Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread yet, so this may have been covered.

I think the thing that keeps Forgeworld so unwelcome is the fact that it isn't available at your FLGS. If every store stocked it as standard, the stigma would slowly fade. But since it's mail order only, it's easy to keep it at arm's length.

 docdoom77 wrote:
Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread yet, so this may have been covered.

I think the thing that keeps Forgeworld so unwelcome is the fact that it isn't available at your FLGS. If every store stocked it as standard, the stigma would slowly fade. But since it's mail order only, it's easy to keep it at arm's length.

That's the big thing, and why most local events don't allow it, as it doesn't make the store owners who are putting on the event any money. Big tournaments that aren't held at stores typically allow FW.

 docdoom77 wrote:
Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread yet, so this may have been covered.

I think the thing that keeps Forgeworld so unwelcome is the fact that it isn't available at your FLGS. If every store stocked it as standard, the stigma would slowly fade. But since it's mail order only, it's easy to keep it at arm's length.

that's entirely reasonable, this I can understand, if its hard to get the models then I get that some may not like it, as they know nothing about it, the books are still available however.

 Formosa wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread yet, so this may have been covered.

I think the thing that keeps Forgeworld so unwelcome is the fact that it isn't available at your FLGS. If every store stocked it as standard, the stigma would slowly fade. But since it's mail order only, it's easy to keep it at arm's length.

that's entirely reasonable, this I can understand, if its hard to get the models then I get that some may not like it, as they know nothing about it, the books are still available however.

The big problem with this is that it applies equally well to pretty much the entire Sisters of Battle line, and other GW web exclusive stuff.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The big problem with this is that it applies equally well to pretty much the entire Sisters of Battle line, and other GW web exclusive stuff.

Which can still receive some glares depending on how bad it is. Wouldn't want to walk to my car alone at night after playing with a Skyhammer Annihilation force. It's worse for the Limited Edition stuff... bring a Plasma Obliterator and you'll instantly get labelled a TFG. I have three! But I only get to use them in apocalypse battles.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread yet, so this may have been covered.

I think the thing that keeps Forgeworld so unwelcome is the fact that it isn't available at your FLGS. If every store stocked it as standard, the stigma would slowly fade. But since it's mail order only, it's easy to keep it at arm's length.

that's entirely reasonable, this I can understand, if its hard to get the models then I get that some may not like it, as they know nothing about it, the books are still available however.

The big problem with this is that it applies equally well to pretty much the entire Sisters of Battle line, and other GW web exclusive stuff.

I understand it, I don't agree with it though, the books are easily downloaded if you really want them, and in the world of kindles, ipads etc it is easy to scan your codex and use it on your device, so not having access to the rules for any of the books is total nonsense, the models however I can understand if they are not available in the local FLGS, people may not want to play with them.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The big problem with this is that it applies equally well to pretty much the entire Sisters of Battle line, and other GW web exclusive stuff.

Which can still receive some glares depending on how bad it is. Wouldn't want to walk to my car alone at night after playing with a Skyhammer Annihilation force.

Worried about a metal dreadnought sock?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The big problem with this is that it applies equally well to pretty much the entire Sisters of Battle line, and other GW web exclusive stuff.

Which can still receive some glares depending on how bad it is. Wouldn't want to walk to my car alone at night after playing with a Skyhammer Annihilation force.

Worried about a metal dreadnought sock?

haha much needed levity brought to this thread

 Jancoran wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What's the real point of banning FW when scatterbikes exist?

Because reading rules before a game is too confusing for new players.

I hope someone gets that reference.

But let me turn the tables: since you're so convinced that it "doesnt matter" then why bring it? If you can play just as well without it then why are you DEMANDING it be allowed? If what you SAY is true then you can certainly afford NOT to bring it. Its a tournament so you clearly brought your army to win. CLEARLY you thought this combination gave you the best chance... Yet you want me to accept that it makes no difference? Lol. Is that the least honest thing you've ever heard of or what?

I brought my FW to WIN? To pull out some obscure and esoteric combination of rules that perplex my opponent, puts him completely off his game and allow me to smash his filthy casual "standard-GW" army while laughing at his financial inferiority as I snort lines of resin dust? No, I brought my ForgeWorld rules because my army, which I've been building for several years, is now only functional through ForgeWorld rules. Because 7th Edition changed the allies matrix and made Renegade Guard (previously IG/CSM, now Renegades&Heretics) close to unplayable, but I love the aesthetics, fluff and feel of the army? Just like with Death Korps people who show up to tournaments: their goal isn't to win, as that's unrealistic, but to have fun, socialize and show off an army they've put a lot of effort into building and painting.

