Reecius wrote:
Haha, you guys, read the title of the thread, this was obviously a joke from day one. I totally accept that I started this so, fair enough, I take responsibility for that, but I reserve the right to declare when it has gone to absurd level! haha

Dakka Dakka = SERIOUS BUSINESS

That's why we're all Dakka Tough Guys! I know you still have the shirt...I have mine!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like a big tournament coming up in Las Vegas is allowing full Forgeworld access? If so, it will be interesting to see which armies/lists end up winning. And if, for example, the top five armies have no FW in them, will that result change anyone's opinions on the matter?

@Reecius
If you post in a FW thread and you are not;
1) Angry and opinionated
2) Comparison to Nazi, Racist, etc.
3) Insulting someone

Then you are not doing it right. I am pretty convinced that is 90% of what these threads are about.

 Reecius wrote:
So, come and have fun to our event if you want, it looks like it's going to sell out with or without you FW opponents either way so no sweat off our back. We'd love to see you come of course, genuinely, but we won't shed any tears if you don't.

Reecius man, I feel like you are a great guy to talk to in-person but mixing "joking" and then serious statements like "no sweat off our back" or "we won't shed any tears" regarding people attending your event is not the best way to communicate regarding it, imo...

I'm also not a "FW opponent", as I would like to see more FW allowance... but phased in! But once again you completely refused to address the possibility of running an event with limited FW allowance! I called you out on this, and you still don't address it. Will you ever consider running an event with limited FW, or will all your events from now on be ONLY unlimited FW?

Finally, if you have poll results, please share the data itself and we can certainly talk about it instead / in addition to the AdeptiCon poll.

-----------------------------------------

Off-topic, regarding the tone of these threads: imo, a page of joking posts don't help things, either. It's fine that you and Dugg are done with the thread, but just making nonsense posts is not only unhelpful to the conversation, but it's against Dakka's rules to boot. It makes it even harder to overcome the poor "signal to noise" ratio we generally have on this topic... but it's worth trying, anyway, as you've got a lot of TOs on here and there can be some really good discussion in the midst of it all.

@Reece

Had a long post in response to your previous post. Decided it wouldn't contribute anything useful or impact the conversation in any way.

Good luck with your event.

Hahaha, oh my goodness!!!!!%)(%*!%*!)

Haha, ,

@Whitedragon

Yes, haha, it is!

@Tanhausser42

Yes there is, but we've already had major events with FW for OVER A YEAR! Not to yell but it is exasperating. We've already been doing it for a long time now and in multiple events and the only person who got mad about it was Blackmoor! hahaha

@Ansacs

Yes, my apologies, I forgot to follow proper protocol: If you don't like FW you're a Nazi loving, freedom hating, back of the bus driving, jerktron 5,000!

Carry on

@RiTides

I am sorry if I blew past some of your points but this isn't a formal debate and people are trying to dictate to us how to run our event as if they knew our business better than we do when they have not ever run a GT and there only point of reference is internet forums. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but the amount of backseat driving we get in this business is silly at times. I understand your point that it is good to listen to input (and we really do!) but some of this input is coming from talking heads ignorant of the facts, who aren't even going to the event and yet still want to "be heard." Haha, you have to see that that is not really a good source of information.

And we're not unlimited FW. We ARE limited FW, hahaha, that illustrates my point. Folks don't even know our structure and are declaring it bad, or good, or whatever.

And I HAVE posted our poll data, hahahaha, multiple times on multiple websites including Frontline, BoLS, here (more than once!), but peopel don't see it. It's enough to drive a guy bananas!

So yes, when someone with an uniformed opinion is saying they won't go to our event because they think we do something that we don't that wasn't going to go to our event anyway, not knowing we've already tested the threory multiple times to positive response and posted the data, multiple times....then it really and truly is no sweat off of our back

Not trying to be mean, just explaining the situation from our perspective and how absurd it becomes!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Hulk

Thanks for your restraint, you're a friend and a good player and I respect your opinion but if it was just more of the same, you're the bigger man.

You know we'd love to see you there, bro, but we respect your choice as to what events you go to.

Thanks for the well wishes!

Reecius, I've looked through your posts and your forum, and I just cannot find a poll regarding FW. Can you point me to it?

All I see recently is your talking about the AdeptiCon poll going out, and your saying this:

Reecius wrote:I agree, I think this poll, if it gets a solid response rate and they choose to post the results, will be very telling.

And I still think you're dodging my questions :-/ as I assume when you characterize your event as "limited FW", you mean the fact that FW army lists are not allowed, but you know very well that that's not what I mean. This is what is listed for the Championships that I can see:

LVO Rules wrote:Forge World units will be allowed so long as they are neither a Super Heavy nor Gargantuan Creature. The most recent version of the rules must be used. This means not just the “40K Approved” units, but any that do not fall within the above restrictions. Forge World Army Lists will not be allowed. - See more at: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/las-vegas-open/las-vegas-open-warhammer-40k-championships/#sthash.6WXObKZV.dpuf

In other words, I'm doing the legwork to try to have a real discussion with you on this, and you've got others like MVBrandt, Hulksmash, etc wanting to have a serious conversation about it.

But when your response to me is that you are running a "limited FW" event, when all that is disallowed is the FW army lists, that's not discussing it genuinely. And I like to think I'm pretty internet savvy, but for the life of me I cannot find where you posted a poll regarding FW allowance in your event (having polled your attendees like AdeptiCon did). Perhaps it was farther back than I have looked... can you point me to it?

 Blackmoor wrote:
One is GW and the other is FW.

This is a difference entirely invented by certain players. It makes about as much sense as arguing for bans/limits on codex units because they weren't written by your favorite author and so the statement saying "this is an official codex" isn't really from "real GW".

 RiTides wrote:
I'm also not a "FW opponent", as I would like to see more FW allowance... but phased in! But once again you completely refused to address the possibility of running an event with limited FW allowance! I called you out on this, and you still don't address it. Will you ever consider running an event with limited FW, or will all your events from now on be ONLY unlimited FW?

But why does there need to be a compromise when the everything-legal event is already working just fine? You're asking for a compromise just for the sake of having a compromise, which makes about as much sense as "phasing in" codex units by imposing a 0-1 limit on them.

@Reece

It wasn't more of the same, but like I said, it wouldn't have mattered. You're in full court defensive and "I'm right" mode so there isn't a discussion happening.

I say it with love and I really do wish you luck. It's just the tone of your posts don't help open discussion. It polarizes. I realize it can be frustrating feeling like your event is under attack but not every voice that disagrees or offers criticism is attacking you. You know I love Brandt, but you can ask him about how I've let him have it over things over the years he's been building and running Nova.

Lastly, if you really are comfortable with what your running why start threads that have title to mock another poster about a rumor that we've been hearing since 6th started? And that invariably leads to discussion that you feel like is an attack. It's a bit of a cycle.

Just my opinion. Take it or leave it. I'm sure Vegas will be epic.

Hulk and Reece, you guys need to hug it out. We used to be comrades! Oh the humanity. I was the angry guy, remember, not you two!

Not angry, just having open dialogue. Like dudes do bro

If attendance dipped drastically at your tournaments, Reece, would it change your opinion on running FW?

Because the missions you run are fantastic, and you guys are a blast to hang out with.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
One is GW and the other is FW.

This is a difference entirely invented by certain players. It makes about as much sense as arguing for bans/limits on codex units because they weren't written by your favorite author and so the statement saying "this is an official codex" isn't really from "real GW".

 RiTides wrote:
I'm also not a "FW opponent", as I would like to see more FW allowance... but phased in! But once again you completely refused to address the possibility of running an event with limited FW allowance! I called you out on this, and you still don't address it. Will you ever consider running an event with limited FW, or will all your events from now on be ONLY unlimited FW?

But why does there need to be a compromise when the everything-legal event is already working just fine? You're asking for a compromise just for the sake of having a compromise, which makes about as much sense as "phasing in" codex units by imposing a 0-1 limit on them.

Agreed!

...and I have to say that Hulksmash seems pretty damn Huggable to me. HULKHUG!!

@RiTides

You can find the data by going to Frontline Gaming, community tab, scroll down to previous events, BAO 2013, results. I have it all in graphs and such.

The polls this year ran on the Frontline Gaming forums and it was basically more of the same. Like Adepticons, we had a lot of people wanting things to stay the same as they were comfortable with them. You get that a lot, people fear change to a certain extent but in this type of game, people spend time and money building an army expecting something and they (justifiably) don't want to see that time, money and energy wasted.

Sorry if I came across harsh or dodging a question, that wasn't my intent, I just got exasperated. But like Peregrine said, we're not looking to compromise for folks that MIGHT come when we have folks that ARE coming that like it how it is. It's not trying to stone wall people, it's just basic sense (IMO). You prioritize those who loyally attend your events before those who have not and may never come. I maybe said it not as well as i could have, though, I concede that.

@Hulk

No worries dude, I am 100% open to criticism. I may get my feelings hurt and act defensively a bit from time to time but for the most part I take it well.

And you are right that I shouldn't set up shop in a glass house when i start a thread like this as I was poking fun at Blackmoor but I hoped it was clear in a fun, not hurtful, way.

I didn't mean to come across as defensive or "I'm right" (and reading what I wrote in that light, I can see how you got that), I was actually laughing my ass off while writing it. Dugg was sitting right next to me (we're in China together) and we were cracking up mostly because it is the same people saying the same things over and over (myself included) and it just started to seem absurd to me.

This is how I see it at this point. Not saying I am right, you (or anyone is wrong) but logically, this makes sense to me:

It is better to have events than not have events.
It is better to have the event you want, than not.
If you cannot have exactly the event you want, it is better to go to some than none.
If you have a variety to choose from, choose the one that most suits you.
We use Forgeworld and have shown objectively it works for us. We do not plan to change (but would under the right circumstances).
Some people will choose not to go for that reason.
Therefore, it just is what it is.

So, following that logic, if someone says, "I am not going to go unless you change," and we aren't going to change, then we have come to an impasse and instead of arguing about it till we're blue in the face I simply say, that sucks, we wish you would come, but we're not going to stop the train for a vocal few.

So sorry if that came across as harsh, maybe it was motivated by a little bit of anger, but I am only human and at times I lose it a little bit. You are my friend, Blackmoor, god bless him and his constant criticism (and yet still goes to all of our events! ), is my friend too, and there truly are no hard feelings. if you make it to Vegas, awesome, if not, we won't be mad at all.

