (no forgeworld)
3rd: IG (forgeworld)
4th: Chaos Daemons (CSM allies - no forgeworld)

Results are in.

In regards to your statements about FW being too expensive. You can quite easily convert many existing plastic models to represent FW units at a lower cost. This point has been brought up before.

However, I find your point about non-tournament players being the ones advocating for FW while the tournament players are the ones impacted a pretty good point. I am certainly not a "hardcore" tournament player. I bring FW to events I play in and regularly get crushed by guys without FW units. Probably says something about my playing ability....

Regardless, your point holds some merit, which is why I haven't piped up in here earlier. However, the results of BoLs Con... excuse me... Wargamescon would seem to say that FW isn't the auto-win button it is frequently (and erroneously) portrayed as.

While I will again caveat in advance that I play with FW at half the events I attend, and allow FW at half the events I host (2/4), I think the evaluation of FW's impact is on the "average" tournament gamer, not the top tables. What were average players with thudd guns and sabres and vultures doing to people in the mid-tables ... I don't think any of us should have ALL that much sympathy for the top tier competitors, who are going to maybe not LIKE the inclusion of FW, but are going to prepare for it regardless (I'm one of these players, a multi-GT winner who doesn't particularly LIKE having to prepare for FW, but does so well enough and even happily brings it to his own advantage when permitted).

I agree with this and this is where I am speaking from. I am not a high level GT player and I know it. I win my fair number of local tournaments but when it comes to GT level, BAO, WGC etc. I am completely middle of the road. I finished almost dead center at both 2011 and 2012 BAO and the 2012 WGC. As a middle of the pack player I dislike the inclusion of FW not because I want to power game my current army to victory over other non-FW armies but because FW does not add enjoyment to my tournament experience.

 Blackmoor wrote:

Relic07 wrote:

Yes, we do need it. Don't bitch about the Hyperios or Sabre platforms. Of course your opponent is trying to blow you away. You are doing the same thing.
You ran a cheesed out wound allocated draigo wing thru most of 5th. Now I take it your worried that your draigo wing can't stand up to that much firepower.....

Adapt. Forge World is not going away and I suspect will become even more common in tournament play. The rules are considered official now and don't require opponents consent.

I have played against Draigowing many times with both my Chaos and Eldar and I have never lost to it. Draigowing has a lot of exploitable weaknesses. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a good way to kill FW artillery.

Nope. Not in 5th ed. A dual lash 9 oblit chaos list had a small chance of success. Any other Chaos list not a chance in hell.

In 6th, it is a different story. Still a good list, but not competitive against IG running FW spam. Which I think is what your big problem is.

Running FW is no more abusive than the rest of the top tier lists out there.

Also, I don't buy the "I want to know what I am playing" excuse. If you are a serious competitor, you need to have the FW books and understand the builds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 cvtuttle wrote:
You mentioned wanting to see what happened at Wargames Con when you were on the 11th Company....

1st: Necrons (Ork allies - no forgeworld)
2nd: Chaos Daemons - (no forgeworld)
3rd: IG (forgeworld)
4th: Chaos Daemons (CSM allies - no forgeworld)

Results are in.

In regards to your statements about FW being too expensive. You can quite easily convert many existing plastic models to represent FW units at a lower cost. This point has been brought up before.

However, I find your point about non-tournament players being the ones advocating for FW while the tournament players are the ones impacted a pretty good point. I am certainly not a "hardcore" tournament player. I bring FW to events I play in and regularly get crushed by guys without FW units. Probably says something about my playing ability....

Regardless, your point holds some merit, which is why I haven't piped up in here earlier. However, the results of BoLs Con... excuse me... Wargamescon would seem to say that FW isn't the auto-win button it is frequently (and erroneously) portrayed as.

While I will again caveat in advance that I play with FW at half the events I attend, and allow FW at half the events I host (2/4), I think the evaluation of FW's impact is on the "average" tournament gamer, not the top tables. What were average players with thudd guns and sabres and vultures doing to people in the mid-tables ... I don't think any of us should have ALL that much sympathy for the top tier competitors, who are going to maybe not LIKE the inclusion of FW, but are going to prepare for it regardless (I'm one of these players, a multi-GT winner who doesn't particularly LIKE having to prepare for FW, but does so well enough and even happily brings it to his own advantage when permitted).

I agree with this and this is where I am speaking from. I am not a high level GT player and I know it. I win my fair number of local tournaments but when it comes to GT level, BAO, WGC etc. I am completely middle of the road. I finished almost dead center at both 2011 and 2012 BAO and the 2012 WGC. As a middle of the pack player I dislike the inclusion of FW not because I want to power game my current army to victory over other non-FW armies but because FW does not add enjoyment to my tournament experience.