 Jancoran wrote:

So there are numerous good reasons to simply not inflict that on the opponent. I showed up at a tournament last Saturday and faced... an almost entire army of Forge World Tyranids. I had NO idea what they could do. We had to spend a good fifteen minutes going through all the units and part of that was "okay now wait that was this unit, so what was this one again?" Its a TIMED event! And we just shot fifteen minutes out the door so that I could readjust my thinking on ALL of it.

Would you know what a War Convocation could do? It's a White Dwarf formation which many people have never faced, yet it's incredibly, incredibly powerful and (imo) you need a lot of knowledge about its tricks to be able to beat it. If you need 15 minutes to go through a few Tyranid rules (there aren't THAT many FW 'nids and they're not very complicated) you might be a slow learner. In today's 40k with new dataslates, formations, campaign exclusive relics etc. etc. coming out every week, you gotta get used to either studying everything available in the game before attending a tournament or be quick at understanding rules when your opponent explains them to you.

I have no doubt that metas that ban ForgeWorld can be popular, but I doubt it's because of the ForgeWorld ban alone (and if it is, it's from players having an outdated and misinformed opinion about ForgeWorld, which I suppose is understandable if you're coming back from an older edition when FW was not a part of standard 40k). The Paralympic Games are popular too.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Well you apparently completely skipped the part where I suggested that you should have tourneys where FW and all the "extra" stuff is allowed, but also keep having your house-ruled tournaments for the people that like them.

That is if your meta has people that like FW (I'm sure there are at least a couple).

I didnt skip it. Who has time to do that? I can do one or the other. Im not going to run TWO tournies a month. Someoe else can. Im fine with that.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The big problem with this is that it applies equally well to pretty much the entire Sisters of Battle line, and other GW web exclusive stuff.

Which can still receive some glares depending on how bad it is. Wouldn't want to walk to my car alone at night after playing with a Skyhammer Annihilation force. It's worse for the Limited Edition stuff... bring a Plasma Obliterator and you'll instantly get labelled a TFG. I have three! But I only get to use them in apocalypse battles.

The Skyhammer I can understand because it's just plain broken, no matter where it comes from (though being a "pay to win" web bundle didn't help obviously), but the plasma Obliterator? I mean, yeah it was a limited run, but its rules are thoroughly unimpressive, especially for an $85 piece of terrain, it's an AV14 box with a 7" S7 blast and a nasty Gets Hot rule, for the price of a Land Raider, hardly something to get labelled a TFG for, that's absurd.

 Formosa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread yet, so this may have been covered.

I think the thing that keeps Forgeworld so unwelcome is the fact that it isn't available at your FLGS. If every store stocked it as standard, the stigma would slowly fade. But since it's mail order only, it's easy to keep it at arm's length.

that's entirely reasonable, this I can understand, if its hard to get the models then I get that some may not like it, as they know nothing about it, the books are still available however.

The big problem with this is that it applies equally well to pretty much the entire Sisters of Battle line, and other GW web exclusive stuff.

I understand it, I don't agree with it though, the books are easily downloaded if you really want them, and in the world of kindles, ipads etc it is easy to scan your codex and use it on your device, so not having access to the rules for any of the books is total nonsense, the models however I can understand if they are not available in the local FLGS, people may not want to play with them.

Right, I was just saying that it applied to things like Sisters of Battle too, which IIRC, are entirely web-exclusive mail order models, and people just don't seem to treat them the same way.

GrafWattenburg wrote:

Would you know what a War Convocation could do? It's a White Dwarf formation which many people have never faced, yet it's incredibly, incredibly powerful and (imo) you need a lot of knowledge about its tricks to be able to beat it. .

First, I wasnt excuing the Convocation. Second, in our torunaments, we allow two detchments, three if one is a CAD, which as I SAID... stops the most broken issues from showing up. Banning Forge world isnt the extent of the work we do to stop broken things or unwanted things.

So the War Convocation and all the examples like it are also not awesome. And we have taken the step to disallow those. But you're talking about power...again. And I...again... reiterate that this isnt the only issue with Forge World. It isn't even THE issue. Because it takes ll of four seconds to come up with an example of something in forge World that isn't AS broken as X, Y, and Z. I get it. Ive sid I get it. So why are we STILL on that?

 Jancoran wrote:

GrafWattenburg wrote:

Would you know what a War Convocation could do? It's a White Dwarf formation which many people have never faced, yet it's incredibly, incredibly powerful and (imo) you need a lot of knowledge about its tricks to be able to beat it. .

First, I wasnt excuing the Convocation. Second, in our torunaments, we allow two detchments, three if one is a CAD, which as I SAID... stops the most broken issues from showing up. Banning Forge world isnt the extent of the work we do to stop broken things.