@Hippest

For sure, 100%

We've said multiple times we will give our attendees the event they want and we play very close attention to what they tell us and time after time we get a BIG majority that is for Forgeworld. I don't know why our numbers differ so much from the other events, but it does. We tried to get FW on the ticket 2 years ago and it fell flat by, IRRC, a 15% margin? It was close but too much risk for us to go through with it.

Last year the poll was hugely in favor of it and it grew further positive on the exit polls. Meaning, our attendees wanted it going in, and were even more favorable going out.

If after LVO and BAO this year we have a majority of people telling us they don't want it anymore, we'll change. It wouldn't even take a dramatic dip. This is a business after all, and if we don't make enough money to cover our overhead and grow, that would be dumb. Frankie and I love FW, but we don't play in our events so what does it matter to us, you know? Folks here like it for whatever reason and event after event we get positive feedback. What we find is that exposure to FW brings enjoyment of it in most cases.

And thanks! Glad you like the missions and that you had fun hanging out with us. It was awesome of you to help us breakdown the event and the least we could do was buy you a couple shots and cut loose! We do that a lot! hahah, and want vegas to be all about that type of fun, not just agonizing over every format detail (even though that is important). If you don't make it, we'll see you at Adepticon again, I am sure.

Hope to see you there!

@Whitedragon

We can build bridges, brother, and all be bros again!! I believe!

Now, would you allow forgeworl models, such as if I wanted to run the special crisis suits as Regular?

Yes, they look 100X cooler and the rule of cool is in effect for us! Any counts as it good to go as long as it is roughly the same size and shape or shows some really awesome artistic flare while not granting an unfair advantage.

Can I /we get a list from someone, likely Reece or Doug, of the current books that contain forgeworld units I'd have to get to have a comprehensive knowledge of how the game operates with full forgeworld inclusion? Honestly not trying to troll or incite a 'ha see how much money all this is zomg.' I'm just genuinely interested in how many/what books are relevant currently. IE are some books now out of date and only worth owning for posterity or if I just go on the forgeworld site can i just assume i can buy everything and have a complete set of rules?

I probably wont make it to LVO this year, i was considering it but I have so many other trips already planned next year with ETC and everything that I cant validate another tournament (both with my wallet and my wife lol). But it would be nice to know what my 'buy in' would be to have a firm grasp on what forgeworld does to the 40k meta.

thanatos67 wrote:
Can I /we get a list from someone, likely Reece or Doug, of the current books that contain forgeworld units I'd have to get to have a comprehensive knowledge of how the game operates with full forgeworld inclusion?

IA:Apocalypse (general update)
IA:Aeronautica (flyers)
IA12 (DKoK, Necrons)
IA1 2nd edition (IG)
IA3 2nd edition (Tau, Elysians)
IA2 2nd edition (marines, will be published soon)

Those are the 6th edition books, and between those and the online update pdfs you should have every relevant unit. There might be some obscure thing (I think maybe an ork unit or two?) in an old book that isn't covered, but those aren't likely to see any use in tournaments.

 Reecius wrote:

I didn't mean to come across as defensive or "I'm right" (and reading what I wrote in that light, I can see how you got that), I was actually laughing my ass off while writing it. Dugg was sitting right next to me (we're in China together) and we were cracking up mostly because it is the same people saying the same things over and over (myself included) and it just started to seem absurd to me.

I imagined you two spooning in bed together giggling, like Japanese schoolgirls in a Hello Kitty store, as you posted.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Reecius wrote:

I didn't mean to come across as defensive or "I'm right" (and reading what I wrote in that light, I can see how you got that), I was actually laughing my ass off while writing it. Dugg was sitting right next to me (we're in China together) and we were cracking up mostly because it is the same people saying the same things over and over (myself included) and it just started to seem absurd to me.

I imagined you two spooning in bed together giggling, like Japanese schoolgirls in a Hello Kitty store, as you posted.

haha! More like Chinese noddle/beer fart jokes and laughter. The spooning in bed part you got right tho.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am also not saying you guys are all wrong. All I am saying is that "I'm right". :p

That said - my opinion and views changes all the time. I hope someone is taking notes because I'm not.

Freedom!

I was thinking about Grey Knight builds and how you need a couple of storm ravens to make them work these days...then I remembered all of the saber platforms that we see whenever FW is at a tournament and I thought how quickly they will get shot down.

Then I thought about how Chaos and Necrons need flyers as well to come close to beating Eldar and Tau and now how screwed they are,

Funny the difference a year makes.

I was thinking about IG builds and how you need some guardsmen camping objectives in cover to make them work these days... then I remembered all the no-cover Riptides that we see whenever codex units are at a tournament and I thought how quickly they will get wiped off the table.

Then I thought about how Necrons and C:SM need shooting as well to come close to beating Eldar and Tau and now how screwed those guns are against re-rollable 2++ death stars,

Funny the difference a year makes.

 Peregrine wrote:

thanatos67 wrote:
Can I /we get a list from someone, likely Reece or Doug, of the current books that contain forgeworld units I'd have to get to have a comprehensive knowledge of how the game operates with full forgeworld inclusion?

IA:Apocalypse (general update)
IA:Aeronautica (flyers)
IA12 (DKoK, Necrons)
IA1 2nd edition (IG)
IA3 2nd edition (Tau, Elysians)
IA2 2nd edition (marines, will be published soon)

Those are the 6th edition books, and between those and the online update pdfs you should have every relevant unit. There might be some obscure thing (I think maybe an ork unit or two?) in an old book that isn't covered, but those aren't likely to see any use in tournaments.

Interesting, I'd only question if IA8 or 11 should be on the list as they look like they'd contain rules for orks/eldar. Those rules might have been ammended in the more recent books though, thoughts?

As an aside I did hop over to the fw page and calculated about how much it'd be to just buy all of the above books. Its really not that unreasonable when you think about it. Think cost of 3 wraithknights. And before you say thats alot, think about how many of your friends or people you know who would just go and buy 3 wraithknights. Most of the people i know who play this game would do it, probably with just a bit of hesitation or remorse for their wallet. I think, as I said earlier on this thread, that the 'cost of books to know whats going on' rationale is getting weaker and weaker as gw keeps pumping out supplements and dexes. I also think the 'imablance relative to 40k' rationale has always been a bit subjective and unimportant to me. Are saber platforms/thudd guns/hades drills good? Sure, but are they any better or more game breaking than screamerstar? How about the unit of riptides? I dont think anyone balance tested either of those things to be honest. Thats speculation of course, but I dont think that its very far fetched.

Thanks for the information, makes the forgeworld thing sound alot less irrational.

Nice post, Reecius! Thanks for the super thoughtful reply, I really appreciate it. Will check out that data, too (although later as I'm heading to work).

Still need to know what you two are up to in China, though!

Looking forward to hopefully seeing you guys at AdeptiCon . I actually saw you both there in 2012 but chickened out from saying hi. I told the same thing to Hulksmash, but I'm going to try to make sure to meet everyone this time . If I am able to attend a second Con in 2014 I will definitely consider your events, as my wife sometimes gets sent to the west coast for conferences and I go with her but have free time.

thanatos67 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

thanatos67 wrote:
Can I /we get a list from someone, likely Reece or Doug, of the current books that contain forgeworld units I'd have to get to have a comprehensive knowledge of how the game operates with full forgeworld inclusion?

IA:Apocalypse (general update)
IA:Aeronautica (flyers)
IA12 (DKoK, Necrons)
IA1 2nd edition (IG)
IA3 2nd edition (Tau, Elysians)
IA2 2nd edition (marines, will be published soon)

Those are the 6th edition books, and between those and the online update pdfs you should have every relevant unit. There might be some obscure thing (I think maybe an ork unit or two?) in an old book that isn't covered, but those aren't likely to see any use in tournaments.

Interesting, I'd only question if IA8 or 11 should be on the list as they look like they'd contain rules for orks/eldar. Those rules might have been ammended in the more recent books though, thoughts?

As an aside I did hop over to the fw page and calculated about how much it'd be to just buy all of the above books. Its really not that unreasonable when you think about it. Think cost of 3 wraithknights. And before you say thats alot, think about how many of your friends or people you know who would just go and buy 3 wraithknights. Most of the people i know who play this game would do it, probably with just a bit of hesitation or remorse for their wallet. I think, as I said earlier on this thread, that the 'cost of books to know whats going on' rationale is getting weaker and weaker as gw keeps pumping out supplements and dexes. I also think the 'imablance relative to 40k' rationale has always been a bit subjective and unimportant to me. Are saber platforms/thudd guns/hades drills good? Sure, but are they any better or more game breaking than screamerstar? How about the unit of riptides? I dont think anyone balance tested either of those things to be honest. Thats speculation of course, but I dont think that its very far fetched.

Thanks for the information, makes the forgeworld thing sound alot less irrational.

I'd be surprised if those books contained all the current FW units that can be used....furthermore here is the thing about the cost. SO you say those books above cost $300+ dollars, which is no more than buying 3 wraithknights....but if I want to know what is in them and still run 3 wraithknights now I have bought 6 wraithknights.....and actually the cost of books rationale is getting stronger and stronger not the opposite. IF as a TO I am already spending $50 per books for 14 core codices + $25+ for all the supplements, and now I'm adding another $50+ for each IA book....The argument of well you are already spending a bunch of money so what is a few hundred more dollars is a weak one at best. Same with the FW is no more broken than the game already....adding broken to broken does not a good game make. That is not even a relavant argument.

The best Anti fw argument is:

Player knowledge - most people don't know what FW units do, nor do they know which books contain which units. I think the big drawback is adding tons of units all at once. I have said before I would be more for adding books over time, but that would take some sort of organization that our community does not posses.


Which is the same argument against limited FW, it would work great if tournaments started with limited FW and gradually introduced more as time went on (which could work locally), but there again would need to be organization to do this.

SO I fall where Reese does on this. Variety is great, Full FW events, Limited, and NO FW events all have a place. If you don't see the above in your area, start some.

thanatos67 wrote:
Can I /we get a list from someone, likely Reece or Doug, of the current books that contain forgeworld units I'd have to get to have a comprehensive knowledge of how the game operates with full forgeworld inclusion?