If you want to win those events you are going to have to power game. The winner of the BAO this year speaks volumes about this...... While the winner was a decent player, the broken list is what mattered most.
That is how tournament 40K is.

Relic07 wrote:

Nope. Not in 5th ed. A dual lash 9 oblit chaos list had a small chance of success. Any other Chaos list not a chance in hell.

Are you saying that there was any other type of Chaos list in 5th edition other than Oblit spam? Grey Knights have no answer for Oblits and are a really hard match-up. Do I complain about how hard they are and how they should be banned because it can beat my army?

In 6th, it is a different story. Still a good list, but not competitive against IG running FW spam. Which I think is what your big problem is.

I wonder why you said IG FW spam since FW is so fair and balanced i am sure that it makes every army better...oh wait, it really only benifits one army. Also every army is not competative against IG FW. Also, if you think that I do not like it is becauce of the match-up with Draigowing you are wrong. I have been tired of my Draigowing army for some time and I have moved on to Chaos Demons and Eldar.

Running FW is no more abusive than the rest of the top tier lists out there.

Most top teir lists I can counter. There is no counter for IG artillery spam.

Also, I don't buy the "I want to know what I am playing" excuse. If you are a serious competitor, you need to have the FW books and understand the builds.

No one knows every unit that is in all of those books, even people who own them, Each tournament it is a new broken unit shows up. How many people know about that librarian before Adepticon?

Also, I don't buy the "I want to know what I am playing" excuse. If you are a serious competitor, you need to have the FW books and understand the builds.

If that is true then I am definitely against them, I already have to spend what will eventually be~ $800 on codicies, now you want me to spend that much again (or more) on FW books. So at any one time I will need to own $1600 worth of books (more as FW adds to the pile as they don't just rotate codices like 40k), then I need to buy at $1000+ army, then I need to pay for the events....or I could save my self $800+ and not play in FW events....I'll save the money thanks....

I more or less own most of the 40k books. With their new price point I am already stopping that,, why would I want to spend more money?

Furthermore just reading the books does not help much. If like me next to no one in your area plays with FW, how would I know how to counter those armies?

Just saying.


All that said I am not a top table GT player, but if I faced a FW artillery spam army, from what I understand of it, I don't think it would make for a very enjoyable game.

Breng77 wrote:

Also, I don't buy the "I want to know what I am playing" excuse. If you are a serious competitor, you need to have the FW books and understand the builds.

If that is true then I am definitely against them, I already have to spend what will eventually be~ $800 on codicies, now you want me to spend that much again (or more) on FW books. So at any one time I will need to own $1600 worth of books (more as FW adds to the pile as they don't just rotate codices like 40k), then I need to buy at $1000+ army, then I need to pay for the events....or I could save my self $800+ and not play in FW events....I'll save the money thanks....

I more or less own most of the 40k books. With their new price point I am already stopping that,, why would I want to spend more money?

Furthermore just reading the books does not help much. If like me next to no one in your area plays with FW, how would I know how to counter those armies?

Just saying.


All that said I am not a top table GT player, but if I faced a FW artillery spam army, from what I understand of it, I don't think it would make for a very enjoyable game.

Didn't realize the canadian dollar was soo low. No one is forcing you to buy forgeworld or play forgeworld.

I spent 1200 dollars on my chaos dwarfs =)

Breng77 wrote:

Also, I don't buy the "I want to know what I am playing" excuse. If you are a serious competitor, you need to have the FW books and understand the builds.

If that is true then I am definitely against them, I already have to spend what will eventually be~ $800 on codicies, now you want me to spend that much again (or more) on FW books. So at any one time I will need to own $1600 worth of books (more as FW adds to the pile as they don't just rotate codices like 40k), then I need to buy at $1000+ army, then I need to pay for the events....or I could save my self $800+ and not play in FW events....I'll save the money thanks....

If cost is going to factor into this, we'd better ban IG, Sisters,Orks and a dozen other specialist army builds in general then, because if you wanted to play those instead of Draigowing you'd have to pay 3-4x as much too.

I more or less own most of the 40k books. With their new price point I am already stopping that,, why would I want to spend more money?

If you're already not purchasing codex books and are willing to be unprepared with those armies, why are you upset about not purchasing GW books?

Furthermore just reading the books does not help much. If like me next to no one in your area plays with FW, how would I know how to counter those armies?

How is that different than if nobody plays Tau or Grey Knights or Sisters in your area? It's not. Hell, at least you can still get FW books, unlike the rules for Sisters of Battle.

 Blackmoor wrote:

Relic07 wrote:

Nope. Not in 5th ed. A dual lash 9 oblit chaos list had a small chance of success. Any other Chaos list not a chance in hell.

Are you saying that there was any other type of Chaos list in 5th edition other than Oblit spam? Grey Knights have no answer for Oblits and are a really hard match-up. Do I complain about how hard they are and how they should be banned because it can beat my army?