To be fair, if you're allowing more than one detachment, you can pretty much get away with the most abusive aspects of the game, you don't need 5 or 6 detachments to break it, 2 will do just find in most instances, particularly exploiting allies abilities, 3 tops. Most armies wouldn't have the points for many more detachments than two or three detachments anyways, especially if they want to take full advantage of their bonuses, unless you're getting into things like the Decurion where it's a detachment composed of other detachments and how do you sort out what at that point?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The big problem with this is that it applies equally well to pretty much the entire Sisters of Battle line, and other GW web exclusive stuff.

Which can still receive some glares depending on how bad it is. Wouldn't want to walk to my car alone at night after playing with a Skyhammer Annihilation force. It's worse for the Limited Edition stuff... bring a Plasma Obliterator and you'll instantly get labelled a TFG. I have three! But I only get to use them in apocalypse battles.

The Skyhammer I can understand because it's just plain broken, no matter where it comes from (though being a "pay to win" web bundle didn't help obviously), but the plasma Obliterator? I mean, yeah it was a limited run, but its rules are thoroughly unimpressive, especially for an $85 piece of terrain, it's an AV14 box with a 7" S7 blast and a nasty Gets Hot rule, for the price of a Land Raider, hardly something to get labelled a TFG for, that's absurd.

 Formosa wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread yet, so this may have been covered.

I think the thing that keeps Forgeworld so unwelcome is the fact that it isn't available at your FLGS. If every store stocked it as standard, the stigma would slowly fade. But since it's mail order only, it's easy to keep it at arm's length.

that's entirely reasonable, this I can understand, if its hard to get the models then I get that some may not like it, as they know nothing about it, the books are still available however.

The big problem with this is that it applies equally well to pretty much the entire Sisters of Battle line, and other GW web exclusive stuff.

I understand it, I don't agree with it though, the books are easily downloaded if you really want them, and in the world of kindles, ipads etc it is easy to scan your codex and use it on your device, so not having access to the rules for any of the books is total nonsense, the models however I can understand if they are not available in the local FLGS, people may not want to play with them.

Right, I was just saying that it applied to things like Sisters of Battle too, which IIRC, are entirely web-exclusive mail order models, and people just don't seem to treat them the same way.

ah right, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

GrafWattenburg wrote:

Would you know what a War Convocation could do? It's a White Dwarf formation which many people have never faced, yet it's incredibly, incredibly powerful and (imo) you need a lot of knowledge about its tricks to be able to beat it. .

First, I wasnt excuing the Convocation. Second, in our torunaments, we allow two detchments, three if one is a CAD, which as I SAID... stops the most broken issues from showing up. Banning Forge world isnt the extent of the work we do to stop broken things.

To be fair, if you're allowing more than one detachment, you can pretty much get away with the most abusive aspects of the game, you don't need 5 or 6 detachments to break it, 2 will do just find in most instances, particularly exploiting allies abilities, 3 tops. Most armies wouldn't have the points for many more detachments than two or three detachments anyways, especially if they want to take full advantage of their bonuses, unless you're getting into things like the Decurion where it's a detachment composed of other detachments and how do you sort out what at that point?

TWO Skyhammer Annihilation Forces. Bwahahahaha!

The argument against allowing Forge World is fundamentally an argument from ignorance. "I don't know what it does, therefore it must be OP and should be banned". The solution is simple: require everyone to bring a copy of the rules that cover all of the models in their army. In most cases, this is a standard GW codex/supplement/campaign book. It might also be an Imperial Armour book, pdf dataslate, or even a White Dwarf article. In every tournament that I have attended (under ITC rules), if you did not follow this rule in addition to bringing a copy of the rules and an army list for your opponent, you were automatically disqualified. There is a reason I managed to acquire a pdf version of the Haemonculus Covens supplement for my upcoming Dark Eldar army in addition to the version I acquired through iTunes; I wanted to be able to have a physical copy of the rules for the formations in that supplement (now electronic-only) as a courtesy for my opponent. If you have a question about the rules for a model, ask your opponent to see the rules for that model.

Last time I checked, we were living in the information age. I you don't know what a unit does or how a faction or army plays, type it into a search engine of your choice and find out. I find 1d4chan useful as a general guide (just don't take it's tactical advice seriously or read it at work). Saying that units, factions, or armies should be banned because the majority of players are unfamiliar with their rules is an ignorant argument born out of laziness.

With the exception of true titans, very little that Forge World puts out is any more overpowered than units in standard codexes. It's rather telling that out of all the things that the ITC restricts, only a few specific Forge World units are banned and the vast majority of units and armies are allowed.

Eight, EIGHT Skyhammers! A-A-AH!


There needs to be a 28mm of this guy so i can proxy him as NL Servatar.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

With the exception of true titans, very little that Forge World puts out is any more overpowered than units in standard codexes. It's rather telling that out of all the things that the ITC restricts, only a few specific Forge World units are banned and the vast majority of units and armies are allowed.