I've been working on something for myself that shows the current rules for each unit.
notes: I don't have IA:1 2nd edition yet; so the information regarding those units is currently 2nd hand, and this is a work in progress so their may still be mistakes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmGqXwQJt90_dFpoVm4zbWxfLS1qZEVBbmRKalJCVEE&usp=drive_web#gid=0

FW Units are on the first tab
FW army list locations are on the second tab

My argument against "Player Knowledge" is that there are large parts of the community who don't even understand the ins and outs of their own codex, much less any others people are playing against them. Why learn when they can be lazy about it and just wait and be spoonfed information the day of?

I think that's a poor argument when you're talking about a tournament.

Not that I think "player knowledge" is a good one - I just think yours is worse.

rigeld2 wrote:
I think that's a poor argument when you're talking about a tournament.

Not that I think "player knowledge" is a good one - I just think yours is worse.

I've seen it at tournaments too. I'm speaking anecdotally, I know but the community has a lot of people who just don't really take the time to learn the rules, much less the rules of other books.

Is it possibly a weak arguement? Sure. But it's no weaker than player knowledge being argued as a reason to keep things out. If that was the case everyone should just play C:SM and nothing else to prevent unfamiliar rules from being used.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Reece

It wasn't more of the same, but like I said, it wouldn't have mattered. You're in full court defensive and "I'm right" mode so there isn't a discussion happening.

I say it with love and I really do wish you luck. It's just the tone of your posts don't help open discussion. It polarizes. I realize it can be frustrating feeling like your event is under attack but not every voice that disagrees or offers criticism is attacking you. You know I love Brandt, but you can ask him about how I've let him have it over things over the years he's been building and running Nova.

Lastly, if you really are comfortable with what your running why start threads that have title to mock another poster about a rumor that we've been hearing since 6th started? And that invariably leads to discussion that you feel like is an attack. It's a bit of a cycle.

Just my opinion. Take it or leave it. I'm sure Vegas will be epic.

It's a phase we all go through (and occasionally go back through!); the NOVA dramatically improves every year b/c we get shellacked by honest criticism and do our best not to slam our ears to it and go in full court mode. Just confirming Brad's comment here, and yes ... we do love each other. This is especially true since he's very willing to tell me everything he dislikes, and as a smart guy is often right. There are thousands upon thousands of intelligent people amidst the chaff of the internet, and with our powers combined, blah blah yada yada Captain Tournament Format.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I think that's a poor argument when you're talking about a tournament.

Not that I think "player knowledge" is a good one - I just think yours is worse.

I've seen it at tournaments too. I'm speaking anecdotally, I know but the community has a lot of people who just don't really take the time to learn the rules, much less the rules of other books.

Is it possibly a weak arguement? Sure. But it's no weaker than player knowledge being argued as a reason to keep things out. If that was the case everyone should just play C:SM and nothing else to prevent unfamiliar rules from being used.

You misunderstand...I'm not arguing that people don't know what everything does. I'm arguing that due to the formant to the IA books people don't even know where to look for the most up to date rules. Lets say someone brings a unit in IA 4 that has since been updated in IA:Apoc or something. How does their opponent know that the rules they are using are even current? TO me that is the largest problem. The fact that FW prints and reprints units and army lists multiple times and it is tons of work to keep straight what is current. Unless the TO in addtion to checking lists is checking books at the door and cross checking them with lists....it just does not work well. But that is just my opinion. And as a TO I don't see a reason (given polls of my player base) to put in the extra effort and money to keep all of it straight.

Breng77 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I think that's a poor argument when you're talking about a tournament.

Not that I think "player knowledge" is a good one - I just think yours is worse.

I've seen it at tournaments too. I'm speaking anecdotally, I know but the community has a lot of people who just don't really take the time to learn the rules, much less the rules of other books.

Is it possibly a weak arguement? Sure. But it's no weaker than player knowledge being argued as a reason to keep things out. If that was the case everyone should just play C:SM and nothing else to prevent unfamiliar rules from being used.

You misunderstand...I'm not arguing that people don't know what everything does. I'm arguing that due to the formant to the IA books people don't even know where to look for the most up to date rules. Lets say someone brings a unit in IA 4 that has since been updated in IA:Apoc or something. How does their opponent know that the rules they are using are even current? TO me that is the largest problem. The fact that FW prints and reprints units and army lists multiple times and it is tons of work to keep straight what is current. Unless the TO in addtion to checking lists is checking books at the door and cross checking them with lists....it just does not work well. But that is just my opinion. And as a TO I don't see a reason (given polls of my player base) to put in the extra effort and money to keep all of it straight.

Well there is emailing to confirm rules are current.

Beyond that FW is working on an index to make it easier to keep track of this info.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should clarify, there is players emailing FW to show that the rules are current and then bringing a copy of the email with them as a confirmation tool.

Just a thought anyways.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Beyond that FW is working on an index to make it easier to keep track of this info.

I'll believe that when I see it.

frankr wrote:

thanatos67 wrote:
Can I /we get a list from someone, likely Reece or Doug, of the current books that contain forgeworld units I'd have to get to have a comprehensive knowledge of how the game operates with full forgeworld inclusion?

I've been working on something for myself that shows the current rules for each unit.
notes: I don't have IA:1 2nd edition yet; so the information regarding those units is currently 2nd hand, and this is a work in progress so their may still be mistakes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmGqXwQJt90_dFpoVm4zbWxfLS1qZEVBbmRKalJCVEE&usp=drive_web#gid=0

FW Units are on the first tab
FW army list locations are on the second tab

This is awesome! Thanks so much for posting it. I will have to spend some time and look through this and see what I have missed myself.

@thanatos67 - The game doesn't change as much as some people let on. Even at large GTs you will only see a Player running 1 or maybe 2 FW Units and thats about 1 in 5 players that even bring FW. I do tend to go a bit heavier than most with about 3-4 FW Units at 1850. My 2k list had 5 and that's out of 18 Units Total so just over a quarter. Now those numbers are for the FW Unit rules, about 90+ % of my Army is made up of FW models. I'm running my Death KORP as normal Codex IG. I have plans to make this a100%, but I need a couple more birthdays and a Christmas to do that.

If you need any more help feel free to IM me.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Beyond that FW is working on an index to make it easier to keep track of this info.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Just emailed them half an hour ago and they already responded:

Hi [Zion],

Thank you for your email. We hope to have the Rules Index pdf available soon though it is still being worked on. As we are releasing Imperial Armour 2, Second Edition very soon we will have to ensure it has been properly updated before we make the Index available.


If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.

Regards,
Forge World

So there we go, it looks like it'll be out after IA2 is released.

 RiTides wrote:
Nice post, Reecius! Thanks for the super thoughtful reply, I really appreciate it. Will check out that data, too (although later as I'm heading to work).

Still need to know what you two are up to in China, though!

Looking forward to hopefully seeing you guys at AdeptiCon . I actually saw you both there in 2012 but chickened out from saying hi. I told the same thing to Hulksmash, but I'm going to try to make sure to meet everyone this time . If I am able to attend a second Con in 2014 I will definitely consider your events, as my wife sometimes gets sent to the west coast for conferences and I go with her but have free time.

Oh! Need and want are 2 very different things. I want everyone to play with all the rules and without any restriction. I need to get surgery on my neck eventually that has an uncomfortably high risk of paralyses and fatalities. See the difference?

We will be announcing something real soon to let folks know what we have been up to so stay tuned.

Chickened out!? What the heck for? We are just two goofball gaming Nerds is all. Life is short buddy so next time you should just come over and say hello. I know Hulksmash as well, we are not BFFs....yet!.... but he is a pretty cool guy as well.

Am I reading that listing correctly that some FW units are only available in out of print FW books?

That seems to be a fairly large issue if current units are in rulebooks that are no longer available.

Breng77 wrote:
Am I reading that listing correctly that some FW units are only available in out of print FW books?

That seems to be a fairly large issue if current units are in rulebooks that are no longer available.

I don't think that is true for 40k Approved but don't quote me on that..

 ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Beyond that FW is working on an index to make it easier to keep track of this info.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Just emailed them half an hour ago and they already responded:
<snip>
So there we go, it looks like it'll be out after IA2 is released.

I don't doubt that they say that. But they've been working on it for ... how long now? I remember when 6th released someone emailing them that same question and getting a similar answer.
The fact that it's taking longer than a day should be embarrassing.

Breng77 wrote:
Am I reading that listing correctly that some FW units are only available in out of print FW books?

That seems to be a fairly large issue if current units are in rulebooks that are no longer available.

Yea, that is the case: "Imperial Armour Apocalypse 2nd Edition" is no longer in print.... then to confuse matters they released: "Imperial Armour Apocalypse".
Love the consistency in the naming.

The units in question are:

Land Raider Achilles
Siege Dreadnought
Grot Bomm Launcha
Grot Tank Battle Mob
Warkopta
Meiotic Spire
Stone-Crusher Carnifex

rigeld2 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Beyond that FW is working on an index to make it easier to keep track of this info.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Just emailed them half an hour ago and they already responded:
<snip>
So there we go, it looks like it'll be out after IA2 is released.

I don't doubt that they say that. But they've been working on it for ... how long now? I remember when 6th released someone emailing them that same question and getting a similar answer.
The fact that it's taking longer than a day should be embarrassing.

It's a team of like, what, 20 people? Ease up a bit there.

The release is delayed because of a new book and they want it right before they put it out instead of putting it out then editing it a week later.

 Dugg wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Am I reading that listing correctly that some FW units are only available in out of print FW books?

That seems to be a fairly large issue if current units are in rulebooks that are no longer available.

I don't think that is true for 40k Approved but don't quote me on that..

sadly it is.

.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's a team of like, what, 20 people? Ease up a bit there.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, sculptor, rules author, etc. to do this - just an intern filling out a spreadsheet.

The release is delayed because of a new book and they want it right before they put it out instead of putting it out then editing it a week later.

And why has it taken this long in the first place? That's my point. They've said they're working on one before. Tieing it to this book is silly.

rigeld2 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's a team of like, what, 20 people? Ease up a bit there.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, sculptor, rules author, etc. to do this - just an intern filling out a spreadsheet.

Since when does GW, much less FW, have interns?

rigeld2 wrote:

The release is delayed because of a new book and they want it right before they put it out instead of putting it out then editing it a week later.

And why has it taken this long in the first place? That's my point. They've said they're working on one before. Tieing it to this book is silly.

I don't know. I do know that gak happens though and I'm not going to assign any blame on this without knowing why. We can assume a lot of things, but without knowing all the facts all we're doing is assuming things, and when we do that we're usually wrong anyways.