In 6th, it is a different story. Still a good list, but not competitive against IG running FW spam. Which I think is what your big problem is.

I wonder why you said IG FW spam since FW is so fair and balanced i am sure that it makes every army better...oh wait, it really only benifits one army. Also every army is not competative against IG FW. Also, if you think that I do not like it is becauce of the match-up with Draigowing you are wrong. I have been tired of my Draigowing army for some time and I have moved on to Chaos Demons and Eldar.

Running FW is no more abusive than the rest of the top tier lists out there.

Most top teir lists I can counter. There is no counter for IG artillery spam.

Also, I don't buy the "I want to know what I am playing" excuse. If you are a serious competitor, you need to have the FW books and understand the builds.

No one knows every unit that is in all of those books, even people who own them, Each tournament it is a new broken unit shows up. How many people know about that librarian before Adepticon?

"Grey Knights have no answer for Oblits and are a really hard match-up."
What? I blow them away with Psycannons all the time. And no, there was no other top tier Chaos list in 5th. Dual Lash + Oblit or Chosen spam was it. Daemons had Fatecrusher if you want to throw that in.

"oh wait, it really only benifits one army."
Not even close. There is this little thing in 6th edition called Allies. Guess what, IG allies with more armies than any other.

"Most top teir lists I can counter. There is no counter for IG artillery spam."
Disagree. I am already cooking up several ways to counter it. If you are playing Grey Knights you may need to take allies to do it, but like I said above, ADAPT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Also, I don't buy the "I want to know what I am playing" excuse. If you are a serious competitor, you need to have the FW books and understand the builds.

If that is true then I am definitely against them, I already have to spend what will eventually be~ $800 on codicies, now you want me to spend that much again (or more) on FW books. So at any one time I will need to own $1600 worth of books (more as FW adds to the pile as they don't just rotate codices like 40k), then I need to buy at $1000+ army, then I need to pay for the events....or I could save my self $800+ and not play in FW events....I'll save the money thanks....

If cost is going to factor into this, we'd better ban IG, Sisters,Orks and a dozen other specialist army builds in general then, because if you wanted to play those instead of Draigowing you'd have to pay 3-4x as much too.

I more or less own most of the 40k books. With their new price point I am already stopping that,, why would I want to spend more money?

If you're already not purchasing codex books and are willing to be unprepared with those armies, why are you upset about not purchasing GW books?

Furthermore just reading the books does not help much. If like me next to no one in your area plays with FW, how would I know how to counter those armies?

How is that different than if nobody plays Tau or Grey Knights or Sisters in your area? It's not. Hell, at least you can still get FW books, unlike the rules for Sisters of Battle.

^^^^^^^^^^^ This

No one is forcing you to buy Forgeworld books or models. But don't expect to be able to compete at a high level in major events without complete system mastery of FW.
That is like planning on playing on the PGA, but not being up to date on all of the latest golf equipment.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Also, I don't buy the "I want to know what I am playing" excuse. If you are a serious competitor, you need to have the FW books and understand the builds.

If that is true then I am definitely against them, I already have to spend what will eventually be~ $800 on codicies, now you want me to spend that much again (or more) on FW books. So at any one time I will need to own $1600 worth of books (more as FW adds to the pile as they don't just rotate codices like 40k), then I need to buy at $1000+ army, then I need to pay for the events....or I could save my self $800+ and not play in FW events....I'll save the money thanks....

If cost is going to factor into this, we'd better ban IG, Sisters,Orks and a dozen other specialist army builds in general then, because if you wanted to play those instead of Draigowing you'd have to pay 3-4x as much too.

I more or less own most of the 40k books. With their new price point I am already stopping that,, why would I want to spend more money?

If you're already not purchasing codex books and are willing to be unprepared with those armies, why are you upset about not purchasing GW books?

Furthermore just reading the books does not help much. If like me next to no one in your area plays with FW, how would I know how to counter those armies?

How is that different than if nobody plays Tau or Grey Knights or Sisters in your area? It's not. Hell, at least you can still get FW books, unlike the rules for Sisters of Battle.

So I don't play Draigowing.....beyond that, the its already expensive so more is ok does not float for me. As for the rest, I cannot think of one army in standard 40k that I cannot face in my area (some I need to travel a bit more), the sisters rules were available for a time, at My LGS, and I own them because they were $20. Not FW, as it is not available local to me (I Must order it from england.) Big difference there. So saying it is the same is just plain not true. While I certainly may not have encountered every build possible, I at least know how these armies work because I play them often enough. I have played against FW units perhaps twice (maybe 3 times) in my life, and 2 of those were Apocalpse games...which don't really count for much as I won't see many titans on the table.

The argument that FW is as common in play as non-FW seems silly to me, but perhaps elsewhere it is not.