Indeed, and even with the Titan units, FW just casts the resin, the rules for them and their inclusion in non-apoc games are all written by GW now (save for the Warlord, which is too big for any sort of tournament anyway). You can ban forgeworld rules entirely and still bring Titans

They wont be for long, GW is releasing plastic 30k figs & the rulebook in this boxed edition is compatible with FW HH books! (30 marines, 5 termies, 1 dread, 1 praetorian, & 1 chapy plus rulebook, dice, templatres, etc....)

Is there a 30k forum here yet?

In fact, it's even the reverse: a lot of stuff from FW aren't uptaded yet, and so cost more.
For example: in the armoured battle group I play, I have to pay 160 pts for a leman russ eradicator...
I agree with TheNewBlood, the issue is ignorance and laziness.
Laziness from the player who don't try to know Forge World, and laziness from the FW players who don't provide a copy for their opponents.

Im still waiting for anyone to name a broken FW unit to be fair, I cant think of even one.... oh actually unsurprisingly its an elder unit, the phantom, anymore?

 Formosa wrote:
Im still waiting for anyone to name a broken FW unit to be fair, I cant think of even one.... oh actually unsurprisingly its an elder unit, the phantom, anymore?

You're forgetting the Revenant, Warhound, Reaver, and Taunar as well.

I've read through this thread in all its glory, and the best example Arkaine and Jancoran can come up with is...the Dreadclaw Assault Pod!

The first generation of the R'varna was pretty broken, but that got put down to riptie levels pretty quickly. The tau'nar is also sort of pbroken, but it'll proobleby end up the same way (rules aren't in book yet, so it will get before it's initial release, I'm sure).

Of the tau units currently available.

Manta: massively overpriced, it's pretty much just a set piece. Also un-manageably huge.
Tigershark: Expensive, nad relitvly mediocre.
Tigershark AX-1-0: Expensive, and pretty well balanced
R'varna*: Riptide relitive power/cost level
Y'vahra*: Suprising blaneced for a riptide varient, although still quite strong
Tetras: fun, cheap, balenced.
Remoras: fun relitivly cheap, balenced.
O'R'alai: Powerful, but pays for it.
XV9: fun, tough, expensive
Pirahna TX-42: Cool, but overpriced.
Drone turret: A little overpiced, IMO
Heavy gun drones: Bad, just bad all around.
Sensor tower: used to be much better, sort of mediocre now.
Barracuda: strong, fun, pays for it.

*not in a book yet

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Im still waiting for anyone to name a broken FW unit to be fair, I cant think of even one.... oh actually unsurprisingly its an elder unit, the phantom, anymore?

You're forgetting the Revenant, Warhound, Reaver, and Taunar as well.

I've read through this thread in all its glory, and the best example Arkaine and Jancoran can come up with is...the Dreadclaw Assault Pod!

But we have straight from GW rule books with titan rules so they are kosher. /s

Alright, this is getting nowhere. Neither of these... gentlemen are going to accede to any kind of logic. They have no reason to really. You have to remember:

They created their own little community. They raised it up from nothing and BUILT INTO the entire community their own personal bias. It was stated before, they or someone else who agrees with them laid down the fallacies by which their community operates. They basically indoctrinated an entire group of new players, who by that very definition would have no idea what they were voting for or against, to their specific idea of how things should be. They are NOT going to change their minds regardless of how bad their thinking on the subject is.

Now, to address a couple of issues succinctly.

1. To say it "adds an extra financial layer" is a fallacy. Why? Because you are either assuming or insinuating, via your arguement, a player MUST buy GW's GW products first and only then may they buy GW's FW products. Realistically, should a person want to spend an extra 10 or 15 percent on GW's FW line you are now imposing an exclusionary bias which forces players to purchase what they are told they are allowed rather than access to the entire range.

2. One or both of these gentlemen have claimed adding FW is adding " a new game" which has already been countered as ridiculous. New models and armies are added but the core mechanics require no relearning.

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

You're not going to win against arguements which are basically,"I don't care because I've already crafted my local scene to be what I wanted as opposed to reality and/or what is fair."

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Im still waiting for anyone to name a broken FW unit to be fair, I cant think of even one.... oh actually unsurprisingly its an elder unit, the phantom, anymore?

You're forgetting the Revenant, Warhound, Reaver, and Taunar as well.

I've read through this thread in all its glory, and the best example Arkaine and Jancoran can come up with is...the Dreadclaw Assault Pod!

haha yeah, but their titans, its kinda the point of them isn't it lol.