Regardless of the reason, such a list still does not exist, and what's worse, may not be kept current by FW if it is ever released (AdeptiCon put out theirs, of course, but it was quickly out of date with new releases). Something like this would have to be maintained.

frankr wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Am I reading that listing correctly that some FW units are only available in out of print FW books?

That seems to be a fairly large issue if current units are in rulebooks that are no longer available.

Yea, that is the case: "Imperial Armour Apocalypse 2nd Edition" is no longer in print.... then to confuse matters they released: "Imperial Armour Apocalypse".
Love the consistency in the naming.

The units in question are:

Land Raider Achilles
Siege Dreadnought
Grot Bomm Launcha
Grot Tank Battle Mob
Warkopta
Meiotic Spire
Stone-Crusher Carnifex

This is of concern to me if they are letting units go into out of print books. Now maybe they update them elsewhere but.....As for consistency in naming I wish they would only release units in books like the APOC or Aeronautica books. And then update those units in subsequent updates of those same books. Having units updated in various different books is confusing. (or just update the units in respective IA books and not in different IA books.)

I am starting to think about getting off of the FW bus. I hate these new lists I'm seeing like Ultramarines allying with Red Scorpions so they can have Tiggy and Loth in the same list. The disregard for background to power game is disheartening. If FW is allowed in an event there should be restrictions... Which honestly I don't think most TOs want to bother.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am starting to think about getting off of the FW bus. I hate these new lists I'm seeing like Ultramarines allying with Red Scorpions so they can have Tiggy and Loth in the same list. The disregard for background to power game is disheartening. If FW is allowed in an event there should be restrictions... Which honestly I don't think most TOs want to bother.

Almost like Tau allying with the Farsight Enclaves, or Space Wolves being battle brothers with the Inquisition, or Black Templars and Eldar rolling heavy together like it's no biggy. Arguing that allowing Forgeworld allows for broken ally combinations is irrelevant since you don't need Forgeworld to see broken and completely fluff-less combinations.

No it is totally relevant. You should not be allowed to cherry pick... It's nonsense.

Breng77 wrote:

This is of concern to me if they are letting units go into out of print books. Now maybe they update them elsewhere but.....As for consistency in naming I wish they would only release units in books like the APOC or Aeronautica books. And then update those units in subsequent updates of those same books. Having units updated in various different books is confusing. (or just update the units in respective IA books and not in different IA books.)

Oddly I just received an response from Forge World on these units, I've updated the Index accordingly. Two have rules that are still out of print, but they will be in the 2nd Edition of IA 2.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
No it is totally relevant. You should not be allowed to cherry pick... It's nonsense.

Why wouldn't the same apply to the other aforementioned silly allies combo's? It seems really the bigger issue is allies more than anything else.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am starting to think about getting off of the FW bus. I hate these new lists I'm seeing like Ultramarines allying with Red Scorpions so they can have Tiggy and Loth in the same list. The disregard for background to power game is disheartening. If FW is allowed in an event there should be restrictions... Which honestly I don't think most TOs want to bother.

What is the fluff reason that Red Scorpions and Ultramarines shouldn't ally?

I think bigger issues are presented by things like randomly allowing non-battle brothers to battle brother by virtue of FW additions (i.e., SM w/ SOB).

I don't know, even in this last page it's a dizzying whirlwind of "what the hell is or isn't legal and how does it all work?! Wait THAT SM guy can do what and this one is ... wait how are they battle brothers with AS ... wait hold on and now the tacs have FNP? WHAT IS GOING ON?!"

It's like fifteen supplemental chapter digital codices were released for Codex: SM all at once, each with its own arcane rules and spec chars. It's bad enough trying to track a new supplemental digital every month, much less trying to track mass updates and mass levels of outdated lists and duplicate rules and yada yada yada.

There's nothing unofficial about FW; but simultaneously saying it's the same level of complexity and balance and normality as even the digital dexes is a big stretch, and it's around that complication that most TOs find their issues ... not around what's ok for standard games (we're in the tournament forum here, folks), or what is "official," but around what's feasible and practical for a TO to try and figure out, address, FAQ, balance mission tweaks for, etc., and that's not even getting into what's reasonable for a player/attendee base.

This is WHY you often find people pushing FW legality to their non-GT events, and why you see more acceptance of 0-1 type restrictions (which by nature limit the amount of experiences akin to "where the hell did that come from again?!").

MVB summed it up quite well.

@RiTides

Dude, totally come up and say hi, both Dugg and I are very friendly. I am hard to miss too, usually laughing very loudly, typically beer in hand! Hope to make your acquaintance this year!

@Thread

The game is so incredibly complex now, Digital codecies are going to cause a lot of problems for tournaments as some folks will have out of date rules having missed updates, etc. Plus, a lot of people won't have read them due to only being available digitally but that doesn't mean we won't allow them.

I think a big part of the game now is going to be looking at what the other person has on hand at the table and being able to adapt on the fly.

Even people who do this for their living (like us here at Frontline) can't keep up with it all. We actually play test everything as it comes out at least once, too and we still get caught off guard by stuff, or forget rules for units in the basic rule books. It is a strawman argument to say anyone is going to come to the table knowing what everything does.

I think adaptability and adjusting tactics on the fly to play around what every crazy combination of rules your opponent happens to have that game is going to be the hallmark of the good player.

Reese the difference is at least if you bring a tau codex/ supplement I know that you have the most recent copy of the rules for said unit. This is not true for FW unless I know where the rules for each unit are found. So if we accept that people don't know all the rules isn't it also reasonable to accept that people (even hose playing said unit) won't know if they are playing with the right rules...something far less likely with the supplements as few contain units and fewer still contain new units.

Tournaments, Reece, aren't about the good players. If you're building and thinking on them with a mind toward "well good players can adjust," you're missing the motivator behind concern about even more complication and difficult rules to follow. It's the average player already starting to get overwhelmed being suddenly shellacked with even more. Of course better players will adjust better. Seriously, players like you and I with GT wins and massive egos are the last people we should be catering to as TOs :-P

I dunno, my first GT I went to was the first BAO. It never really bothered me. Other than the Battle for Salvation I just recently went to since I moved, every GT I've been to has been run by them, with forgeworld included. Even the newer guys that I have played against, and when I was new to the scene, never really had a problem. Shock and awe was a factor, such as "I've never seen that" and such.

In reality, other than Dugg's hobby-killer, most people bring 1-2 contemptors or a couple sabres as their forgeworld supplements. I've seen one or two breaching drills total, so it's not like people are filling up on all the forgeworld they can in the BAO format.

I'd be surprised if those books contained all the current FW units that can be used....furthermore here is the thing about the cost. SO you say those books above cost $300+ dollars, which is no more than buying 3 wraithknights....but if I want to know what is in them and still run 3 wraithknights now I have bought 6 wraithknights.....and actually the cost of books rationale is getting stronger and stronger not the opposite. IF as a TO I am already spending $50 per books for 14 core codices + $25+ for all the supplements, and now I'm adding another $50+ for each IA book....The argument of well you are already spending a bunch of money so what is a few hundred more dollars is a weak one at best. Same with the FW is no more broken than the game already....adding broken to broken does not a good game make. That is not even a relavant argument.

.

Fair point, I'd say something like 'I'd buy 6 wraithknights' but that just sounds elitist. And probably untrue...and begging to be harmed by my wife?

It is a shame that theres alot of rules that exist in out of print books. That actually is pretty good support for the 'knowledge gap' arguement against forgeworld.

@Dugg-I agree with your stance that its probably not as bad as it is made out to be by some. Whats this hobby killer list? How does it stack up vs screamerstar/jetseer? Or the ovesastar? I came up with this today while thinking of viable/broken forgeworld, and its not even mostly forgeworld:

marine/tau
Calgar in termy armor
bike master for ultramarines with shield eternal and pfist
buffmander
r'varna with 2 drones

So presuming the r'varna stays in this form for its approved use thatd be pretty hard to kill as a single unit, and can dish 6 high strength low ap shots from virtually unlimited range turn 1 with twinlinked, ignore cover, and your choice of tank or MC hunter. it was ~1000 pts with the drones and fnp and target lock on the varna. You can do a lesser version for about 100 pts less with just an iontide, but with the cluster weapons its hard to pass that nasty pile of anger up.

thanatos67 wrote:

I'd be surprised if those books contained all the current FW units that can be used....furthermore here is the thing about the cost. SO you say those books above cost $300+ dollars, which is no more than buying 3 wraithknights....but if I want to know what is in them and still run 3 wraithknights now I have bought 6 wraithknights.....and actually the cost of books rationale is getting stronger and stronger not the opposite. IF as a TO I am already spending $50 per books for 14 core codices + $25+ for all the supplements, and now I'm adding another $50+ for each IA book....The argument of well you are already spending a bunch of money so what is a few hundred more dollars is a weak one at best. Same with the FW is no more broken than the game already....adding broken to broken does not a good game make. That is not even a relavant argument.

.

Fair point, I'd say something like 'I'd buy 6 wraithknights' but that just sounds elitist. And probably untrue...and begging to be harmed by my wife?

It is a shame that theres alot of rules that exist in out of print books. That actually is pretty good support for the 'knowledge gap' arguement against forgeworld.

@Dugg-I agree with your stance that its probably not as bad as it is made out to be by some. Whats this hobby killer list? How does it stack up vs screamerstar/jetseer? Or the ovesastar? I came up with this today while thinking of viable/broken forgeworld, and its not even mostly forgeworld:

marine/tau
Calgar in termy armor
bike master for ultramarines with shield eternal and pfist
buffmander
r'varna with 2 drones

So presuming the r'varna stays in this form for its approved use thatd be pretty hard to kill as a single unit, and can dish 6 high strength low ap shots from virtually unlimited range turn 1 with twinlinked, ignore cover, and your choice of tank or MC hunter. it was ~1000 pts with the drones and fnp and target lock on the varna. You can do a lesser version for about 100 pts less with just an iontide, but with the cluster weapons its hard to pass that nasty pile of anger up.

I would most likely drop that Unit in a round of shooting, using 3 of my Units. A combo of Jaws first, some Str 10 Large Blasts and cleaned up with a following a hail of Str 9 AP fire.