There have in fact already been several counters to artillery discussed, however they were simply dismissed out of hand as having "no idea how tournament play works" so the butthurt could continue.

 Vaktathi wrote:
There have in fact already been several counters to artillery discussed, however they were simply dismissed out of hand as having "no idea how tournament play works" so the butthurt could continue.

As long as there is butt hurt in the world this thread will always exsist

No one is forcing you to buy Forgeworld books or models. But don't expect to be able to compete at a high level in major events without complete system mastery of FW.
That is like planning on playing on the PGA, but not being up to date on all of the latest golf equipment.

SO again, not forcing me to buy the, but forcing me to buy them, if I want to compete. That is like saying, if I want to compete in the PGA not only should I own good clubs, spikes, and Balls, but also own my own driving range, and putting green. So again I ask. If given the choice between events that "force" me to spend this money, and still not be prepared, or events that don't. And in general I think I might have more fun at the latter, why do I want to go to a FW event? Because it is some how "real" 40k, when I have never seen 40k played this way on a regular basis near me? May be I should tell you that to play the PGA maybe you need to give up your turbo charged golf cart, because you are required to walk the course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, I'm not even sure I am against FW events, if given the choice at the moment I would choose non-FW, but I think having different events is a good thing. Just not a fan of others telling me well, if you don't play like x, it is bad.

Breng77 wrote:

So I don't play Draigowing.....beyond that, the its already expensive so more is ok does not float for me.

I hate to say it but if you're going to compete at the top levels and aren't willing to shell out, then you're going to be up against situations where you aren't familiar with the opposing army, Forgeworld or not. Why should other people not be allowed to bring their Warhammer 40,000 models for units that exist in the Warhammer 40,000 universe to a Warhammer 40,000 event just because you didn't want to shell out for the books?

As for the rest, I cannot think of one army in standard 40k that I cannot face in my area (some I need to travel a bit more)

be that as it may, that's not necessarily the case for all players, and others (like myself) routinely play with and against FW at our FLGS's.

the sisters rules were available for a time, at My LGS, and I own them because they were $20.

If one didn't pick up the White Dwarf they were in for the time it was out however, there's no way to get them except 2nd hand or through piracy. Many of the players I routinely game with are more familiar with FW stuff than SoB rules. we've certainly had more FW units/armies used in our recent tournaments and leagues than SoB armies have been present.

Not FW, as it is not available local to me (I Must order it from england.) Big difference there.

And you have to direct orders Sisters of Battle too.

SO in your area, it makes more sense to use FW, because it is widely accepted, in mine, not as much. Again why I favor events using both, and letting players decide what they want. I have never said FW should never be played anywhere ever. Simply that I (due to familiarity, cost, and preference of players in my area (for events that I run)) prefer non-FW given the choice. I am already running 1 FW allowed event and 1 Fw banned event at the convention I head up Wargamming at. It seems though that Pro-FW people are not ok with this solution and that every event must use FW. Even when the players attending don't want it...I have also said I would be all for full FW inclusion with banning of a few more broken units (all that favor 1 particular army over the rest.). But this is still apparently not ok with Pro-FW people. Apparently there is only 1 right way to play 40k for them.

Blackmoor don't you know that daemons crushed the Tau in Austin? Seriously...

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Blackmoor don't you know that daemons crushed the Tau in Austin? Seriously...

Daemons probably benefitted by the extreme amount of objectives and their ability to generate more troops. That and they are totally kick ass. Im sure they caught a lot of players off guard as well. It's good to see their competitive though, the rumors of the death of assault might have been greatly exaggerated.

 Blackmoor wrote:

Most top teir lists I can counter. There is no counter for IG artillery spam.

And here, I have to question your judgement. I seem to recall at one point, you claimed there was no counter to horde orks.

Clearly, there is a counter to IG artillery spam, because Alan B. (A top-level player with several wins in GTs) did not win all his games in Austin, despite using sabers and thudds. If there truly were no counter, how did he lose?

Exactly Redbeard he is already retracting things he said.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Exactly Redbeard he is already retracting things he said.

What army did you play at WGC?

 Redbeard wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

Most top teir lists I can counter. There is no counter for IG artillery spam.

And here, I have to question your judgement. I seem to recall at one point, you claimed there was no counter to horde orks.

Clearly, there is a counter to IG artillery spam, because Alan B. (A top-level player with several wins in GTs) did not win all his games in Austin, despite using sabers and thudds. If there truly were no counter, how did he lose?

But his IG/FW based army so dominated his opponents that he did beat that he lost 2 games, maybe 3?, and was still in the running to WIN the tournament. He accumulated enough Battle Points in his other games that he could lose and still potentially win. That speaks volumes about how dominant he and his list were in the first rounds. Which again harkens back to the early statements about what is FW doing to the average/Mid level players at these events?