I freely admit I don't play people who use super heavies, unless I have one of my own of course, we simply don't allow them in a pick up game so its all pre arranged, same with primarchs, same with gargantuans, but im not trying to veil the decision in some weird anti super heavy etc. way, its just how we like to play

 Formosa wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Im still waiting for anyone to name a broken FW unit to be fair, I cant think of even one.... oh actually unsurprisingly its an elder unit, the phantom, anymore?

You're forgetting the Revenant, Warhound, Reaver, and Taunar as well.

I've read through this thread in all its glory, and the best example Arkaine and Jancoran can come up with is...the Dreadclaw Assault Pod!

haha yeah, but their titans, its kinda the point of them isn't it lol.

I freely admit I don't play people who use super heavies, unless I have one of my own of course, we simply don't allow them in a pick up game so its all pre arranged, same with primarchs, same with gargantuans, but im not trying to veil the decision in some weird anti super heavy etc. way, its just how we like to play

And two of those models had their rules written by GW main, IIRC (Reaver and Warhound).

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I've read through this thread in all its glory, and the best example Arkaine and Jancoran can come up with is...the Dreadclaw Assault Pod!

Hmmm, so now you're inserting words into my posts... interesting. I don't recall ever claiming it was a broken unit to begin with, in fact I only mentioned it on page 2 for an altogether different reason. If you mean the Kharybdis, the only thing I said was that I owned one. Try to refrain from treating two separate people identically and remember... don't shoot the messenger.

 purplkrush wrote:
They created their own little community. They raised it up from nothing and BUILT INTO the entire community their own personal bias.

Hi. This is a lie. If you bothered to read the thread, I have no control over the meta or the venue. I am not affiliated with the store, impressing any views upon its customers, and own several Forgeworld models myself which I use at other locations, Apoc games, or during casual play with permission. All of this is stated in this very thread for those who bother to read it. All others can continue to put forth their failures to comprehend why anyone would willingly accede to such rules when we see exactly the type that would arrive on a weekly basis for the events in a growing community.

But don't fret, brother. We occasionally see people like you at the store during RPG nights. Because we all know that if you don't let someone play a class, race, or use a feat, weapon, or spell published in an official Wizards of the Coast supplement book that you are a terrible DM and must be drawn and quartered in the square. Luckily we're in an environment where the PLAYERS decide the rules they use and what splatbooks or sources are permitted and do not accede to the tyrannical WHINING of some random guy on a forum who insists we're doing it wrong.

 Arkaine wrote:


But don't fret, brother. We occasionally see people like you at the store during RPG nights. Because we all know that if you don't let someone play a class, race, or use a feat, weapon, or spell published in an official Wizards of the Coast supplement book that you are a terrible DM and must be drawn and quartered in the square. Luckily we're in an environment where the PLAYERS decide the rules they use and what splatbooks or sources are permitted and do not accede to the tyrannical WHINING of some random guy on a forum who insists we're doing it wrong.

This is apples and oranges. DM's make their own world and of said race/class/spell doesn't exits it simply doesn't. You are talking about choices made not the break the world or story set fourth by a DM.

 Vash108 wrote:
This is apples and oranges. DM's make their own world and of said race/class/spell doesn't exits it simply doesn't. You are talking about choices made not the break the world or story set fourth by a DM.

These choices were made by the DM. The Democratic Majority. If the DM decides it doesn't exist... then it doesn't.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:


But don't fret, brother. We occasionally see people like you at the store during RPG nights. Because we all know that if you don't let someone play a class, race, or use a feat, weapon, or spell published in an official Wizards of the Coast supplement book that you are a terrible DM and must be drawn and quartered in the square. Luckily we're in an environment where the PLAYERS decide the rules they use and what splatbooks or sources are permitted and do not accede to the tyrannical WHINING of some random guy on a forum who insists we're doing it wrong.

This is apples and oranges. DM's make their own world and of said race/class/spell doesn't exits it simply doesn't. You are talking about choices made not the break the world or story set fourth by a DM.

Yeah, DMs have nothing to do with 40k. The way RPGs work is very different than wargames..

 Arkaine wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
This is apples and oranges. DM's make their own world and of said race/class/spell doesn't exits it simply doesn't. You are talking about choices made not the break the world or story set fourth by a DM.

These choices were made by the DM. The Democratic Majority. If the DM decides it doesn't exist... then it doesn't.

Do you allow escalation rules and dataslates?

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Did all of them say that reason they started playing again was because FW was banned? Did the majority? Did the majority of the people who came to vote on the matter vote on the ban?

Yes.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But if all of that is true that doesn't mean that banning FW is a good thing. It just means that the people who play where in your meta are misinformed.

Assuming the meta is misinformed because otherwise it invalidates your opinionated platform. Gotcha. God forbid anyone makes an informed decision to ban Forgeworld. That's like... unheard of.