"HobbyKiller - The Destroyer of Dreams" is DKoK themed Codex IG with Heavy Artillery and SW Allies. All the stats are pretty simple to get T7 when shot at T3 when assaulted, normal Medusua or Earthshaker pie plates, no Thudds as of yet, and they can't move. Throw in a Vulture to spice things up and there you go. I might actually drop the Vulture for some new tweaks for LVO.

I actually named this list "My bad back List" due to the fact that I am a broken old War Vet and don't have to move horde Orks across a table for 3 days worth of gaming, this was actually the biggest factor for me making an artillery list, but my buddy Renamed it for me. I think HobbyKiller has a better ring to it. Even tho people that don't know me might take it the wrong way I don't mind the teasing.

 Reecius wrote:
@RiTides

Dude, totally come up and say hi, both Dugg and I are very friendly. I am hard to miss too, usually laughing very loudly, typically beer in hand!

Often, Pabst.

I don't know as I have much in the way to contribute here, other than making sure there are enough beer references . . . okay, how's this:

I suppose that after enough PBR, the amount of FW in the tourney becomes irrelevant.



Right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
I've seen one or two breaching drills total, so it's not like people are filling up on all the forgeworld they can in the BAO format.

You didn't play the guy with a full load of 9 Medusas in his IG blob.
... man, that one sucked.

Ah, seemed to miss that one. That could be annoying to say the least. I've played Doug twice though, if that counts for anything

Breng77 wrote:
Reese the difference is at least if you bring a tau codex/ supplement I know that you have the most recent copy of the rules for said unit.

How do you know this when GW has silently updated their digital books? Unless you own a copy yourself (or do the research like with FW units) you'll never know if they've got the updated version of a digital codex or an obsolete one.

Actually if you pay attention to general 40K forum you will see questions like; "Is codex: Craftworld Eldar still usable?" etc.

Lets not even talk about squats which is an entire army that never got updated.

For FW Either the units have been brought into the new rules set (SM special characters) or not (Eldar Corsairs).

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
Ah, seemed to miss that one. That could be annoying to say the least. I've played Doug twice though, if that counts for anything

You have? Who is this and what did you play? I get forum names mixed up all the time. Did we have some fun?

Breaching Drills are cool but not very good anymore unless you are usings a DKoK list. They changed the blast and no bargding anymore. I'm still working on a fun and goofy DKoK list with them and Mole Launchers. Will be fun.

I also want to make a 30 Sabre List to have for those times I am playing Blackmoor. No body loves playing vs Sabres more thn Blackmoor

Even with he DKoK list the breaching drills aren't very good, they are however a wonderful way to simply give your opponent free points however

 Peregrine wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Reese the difference is at least if you bring a tau codex/ supplement I know that you have the most recent copy of the rules for said unit.

How do you know this when GW has silently updated their digital books? Unless you own a copy yourself (or do the research like with FW units) you'll never know if they've got the updated version of a digital codex or an obsolete one.

Because they are not entirely new editions and they don't change point costs just wordings like an FAQ (which for digital codices they typically release changes in FAQ because hard copies also exist, so I assume this will also happen for supplements when hard copies exist.). I'm not saying it is perfect but there is a significant difference between having a Farsight supplement that does not have updated language for a piece of wargear and brining a unit from say IA apoc 2nd ed that has been updated in IA 2 second ed. It is is far less reasonable to expect someone to buy every FW book to see if their units got updated (or at least every book containing models for their faction), than it is to expect them to download free updates.

 Dugg wrote:


You have? Who is this and what did you play? I get forum names mixed up all the time. Did we have some fun?

Breaching Drills are cool but not very good anymore unless you are usings a DKoK list. They changed the blast and no bargding anymore. I'm still working on a fun and goofy DKoK list with them and Mole Launchers. Will be fun.

I also want to make a 30 Sabre List to have for those times I am playing Blackmoor. No body loves playing vs Sabres more thn Blackmoor

I'm the Slaaneshi guy you played I want to say 4th round of this years Broadside Bash, Garner. I enjoyed it, especially when my seekers rolled boxcars and hit your gun line, then also lost 5 to dangerous terrain tests... Haha, happens. I believe I can get the rest of my army to you this time though, and now the herald with the seekers has locus of move through cover.

@Breng77 and Mike

You guys make good points, and it is true that FW only adds to the complexity, and when i said most players don't know most the rules it wasn't an argument in favor of or against FW, just stating what I have observed. In fact, most players IME don't even know what their own codex does, fully. It is a relatively minor percentage of players that really know the rules well. In our Tips and Tricks videos we have been going over seriously basic stuff right out of the BRB and people are expressing shock at it, it is pretty enlightening. For most players, like a vast majority, this is very much just a casual hobby. Those of us crazy, obsessive few and certainly outliers! haha

As Garner points out, in the 5+ FW allowed GT events we've had, the vast majority of it is 1 or 2 units, all pretty basic, maybe some heavy artillery, some contemptors, or sabers, nothing big. And, still, no one has one an event of ours with any FW units! All we've really seen it do in application is provide a more diverse field of armies which we like, it is disheartening when we see tournaments that have a lot of one or the other army. Variety in lists and armies is so much more fun, IMO.

If a point comes when FW really does dominate and we see FW spam lists and it pisses people off, we will change if that is what our attendees ask, but so far, over a year in, it has been vastly underwhelming. The chatter on the web makes it seem like a lot bigger of a deal than it has been for us in practice.

I think that we are coming into an age of this crazy game of ours where there are going to be so many different rules in so many different formats, plus FAQs, and such that you just need to be able to adapt. It is not realistic to expect anyone to know it all. So, with that logic, we say might as well add in more as it means more toys, more variety and (to us) more fun, but I can see the counter argument, too. Less variables makes it easier for people to plan for the meta which is something I understand but then we get too much uniformity as with 5th ed, IMO.

YMMV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brothererekose wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
@RiTides

Dude, totally come up and say hi, both Dugg and I are very friendly. I am hard to miss too, usually laughing very loudly, typically beer in hand!

Often, Pabst.

I don't know as I have much in the way to contribute here, other than making sure there are enough beer references . . . okay, how's this:

I suppose that after enough PBR, the amount of FW in the tourney becomes irrelevant.



Right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
I've seen one or two breaching drills total, so it's not like people are filling up on all the forgeworld they can in the BAO format.

You didn't play the guy with a full load of 9 Medusas in his IG blob.
... man, that one sucked.

That shirt is EPIC!!!!

Can't wait to see that at LVO! hahaha

Hey I have no issue with providing the events your attendees want at all. I just have the opposite experience at mine. I ask every event. "Would you like FW included in future events?" Overwhelmingly the answer is no. I think what we end up with is that our rules impact who shows up which is reflected in the poll results.



I.e. you host events with FW so people opposed to FW don't show up...and don't vote on your poll. I generally don't host FW events(my Doubles event at the GT I run is FW 40k approved allowed.)...so people that won't show up unless FW is allowed don't show up and are not part of my poll.

Breng pretty much hit it on the nose. Which is why experimentation might not be out of wack considering the number of events you run Reece. Basically, as the one TO who runs multiple GT level events throughout the year you have a chance to experiement where others don't.

Something like allowing "Forgeworld Unique" at one of your lesser events and seeing if it increases sales. As you say it isn't going to affect the majority of your attendees since they only run 1-2 units anyway. So it shouldn't affect those already coming but could entice people leery of FW into coming.

Just a thought. Lord knows don't do it if it would be financially harmful or to risky. Making sure you're around to run events is more important than experimenting

Breng77 wrote:
Hey I have no issue with providing the events your attendees want at all. I just have the opposite experience at mine. I ask every event. "Would you like FW included in future events?" Overwhelmingly the answer is no. I think what we end up with is that our rules impact who shows up which is reflected in the poll results.

I.e. you host events with FW so people opposed to FW don't show up...and don't vote on your poll. I generally don't host FW events(my Doubles event at the GT I run is FW 40k approved allowed.)...so people that won't show up unless FW is allowed don't show up and are not part of my poll.

I can easily disprove this argument: Blackmoor comes to all of our events and he is the biggest FW hater on planet Earth!

Seriously though, the amount of people that actually don't come to an event because of a format issue is REALLY minor despite tons of people saying this or that is a deal breaker. We have some folks on the west coast that won't go to a no-comp event, some that won't go to a comp event, some that won't go to a FW event, some that won't go if they don't allow FW (that is how accepted it has become here, now).

But at the end of the day, folks want to go to tournaments and the vast majority are willing to accept a few things that they don't like as the alternative is biting their nose to spite their face and not going at all, having no fun compared to maybe slightly less fun if they are willing to accept some rulings they don't like.

Also, most people bring what they have painted to a tournament, so what we see is a tiny, tiny fraction of player who have 3+ FW units, and of those, most units are "cool models" or bring AA. It honestly has been so much smaller of a deal than threads like this make it out to be. One of the questions on our polls is: Did you notice that FW was at the event or play against it? That answer to that is higher on the "No" side than you would think. A lot of folks don't even notice that FW is there! haha

The thing about these threads that always cracks me up is people saying what will happen if we allow FW but refuse to go to FW events and as such , have little to no actual, real world experience with it where we have been running it full blast for multiple events now, over a year and can say from first hand experience most folks, once they try it, prefer it. But, somehow, people still argue against it! hahaha, for me real world experience outweighs opinion or conjecture.

As you said though, run the event your community wants. If your area doesn't like FW, then shoot, run with it. We don't expect anyone else to run their events in any other way than what they like.

Blackmoor has talked to us about running a different style event in LA and I encourage him to go for it. We aren't doing mercenary work running tournaments for others anymore unless we have an established relationship after what happened with Comikaze, but if he is right and there really is a strong player base that wants a no-FW style event on the West Coast, then the proof will be in the pudding. People vote with their wallets and so long as there are multiple events to choose from, they will choose the one they most want to go to.

It's just that talking about how a GT should be run and actually putting your money on the table and rolling the dice doing it are two very different things, especially when you consider how bloody expensive renting a venue in California can be. Sheesh, it is crazy expensive unless you go to a Vets Hall or County Fairgrounds (as most of us have to) which provides an entirely different set of issues to work through. But, that is a topic for another day.

@Hulk

I totally understand your sentiment, but again, hahaha, we don't feel the need to compromise or experiment on this topic because it is already working just fine

If we had a significant amount of people saying that they didn't like it anymore then we would for sure react to reflect changing desires. It's just that that sentiment isn't there! If it were, we'd act on it for sure.