Informed...
Name a game-breaking FW unit then.

Arkaine wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I've read through this thread in all its glory, and the best example Arkaine and Jancoran can come up with is...the Dreadclaw Assault Pod!

Hmmm, so now you're inserting words into my posts... interesting. I don't recall ever claiming it was a broken unit to begin with, in fact I only mentioned it on page 2 for an altogether different reason. If you mean the Kharybdis, the only thing I said was that I owned one. Try to refrain from treating two separate people identically and remember... don't shoot the messenger.

My mistake. I'm having difficulty telling one Casual At All Costs mindset from another.

When the message that's being sent is one as stupid as banning all Forge World, messengers will be ventilated. Funny how you cherry-picked only one part of my post to argue against...

Arkaine wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
This is apples and oranges. DM's make their own world and of said race/class/spell doesn't exits it simply doesn't. You are talking about choices made not the break the world or story set fourth by a DM.

These choices were made by the DM. The Democratic Majority. If the DM decides it doesn't exist... then it doesn't.

In my experience, the vast majority of people are morons who don't know what they're talking about. I'd much rather play a ruleset devised by the intelligent minority than one devised by ignorant mouth-breathers. Fortunately, stupid people are either easily led and persuaded or will be too stubborn and complain in ways that are easy to dismiss.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Arkaine wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
I've read through this thread in all its glory, and the best example Arkaine and Jancoran can come up with is...the Dreadclaw Assault Pod!

Hmmm, so now you're inserting words into my posts... interesting. I don't recall ever claiming it was a broken unit to begin with, in fact I only mentioned it on page 2 for an altogether different reason. If you mean the Kharybdis, the only thing I said was that I owned one. Try to refrain from treating two separate people identically and remember... don't shoot the messenger.

My mistake. I'm having difficulty telling one Casual At All Costs mindset from another.

When the message that's being sent is one as stupid as banning all Forge World, messengers will be ventilated. Funny how you cherry-picked only one part of my post to argue against...

Arkaine wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
This is apples and oranges. DM's make their own world and of said race/class/spell doesn't exits it simply doesn't. You are talking about choices made not the break the world or story set fourth by a DM.

These choices were made by the DM. The Democratic Majority. If the DM decides it doesn't exist... then it doesn't.

In my experience, the vast majority of people are morons who don't know what they're talking about. I'd much rather play a ruleset devised by the intelligent minority than one devised by ignorant mouth-breathers. Fortunately, stupid people are either easily led and persuaded or will be too stubborn and complain in ways that are easy to dismiss.

Your pushing the bounds of the rules there mate, remember rule no1 .

Out of interest, how about an example of these rules you guys made?

If it's a good one I'll steal it lol

 TheNewBlood wrote:
...as stupid as banning all Forge World... messengers will be ventilated... the vast majority of people are morons... one devised by ignorant mouth-breathers.... Fortunately, stupid people...

I think it's clear why I outright ignore most of your posts. Sayonara!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Informed...
Name a game-breaking FW unit then.

Hello, welcome to the conversation, you must be new. Because you truly could not have just asked for something I don't believe in. As stated perpetually throughout the thread, FW was not banned due to "game-breaking units". I own and use FW myself and believe CSM needs it to be competitive, just not at the venue being discussed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Out of interest, how about an example of these rules you guys made?

See page 3.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

GrafWattenburg wrote:

Would you know what a War Convocation could do? It's a White Dwarf formation which many people have never faced, yet it's incredibly, incredibly powerful and (imo) you need a lot of knowledge about its tricks to be able to beat it. .

First, I wasnt excuing the Convocation. Second, in our torunaments, we allow two detchments, three if one is a CAD, which as I SAID... stops the most broken issues from showing up. Banning Forge world isnt the extent of the work we do to stop broken things.

To be fair, if you're allowing more than one detachment, you can pretty much get away with the most abusive aspects of the game, you don't need 5 or 6 detachments to break it, 2 will do just find in most instances, particularly exploiting allies abilities, 3 tops. Most armies wouldn't have the points for many more detachments than two or three detachments anyways, especially if they want to take full advantage of their bonuses, unless you're getting into things like the Decurion where it's a detachment composed of other detachments and how do you sort out what at that point?

Its not compliacted. Look to our most recent tournament:

http://www.40kambassadors.com/index.php

The Tournament rules are there (Note: 0-1 Super Heavies is also a restriction now)

Each Detachment, whether it is inside of a Decurion style wrapper or not, counts as one. And as you can see in the actual Ambasadorial Forces section, the lists are there. Several Ambassadors used multiple formations.

Honestly the most crazy list was a three Wraith Knight list. That won't be allowed in future tournaments (and generally wasnt anyways in other tournaments) but it was definitely the most difficult list.