We do use the smaller events to test run new ideas though, totally. It helps us to refine out system without major risk. We used to run 2 tournaments a month locally as well, and were always experimenting new ideas and seeing how people reacted to them but have fallen out of the habit as we're so busy and our store is too small to run a 16 player event. We plan on up-sizing into a bigger store this summer though, and will begin experimenting again in earnest.

So there hasn't been an event where someone shows up with a titan and goes "I got first turn, I win"?

Their events tend to allow all but titans and FW army lists, bagtagger:

LVO Rules wrote:Forge World units will be allowed so long as they are neither a Super Heavy nor Gargantuan Creature. The most recent version of the rules must be used. This means not just the “40K Approved” units, but any that do not fall within the above restrictions. Forge World Army Lists will not be allowed. - See more at: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/las-vegas-open/las-vegas-open-warhammer-40k-championships/#sthash.6WXObKZV.dpuf

bagtagger wrote:
So there hasn't been an event where someone shows up with a titan and goes "I got first turn, I win"?

As noted, such units are not allowed. Furthermore, even if they weren't explicitly banned, they don't have a place in an FoC, so couldn't be brought anyway

Reese-

Yes Blackmoor attends, and your survey does not 100% support FW inclusion...we'll never actually know how many people don't come because of format etc...simply because they don't come. Maybe you have 90% of all people tapped out. But there is no way really to know that. But yes if there is no other option available people will attend whatever is there to go to. It seems though that you guys run a majority of the big West Coast Events (or at least have in the past) out east there is a lot of choice of where to play GT wise, so it is easy enough for people to say...no thanks I'll go to that other event that does not include FW.

I'm still also in the Camp that believes we only see 3 or some FW units from some players because it is not legal everywhere... may that is true and maybe it is not, but as you said going with the proven method for your event is the way to go.

Personally though I don't run many FW events I would not specifically refuse to go to one at least once to see how it was...but out here in the east....they are quite rare.

I kind of wish there were FW inclusive, even if it only 0-1 here on the east coast, I miss running into gunlines who use t7 shooting to hide, and hit them like a truck turn 2 with my daemonettes.

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
I kind of wish there were FW inclusive, even if it only 0-1 here on the east coast, I miss running into gunlines who use t7 shooting to hide, and hit them like a truck turn 2 with my daemonettes.

At the least, there's the NOVA Trios Team Tourney, which includes 2v2 and 1v1 gaming, and is 0-1 FW.
There's also the NOVA DC Narrative event, which is broad FW inclusive.

Both events have competitive components to them if that's part of your preference (in the case of the Narrative, this revolves around getting paired against equivalently brass-tacks lists, however, so take caution there!)

The Narrative is a 7-game format over the course of the NOVA as a whole, so certainly if you're looking for a bunch of games against a variety of opponents and FW included (including FW army lists, Horus Heresy, etc.), you can find it there and on the East Coast.

Breng77 wrote:
I'm not saying it is perfect but there is a significant difference between having a Farsight supplement that does not have updated language for a piece of wargear and brining a unit from say IA apoc 2nd ed that has been updated in IA 2 second ed.

How is this so different? The silent change in C:I from having DCA with two power weapons (which means axe + something else) to two power swords with no ability to take any other type of power weapon is at least as much of a change as some FW units have seen between editions. And, unlike the C:I update at least the FW book is clearly something new and separate from the original one, with the C:I changes you'd never know they happened unless you happened to go back and read the rules again and notice that they're not the same anymore.

It is is far less reasonable to expect someone to buy every FW book to see if their units got updated (or at least every book containing models for their faction), than it is to expect them to download free updates.

We're not talking about downloading free updates. Let's look at C:I again. I don't want to abuse inquisitors, so I just read my friend's copy which has been updated with the new DCA rules and don't buy it myself. Now I play you, and you've got DCAs with power axe + power sword with an official GW book that says it's legal. How am I supposed to know which one of these is the correct version? GW has not even admitted that an update happened, so the only way to know which one is correct is to download a fresh copy of the book and look at the rule. Which is at least as much effort as verifying which version of a FW unit is the most recent one.

Breng77 wrote:
Yes Blackmoor attends, and your survey does not 100% support FW inclusion...we'll never actually know how many people don't come because of format etc...simply because they don't come. Maybe you have 90% of all people tapped out. But there is no way really to know that. But yes if there is no other option available people will attend whatever is there to go to. It seems though that you guys run a majority of the big West Coast Events (or at least have in the past) out east there is a lot of choice of where to play GT wise, so it is easy enough for people to say...no thanks I'll go to that other event that does not include FW.

So why not apply that reasoning to every other option for running a tournament? Why not demand tournaments where allies aren't allowed? Why not demand true codex-only tournaments where supplements are banned? Why not demand tournaments where Tau are banned? Why not demand tournaments where Tau are the only legal army? Why not demand tournaments where only FW army lists are allowed? Why not demand tournaments where every unit is a 0-1 choice? It seems like the only place you want any variety in army building rules is banning/restricting FW units.

People could demand those things, generally they don't in my experience. Why they don't I don't really know perhaps because FW was unbalanced for a long time? Or "not official". For a long time? Comp events also exist....and more power to them for doing things their way. Everything has a place for me....it is you who seem to want to force everyone to play your way or have them tarred and feathered. But I don't see you running the events you want to see, or traveling to events that run the way you want. Instead everyone should provide for you events the way you want....and then have you not show up anyway. My tournaments (as I have pointed out) are non-FW due mostlyt o capitalism...my paying players don't want it...and if not I am certainly not going to spend my time and money keeping track of it.

If you don't see a difference between codex inquisition being updated (which is akin to an FAQ update to a hard copy book, which is also not announced, and must be checked for by a player using that book) and a unit found in a book being updated in another book entirely, I cannot help you. I'm not sayin that I would not prefer that these updates be announced, but at least a player knows where to look for the update. The FW method of updating things would be akin to Gw releasing a unit in codex space marines, hen updating it in codex blood angels and expecting space marine players to know to go to codex blood angels for the rules for their unit.

As opposed to a silent update in the middle of a tournament?

I have yet too hear how one is going to stop an automatic update on an iPod if the tournament has froze the rules for 30 days earlier...

I think we can all agree that's bad. This is also why random out cycle forge world updates muddy the water further.

We've got one TO bragging on how competitive a format is while having totally random rule changes.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
As opposed to a silent update in the middle of a tournament?

I have yet too hear how one is going to stop an automatic update on an iPod if the tournament has froze the rules for 30 days earlier...

From the other thread, it seems they're not automatic.

But one horrible situation does not justify another . Digital updates are an issue too, and that's why they have their own thread in this section on how tournies will handle those updates.

haha, but fellas, no one is coming to the table with all the dang rules, anyway =)

So long as your opponent has accurate rules and shows you them for any units you need to read about before the game starts, it's all the same.

We bring every book (including FW and the FAQ's) to our events so that we have access to them on site and require every player to have his or her rules on hand. That is seriously the best you can hope for.

Every single tournament I have been in or run there are people playing stuff wrong. Either they don't know about an FAQ, or update or they just read a rule differently than their opponent does or don't know their own rules, didn't read the tournament FAQ or whatever. Long story short, no two tables at an event are playing the same game from a rules perspective. Even top level players get stuff wrong all the time. Tony Kopach was playing Njal wrong and had too many points in a few games, I played my Footdar for almost a year thinking the Avatar's Initiative was lower than it was, etc. Not saying I am a top level player or tooting my own horn or whatever, just that I seriously study the rules as it is my job and I still goof on stuff and other very serious players do too, all the time.

FW doesn't really change the situation we already have it just brings more of it to the table. It is still on the player to know their own rules, have the most recent versions and to communicate them to their opponent. It's no different than what we have right now with the "core" game.

So trying to clear up my point because people are still missing it.

Playing rules wrong =/= Not reading the current FAQ or Not having the Digital Update =/= updating units in completely separate books.

So reading a rule differently happens all the time, plenty of rules are unclear, or people make mistakes.

Not checking FAQs or Updates amounts to the same thing, it is lazyness on the part of a player to not check their own rules. Tournaments players should be expected to know where to go to find the FAQs for their books, same with digital updates (Ipad version tells you in Ibooks that you have updates, epub you need to go to the download site and re-download every so often, and certainly planning for a tournament.

Playing the rules for your Ork Kustom Meka Dread Wrong because you have IA 8, but did not buy IA Apoc (where according to the above linked spreadsheet, it was updated) is a completely different animal. Unless you buy every FW book that might contain rules for your faction there is no reasonable way (currently) to know which units are updated where (the above spreadsheet is great but hardly public knowledge.).

SO saying well guys get rules wrong already does not seem to mean we should definitely go with people playing out of date rules.

"From the other thread, it seems they're not automatic. "

Did not know that... Thanks

Breng77 wrote:
So trying to clear up my point because people are still missing it.

Playing rules wrong =/= Not reading the current FAQ or Not having the Digital Update =/= updating units in completely separate books.

So reading a rule differently happens all the time, plenty of rules are unclear, or people make mistakes.

Not checking FAQs or Updates amounts to the same thing, it is lazyness on the part of a player to not check their own rules. Tournaments players should be expected to know where to go to find the FAQs for their books, same with digital updates (Ipad version tells you in Ibooks that you have updates, epub you need to go to the download site and re-download every so often, and certainly planning for a tournament.

Playing the rules for your Ork Kustom Meka Dread Wrong because you have IA 8, but did not buy IA Apoc (where according to the above linked spreadsheet, it was updated) is a completely different animal. Unless you buy every FW book that might contain rules for your faction there is no reasonable way (currently) to know which units are updated where (the above spreadsheet is great but hardly public knowledge.).

SO saying well guys get rules wrong already does not seem to mean we should definitely go with people playing out of date rules.

So not checking to see what the most recent rules are for Codices is completely different than not checking to see what the most recent version of FW rules is.....

Haha, that is some pretty serious double think, there, and hopefully you can see that that is more than a little silly to say. You have to buy every digital codex to have all the rules, you have to buy every codex, etc. No one does that anyway! haha

If you have an internet connection you can figure out what the latest version of the rules are in a few seconds for any book in this game

Still not getting it....it is easy to know what the newest version of each book is...how easy is it to tell the newest version of a unit found in those books. Checking a free FAQ on GWs site, is different than finding out which units are in each FW book to see if one that you play with has been updated. No double think at all and I'm not talking about owning every book (though I own almost all of them) or knowing every rule. I'm talking about owning/buying every book that contains units I am using.