This tournament is a special tournament. We gave $1500 out in Prize support thanks to our sponsors. The people who DECIDED that a Forge World restriction was a deal breaker missed out on a big haul and that's a shame. But on the other hand, both brackets were all but full and that's their loss.

My point is, people can make a big stink out of the restriction or they can play, have fun and win boatloads of cash. It's really their call. But attendance has been higher every year and the prize support has been awesome. New players and returning players alike find it a lot easier to enjoy and keep up with the game with these rules. For some, its very literally the only tournament they choose to attend every year because while disenfranchised by the tournament scene in general, they find this one to be a place where fun is to be had and good Generals are rewarded not for their budget but for their skill.

As I typed earlier, I have played in tournaments that allow this Forge World stuff. It did not hinder my chances. Again most recently, the Tyranid example I gave. Play what you wanna' play. But what you're going to buy. You're not a "bad person" for wanting to anymore than I'm a for not allowing it. But I am just being as expansive as i can in explaining why, since that was the thread.

I think people are weird about Forgeworld just due to the fact that it's not in the regular rule books/codices. If it's not in there then they don't believe it should be used. And, to a point, both sides have merit. I'm personally on the side of allowing forgeworld units, but if someone requested that I don't use those units I'd be fine with it.

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

 Jancoran wrote:
The people who DECIDED that a Forge World restriction was a deal breaker missed out on a big haul and that's a shame.

I see. So not spending hundreds to thousands of dollars to buy a new army because my existing one isn't legal under your house rules is "deciding not to play"? No amount of trying to present it as pro-FW people voluntarily missing out on fun and prizes is going to change the fact that you are openly saying "you are not welcome here" to people who don't have armies that comply with your personal version of 40k.

 War Kitten wrote:
I think people are weird about Forgeworld just due to the fact that it's not in the regular rule books/codices. If it's not in there then they don't believe it should be used. And, to a point, both sides have merit. I'm personally on the side of allowing forgeworld units, but if someone requested that I don't use those units I'd be fine with it.

Perfect attitude. I also feel like this is the way to think.

In tournaments, the T.O. doesnt have the luxury of waffling. A choice has to be made OR you have to do what the ITC did: allow some, not allow others, make an enormous FAQ that REWRITES rules in places, interprets them in others... And still makes someone unhappy that their toy isn't allowed or its modified or whatever.

holy cow. At some point... You just gotta play the game.

 Jancoran wrote:
ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

You're right, it does suck to have to learn a new set of rules in a few minutes at the beginning of the game. Therefore any codex I am not already familiar with should be banned. And that probably includes whatever army you want to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 War Kitten wrote:
I think people are weird about Forgeworld just due to the fact that it's not in the regular rule books/codices.

It is in the regular rulebooks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:
In tournaments, the T.O. doesnt have the luxury of waffling. A choice has to be made OR you have to do what the ITC did: allow some, not allow others, make an enormous FAQ that REWRITES rules in places, interprets them in others... And still makes someone unhappy that their toy isn't allowed or its modified or whatever.

IOW, it's exactly like codex-only 40k.

I would say this is the worst possible game for your example player to get into.

I don't see how Forge World is your information overload point when the game is at an unprecedented level of high speed releases and rules source bloat.

Forge World rules are currently the most stable and easy to keep appraised of part of the "core game"

 Jancoran wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

Mischaracterization may be poor form, but willful and deliberate ignorance is a mortal sin.

Are you seriously complaining that you had to (gasp!) read some rules provided to you? I'd take it as a lesson in just how limited my own knowledge of the game's breadth is. As long as the rules for the model are legitimate and provided for the opponent, the opponent has no grounds to complain.

 Jancoran wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

This seems to be a problem with the player you were facing, not their units. If I faced a person that was acting like rude and childish, I would not have a fun game regardless of whether they were using forgeworld, codex only, or my main rulebook only list.

You also mention that you are do not play regularly, so why does it surprise you that you are not familiar with every rule? I had to ask to look through the new Dark Angels book the first few times that I played against it and will need to review the new Tau rules before my next game. Codices are pushed so quickly that unless you devote an absurd amount of time to it, you can't be expected to have memorised everything. Imperial Armour novels would even be preferable if you want to be able to memorise every combination because their rules are more stable and they are published at a slower rate.

Please learn when to capitalise letters. It hurts to read your randomly capitalised words THAT you seem to ADD for emphasis in random locations.

 Eldarain wrote:
I would say this is the worst possible game for your example player to get into.

I don't see how Forge World is your information overload point when the game is at an unprecedented level of high speed releases and rules source bloat.

Forge World rules are currently the most stable and easy to keep appraised of part of the "core game"

Their choice to particpate is theirs. Not yours.