Maybe I'm wrong but can you point me to where there is a list of each unit that will be updated in each FW release...I'm pretty sure it does not exist...so I have no way to know in my example above (without a decent amount more research than checking an update page) that my unit has been updated.

Maybe you feel it no different....but to me having units updated in various books is a big issue with knowing if you are using the right rules.

I get what you're saying 100%, there is no disconnect. I simply disagree with your conclusion.

All you have to do is pay attention to when a new book is coming out and see what units are in it. That's what we do and it is simple, FW publishes the Table of Contexts for each IA book. Plus, you can just Google it.

My point was that you were making it sound like finding information about FW units is somehow a Herculean task, more so than staying on top of GW rules. It isn't, we do it and have done so for years, as do most FW enthusiasts, and that has never been an issue for us.

And again, the more important point (IMO) is that this entire conversation is moot. 95% of the player base doesn't keep up with the rules anyway! Haha, who cares if they don't know what FW does when they don't know all the rules in their own book! They're still going to have to ask at the table and figure it out as they go.

So going a bit off topic.

What would you guys think of a Mini GT?

I run a little Mini RTT 3 round 850pts on Weds between my leagues and thought that might be cool at a big event. You know bring in the noobs and Youngbloods into the Tournament scene.

I run it like this:

Played on a 4x4 Table
850 pts (could go 1k at Big Event)
3 rounds at 1:30 time per round (Maybe 4 rounds at 2hrs at Event or even a 2 day Event of 8 games)
All missions have a heavy objective theme with even objectives or odd one has to be place the center.

FOC:

1 HQ
2+ Troops
0-1 Elite
0-1 Fast
0-1 Heavy
1 Wild Card (Elite, Fast or Heavy)

Keep it simple and super casual for that crowd. Could even open up with the Wildcard as a single FW option.

I'm all for creating option not restricting already proven ones.

What an interesting thread! Up to 13 pages - 4 of which are after an interesting post over on Faeit 212 which counters the starting post...

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-answer-forgeworld-approved-models.html#more

Please read the full post above, but here is the juicy bit from FW:



This is no different from what is already happening. Some events allow FW, some try to "balance" the game with their missions or house FAQ's. EVERY event deserves to be made different. There is no "Standard".

There are plenty of options out there from banned FW > limited FW > wider FW use.

I am not sure of any other than MechaniCon that allow all 40K units AND army lists but we are a different event altogether. Most of our attendees are focused on enjoying playing with the models they collected and painted. Models that are featured on GW's site every day and in their monthly magazine - White Dwarf!

My frustration is the same silly arguments about prices, availability and trying to know the rules, I think Reecius' last post sums it up the best :

My point was that you were making it sound like finding information about FW units is somehow a Herculean task, more so than staying on top of GW rules. It isn't, we do it and have done so for years, as do most FW enthusiasts, and that has never been an issue for us.

It is 2013, and you are complaining on a message board on the internet. It is not hard to pop over to FW's site and look up the Table of Contents (from IA11 and on) to see what units are shown in each book. Imperial Armour, Digital Editions and 50 dollar codex prices are all making it harder for most folks to legally own all the rules. The truth is, you don't need to have them all, just the ones for your own models.

Availability is easier than a trip to your FLGS, just pop over to the FW site and place an order delivered to your house! Chances are you will pay less for shipping than you do for gas to get to a local store.


Thanks for the enjoyable thread everyone!

Breng77 wrote:
If you don't see a difference between codex inquisition being updated (which is akin to an FAQ update to a hard copy book, which is also not announced, and must be checked for by a player using that book) and a unit found in a book being updated in another book entirely, I cannot help you.

It's not at all like an FAQ. An FAQ is announced on the FAQ page, and you can quickly verify the latest version of that FAQ because it always says what the current version of the rule is. These silent digital updates are completely different, there's absolutely no reference for when or if a change is made. All you have is two different versions of a book. This is a much worse situation than anything FW does, so if you're going to exclude FW units based on the difficulty in verifying that a player is using the correct rules then you need to ban all digital books.

The FW method of updating things would be akin to Gw releasing a unit in codex space marines, hen updating it in codex blood angels and expecting space marine players to know to go to codex blood angels for the rules for their unit.

You mean kind of like what GW did with the flyers in Death From The Skies?

And with FW units there's nothing like that example happening. You don't get a random Tyranid unit updated in the IG vs. Tau book. Updates for an army are either in a book which includes that army (with marines being grouped into a single "army" for this), or in a compilation book which has stuff for everyone. So you know where to look for updates, and you're never going to be surprised by a unit getting updated in a book you didn't know to look at.

Except the digital iPad codex tells you when updates are pending much more than Gw does with faqs...as for the ePub...just like you check the FAQ page one should routinely go and re download the book.

As for death from the skies...somewhat but Gw released all the changes in their FAQ as well....which FW does not. As for your statement you are essentially saying any player who plays a FW unit must buy every FW book that pertains to his Harry just incase it gets updated. If I don't I end up with possibly out of date rule.

FWs method of updating is terrible, I shouldn't be required to buy multiple different books to determine which rules to use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Reecius wrote:
I get what you're saying 100%, there is no disconnect. I simply disagree with your conclusion.

All you have to do is pay attention to when a new book is coming out and see what units are in it. That's what we do and it is simple, FW publishes the Table of Contexts for each IA book. Plus, you can just Google it.

My point was that you were making it sound like finding information about FW units is somehow a Herculean task, more so than staying on top of GW rules. It isn't, we do it and have done so for years, as do most FW enthusiasts, and that has never been an issue for us.

And again, the more important point (IMO) is that this entire conversation is moot. 95% of the player base doesn't keep up with the rules anyway! Haha, who cares if they don't know what FW does when they don't know all the rules in their own book! They're still going to have to ask at the table and figure it out as they go.

What I'm saying is that if we accept that players don't research the rules for their own army does that not mean that there is a reasonable chance of people showing up with out of date rules for the units in their army?

It is helpful to know though that for more recent books the contents are easily accessible, the were not for a long time...and as I don't buy FW stuff I rarely check their site. I'm not saying it is impossible...I'm just saying that it is far more likely that someone could show up with out of dare FW rules than Gw rules

 RiTides wrote:
FW ships for BFG are freaking awesome. But there aren't nearly as many units for BFG as there are for 40k from FW.

The same is true for fantasy, chaos dwarfs are easy to allow as it's just one list in one book. 40k is a very different beast, and the work required to include it is a lot more severe than for BFG or fantasy.

But maybe you were volunteering

Well, one, as someone who's name appears in the credits for BFG's FAQ 2010, I'm moderately insulted. While I grant there's not as many units (overall) from FW for BFG than there is for 40k, I'll also point out that the FW stuff constitutes a much bigger percentage of the total units in the game, too. GW has enshrined FW lists as 'official' for BFG, including their entire Tau list.

However, this was not what I was refereeing to.

The new SM ships in IA X range from 'Ho-Hum' to 'Unstoppable' (Nicor). Literally in the case of one ship, as it actually could not turn before running off the end of the board (Someone forgot how the movement rules work in the game when writing the rules). Nicor is particular is a Posterchild for WAAC (5 shields, 6 armor, 5 turrets, 10 HP, 25cm speed IIRC, and cheap for the points, even if you can only take 1) We allowed it. It did not suddenly appear in every fleet. The winning fleet did not even contain it. The world did not end.

MechBoyz- if it were indeed so easy to find which book has the current rules for which unit, AdeptiCon wouldn't need to put out this extensive PDF every year:

http://www.adepticon.org/13rules/201340KIAApoc.pdf

If every event allowing FW did the same, I'd have no problem with it's inclusion. As for the table of contents of the books being available on FW's site- that is certainly not true of all of their books. That would be a good thing for them to implement for all of them, and would make finding rules a lot easier.

Baron- I was referring to volunteering to help maintain a 40k list but it's awesome that you helped with BFG.

I just don't think it's kosher to run a competitive event and at the same time say things like "No one knows all the rules or buys all the books anyway, so it doesn't matter" (paraphrasing Reecius). Yakface certainly bought all the books, and I know he's an exception. But for Warmachine players it's extremely common for them to own every single book, and know the rules for every army. I know 40k is a "looser" ruleset, but that doesn't mean you can just wave your hand at known issues and say "No one knows the rules anyway" .

The idea is to make it as easy as possible for the average attendee to be able to know, or at the Very least know where to find, all the rules. The AdeptiCon list above makes that possible. I would have strong reservations participating in an event allowing FW that did not make, or at least reference, a similar list.

It'd be awesome if the TOs who want to allow FW would make such a resource available to others. AdeptiCon posts their, obviously, but it only gets updated for their event. If Frontline would maintain such a list for their more frequent events, it would be a huge help to everybody.

But instead it just gets thrown out that "nobody knows all the rules anyway", which is just a poor excuse, imo. If you're running an event allowing these models, you need to be able to instantly know which is the most current rules for those models, and AdeptiCon's list does just that.

Otherwise, it's a bit off-putting as a casual player that I could face someone, and not have a way to reference if they're using the most current rules for their unit. Heck, even if I call a judge, unless the unit is in one of the more recent books that apparently have their indexes posted, there's going to be a signifcant break while they try to find where to look it up, etc. Whereas with a list like AdeptiCon's, I can print it out and bring it with me, just like I would any other FAQ, and know 100% that the rules my opponent is using are the correct ones.

That's the difference, for me, and no matter how much folks wave away the concern, it's a big one. The organizers do the legwork for me, and I have no problem playing against exotic units... they say "Figure it out yourself" and I'll likely say "No thanks...".

Just my opinion, of course, but I don't like the belittling tone about "No one knowing all the rules anyway" and how easy it is to find the rules for all FW units, when without a list like AdeptiCon's, it simply is not.

Question to those who say FW has easy to find rules, can you say, offhand, which book has the most up to date rules for the following units in, and which FOC slot they occupy (don't cheat nor read further on, that defeats the point)? Should you have no clue, you've proven the point. If you get super stuck, you are allowed to try and find out using the FW website only - you'll be unable to do the FOC thing, but frankly good luck anyway; they never list where rules are on the product page and you'll have to go through books which could be likely candidates for the rules, zoom in on the contents page and read from there. Ready? Okay, so, first 3:

-Necron Acanthrites
-Necron Tomb Sentinel
-Necron Tomb Citadel


I ask these specific ones because it's in no way clear. Here's a run down:

-Necron Acanthrites -

-Necron Tomb Sentinel -

-Necron Tomb Citadel -

Get all of those right? No, you didn't. Not even the Adepticon rules list has these rules on - they, for whatever reason, do not have anything from IA:Apoc nor IA:12.

There is no indication of the chronological release of their rules.
There is no indication of where the most up to date rules are anywhere, including product pages for both the unit and the books.
There is no indication of where they've made a mistake, as they rarely release FAQs, even for huge errors - IA:Apoc 2nd ed never even got one, and that had at least 20 actual errors, not just unclear rules.

This, in a game where it costs a ton of money to buy the books at all (let alone the units), is utterly unacceptable. There is no way you can tell me this is reasonable, and if you attempt to do so you are just flat out lying to yourself. Not even all the IG stuff or SM stuff is in the books explicitly made for them. It's like if GW wrote a codex, say Orks, then updated some (but not all) of their rules in the Eldar codex, then published a conpendium shortly after with most (but not all) of the units from the eldar and ork codex. FW's way of releasing rules is a total mess and despite years of pressure to list the book with the most up to date rules for each unit on that unit's product page, they refuse. Death from the Skies is nothing like this, so don't pretend it is - that added units which had no rules anywhere else but a limited run magazine and published them officially. It will be redundant as soon as the Ork codex is updated and, should you have an ebook codex, you don't ever need it unless you're running their campaign. It's also listed on the product page of every unit within it, and had a large fanfare about which rules would be in it, along with it clearly being about flyers. None of these things have ever been done by FW, and continue not to be. Even if you like FW units and want their inclusion, it's not reasonable to expect everyone to know where the rules are without a big list released by the TO (and in cases like the Tomb Citadel, that would mean emailing FW directly to find out) and you should acknowledge that this IS a problem. "Google it" is a rubbish excuse, as is the argument of always keeping up to date - what about new players? It's just a dumb thing to say. So yeah, this is absolutely an issue and saying attendees are mostly ignorant anyway is absurd.

Eyjio wrote:
Question to those who say FW has easy to find rules, can you say, offhand, which book has the most up to date rules for the following units in, and which FOC slot they occupy (don't cheat nor read further on, that defeats the point)? Should you have no clue, you've proven the point. If you get super stuck, you are allowed to try and find out using the FW website only - you'll be unable to do the FOC thing, but frankly good luck anyway; they never list where rules are on the product page and you'll have to go through books which could be likely candidates for the rules, zoom in on the contents page and read from there. Ready? Okay, so, first 3:

-Necron Acanthrites
-Necron Tomb Sentinel
-Necron Tomb Citadel


I ask these specific ones because it's in no way clear. Here's a run down:

-Necron Acanthrites -

Spoiler:

Last time these rules were published, they were in IA:12. This is also the most up to date version of these rules, having been experimental before. They are a Fast Attack choice. Nice and easy.

-Necron Tomb Sentinel -

Spoiler:

These rules have only ever been published in IA:12, so you should also have gotten this one immediately. However, they are a fast attack choice for a Dark Harvest army and a heavy support choice for a normal one. This is extremely confusing for someone scanning the rules, as it's the first entry in the fast attack slot, so has FAST ATTACK emblazoned over the top of the rules. Heck, I've had to point out the FOC swap for a normal list, as it's in small print.

-Necron Tomb Citadel -

Spoiler:

Well, this is obviously a fortification. The last time the rules were printed was IA:Apoc, but these had a layout error whereby the Resurrection Amplifier is not listed under the rules created by the power crucible. Hence, the most up to date, correct rules are still in IA:12. The only way you will find this out is to own both copies of the rules, spot the discrepancy, then personally email the FW rules team with your query. That's what I did, which is how I know the IA:Apoc rules are incorrect. They have never published an FAQ, nor acknowledged this in public.

Get all of those right? No, you didn't. Not even the Adepticon rules list has these rules on - they, for whatever reason, do not have anything from IA:Apoc nor IA:12.

There is no indication of the chronological release of their rules.
There is no indication of where the most up to date rules are anywhere, including product pages for both the unit and the books.
There is no indication of where they've made a mistake, as they rarely release FAQs, even for huge errors - IA:Apoc 2nd ed never even got one, and that had at least 20 actual errors, not just unclear rules.

This, in a game where it costs a ton of money to buy the books at all (let alone the units), is utterly unacceptable. There is no way you can tell me this is reasonable, and if you attempt to do so you are just flat out lying to yourself. Not even all the IG stuff or SM stuff is in the books explicitly made for them. It's like if GW wrote a codex, say Orks, then updated some (but not all) of their rules in the Eldar codex, then published a conpendium shortly after with most (but not all) of the units from the eldar and ork codex. FW's way of releasing rules is a total mess and despite years of pressure to list the book with the most up to date rules for each unit on that unit's product page, they refuse. Death from the Skies is nothing like this, so don't pretend it is - that added units which had no rules anywhere else but a limited run magazine and published them officially. It will be redundant as soon as the Ork codex is updated and, should you have an ebook codex, you don't ever need it unless you're running their campaign. It's also listed on the product page of every unit within it, and had a large fanfare about which rules would be in it, along with it clearly being about flyers. None of these things have ever been done by FW, and continue not to be. Even if you like FW units and want their inclusion, it's not reasonable to expect everyone to know where the rules are without a big list released by the TO (and in cases like the Tomb Citadel, that would mean emailing FW directly to find out) and you should acknowledge that this IS a problem. "Google it" is a rubbish excuse, as is the argument of always keeping up to date - what about new players? It's just a dumb thing to say. So yeah, this is absolutely an issue and saying attendees are mostly ignorant anyway is absurd.

Necron Acanthrites
Experimental– So no use in tournaments…
But to make you happy…
www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/a/acanthrite.pdf

Necron Canoptek Tomb Sentinel
In the ages-old Necron panoplies of war, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel is all but unique. One of the last war machines designed by the Cryptek master-artificer Toholk the Blinded, at the Silent King’s command it was given over to the Praetorians for wider dissemination across the Necron dynasties before the Great Sleep.
Both guardian and aggressor, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel is a heavily modified variant of the insectile Tomb Stalker, which forgoes that device’s hellish close combat ability and instead mounts an Exile cannon, a powerful weapon which blasts objects out of existence, casting them into other dimensional realms beyond the material universe. Phasing through the paltry defences of lesser races like a phantom, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel can deploy this terrible device into the close confines of an enemy stronghold with devastating effects.

Experimental– So no use in tournaments…
But to make you happy…
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/t/tstalker.pdf

Necron Tomb Citadel -
You mean this? Really?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Necrons/REALM_OF_BATTLE_NECRON_TOMB_CITADEL.html

So to be clear you throw out two items that explicitly can not be used in tournaments and a terrain piece for Realms of battle? And I provide the links at Forge World... Total time 3 minutes, rest was getting a doughnut....

Did I get that right...

Eyjio wrote:
There is no indication of where they've made a mistake, as they rarely release FAQs, even for huge errors - IA:Apoc 2nd ed never even got one, and that had at least 20 actual errors, not just unclear rules.

So, just like codex-only 40k you mean.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Necron Acanthrites
Experimental– So no use in tournaments…
But to make you happy…
www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/a/acanthrite.pdf‎

Necron Canoptek Tomb Sentinel
In the ages-old Necron panoplies of war, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel is all but unique. One of the last war machines designed by the Cryptek master-artificer Toholk the Blinded, at the Silent King’s command it was given over to the Praetorians for wider dissemination across the Necron dynasties before the Great Sleep.
Both guardian and aggressor, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel is a heavily modified variant of the insectile Tomb Stalker, which forgoes that device’s hellish close combat ability and instead mounts an Exile cannon, a powerful weapon which blasts objects out of existence, casting them into other dimensional realms beyond the material universe. Phasing through the paltry defences of lesser races like a phantom, the Canoptek Tomb Sentinel can deploy this terrible device into the close confines of an enemy stronghold with devastating effects.

Experimental– So no use in tournaments…
But to make you happy…
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/t/tstalker.pdf

Necron Tomb Citadel -
You mean this? Really?
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Necrons/REALM_OF_BATTLE_NECRON_TOMB_CITADEL.html

So to be clear you throw out two items that explicitly can not be used in tournaments and a terrain piece for Realms of battle? And I provide the links at Forge World... Total time 3 minutes, rest was getting a doughnut....

Did I get that right...

0/3. The experimentals are out of date by months (years for the stalker), you linked rules for the tomb stalker instead of the tomb sentinel and the realm of battle board has rules for normal 40k. Looks like I proved my point.

No, read the description....

....Tomb Sentinel is a heavily modified variant of the insectile Tomb Stalker,... it is the one...so sorry...



You did bring two experimentals and a board piece, none of which would ever get in a tournament....

Peregrine wrote:So, just like codex-only 40k you mean.

Yeah, I mean, if only GW had a page full of FAQs and Erratas or something. Nothing like that, right?

Oh wait. See, the thing is "infrequently publishing several page long FAQs" is still a mile better than "never publishes an FAQ at all". GW is slow, but they do at least fix most of the issues when they get there.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
No, read the description....

....Tomb Sentinel is a heavily modified variant of the insectile Tomb Stalker,... it is the one...so sorry...

...Is this actually a joke? I mean, really? Those rules were made in 2010 for a different model. I'm about 99% sure you're either too stubborn to admit you're wrong, or deliberately trolling.

Eyjio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:So, just like codex-only 40k you mean.

Yeah, I mean, if only GW had a page full of FAQs and Erratas or something. Nothing like that, right?

Oh wait. See, the thing is "infrequently publishing several page long FAQs" is still a mile better than "never publishes an FAQ at all". GW is slow, but they do at least fix most of the issues when they get there.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
No, read the description....

....Tomb Sentinel is a heavily modified variant of the insectile Tomb Stalker,... it is the one...so sorry...

...Is this actually a joke? I mean, really? Those rules were made in 2010 for a different model. I'm about 99% sure you're either too stubborn to admit you're wrong, or deliberately trolling.

No a mistake, I do not play Necrons..

Imperial Armour 12: Fall of Orpheus[url] has the one I got wrong. page 116

I could post its rules but that would be a violation.

So one experimental, one terrain piece half the size of a tournament playing area and one in a still valid book....

So