Ironically and totally off topic: Everyone and their mother kept saying "gosh GW should be more like Privateer Press and when a new edition comes out, they should get all the rules out a ton faster". For YEARS I heard this.

Then they did it. and nothing but complaining about rules bloat and other obscure, fairly meaningless terminology for what is essentially them TRYING to release everything as FAST as their company can for 7E AS REQUESTED!!! LOL

It's only been 16 months and already they have almost replaced all codexes! This is unprecedented for them by a very long ways. Off topic. But sense you bring it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the Signless wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

This seems to be a problem with the player you were facing, not their units. If I faced a person that was acting like rude and childish, I would not have a fun game regardless of whether they were using forgeworld, codex only, or my main rulebook only list.

You also mention that you are do not play regularly, so why does it surprise you that you are not familiar with every rule? I had to ask to look through the new Dark Angels book the first few times that I played against it and will need to review the new Tau rules before my next game. Codices are pushed so quickly that unless you devote an absurd amount of time to it, you can't be expected to have memorised everything. Imperial Armour novels would even be preferable if you want to be able to memorise every combination because their rules are more stable and they are published at a slower rate.

Please learn when to capitalise letters. It hurts to read your randomly capitalised words THAT you seem to ADD for emphasis in random locations.

Umm... Read that again. Lol. I think you're misunderstanding ewverything I typed. hehehe.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

GrafWattenburg wrote:

Would you know what a War Convocation could do? It's a White Dwarf formation which many people have never faced, yet it's incredibly, incredibly powerful and (imo) you need a lot of knowledge about its tricks to be able to beat it. .

First, I wasnt excuing the Convocation. Second, in our torunaments, we allow two detchments, three if one is a CAD, which as I SAID... stops the most broken issues from showing up. Banning Forge world isnt the extent of the work we do to stop broken things.

To be fair, if you're allowing more than one detachment, you can pretty much get away with the most abusive aspects of the game, you don't need 5 or 6 detachments to break it, 2 will do just find in most instances, particularly exploiting allies abilities, 3 tops. Most armies wouldn't have the points for many more detachments than two or three detachments anyways, especially if they want to take full advantage of their bonuses, unless you're getting into things like the Decurion where it's a detachment composed of other detachments and how do you sort out what at that point?

Its not compliacted. Look to our most recent tournament:

http://www.40kambassadors.com/index.php

The Tournament rules are there (Note: 0-1 Super Heavies is also a restriction now)

Each Detachment, whether it is inside of a Decurion style wrapper or not, counts as one. And as you can see in the actual Ambasadorial Forces section, the lists are there. Several Ambassadors used multiple formations.

Ok, so you're treating each sub-formation as it's own detachment, allright. That does knocks out some things, though many of the most powerful army builds are still very much possible within that freamwork (particularly Daemon deathstar, flyrant spam, and TWC-deathstar builds).

Honestly the most crazy list was a three Wraith Knight list. That won't be allowed in future tournaments (and generally wasnt anyways in other tournaments) but it was definitely the most difficult list.

Are you aware that even with the rules you have above, no FW, 0-1 sueprheavies, etc, you can still run Titans?

For some, its very literally the only tournament they choose to attend every year because while disenfranchised by the tournament scene in general, they find this one to be a place where fun is to be had and good Generals are rewarded not for their budget but for their skill.

And here we are, back to the ultimate point. We keep coming back to this. You keep bringing budget in, and additionally equating it with power, and despite that none of the big power units or formations comes from FW. The correlation you keep attempting to draw with FW simply does not exist and is not reflected in any results from any event that allows FW.

There's no merit to the idea that having more money to spend on FW is going to result in more wins, or that players that can afford to buy FW stuff (which is increasingly no different than any other GW stuff) are using some sort of "crutch" that takes away from needed "skill", yet you keep insisting upon it.

Hell, my "codex only" mech IG army would cost more to rebuild than my DKoK Assault Brigade list, just as a green-tide horde Ork army would cost more than either, with or without FW.

As I typed earlier, I have played in tournaments that allow this Forge World stuff. It did not hinder my chances. Again most recently, the Tyranid example I gave. Play what you wanna' play. But what you're going to buy. You're not a "bad person" for wanting to anymore than I'm a for not allowing it. But I am just being as expansive as i can in explaining why, since that was the thread.

And since you've inserted yourself and your events into the thread, people are going to point out the fundamental flaws in your reasoning.

Seemingly everyone wants to, at least, on the surface, agree that FW isn't overpowered. Nobody even wants to argue that their rules are particularly out of the realm of reason anymore either (at least nobody is responding to that point when I make it). Nobody seems to have issues with rules from other sources that aren't in the codex like Dataslates and Campaign books. Where's the problem with FW then?

 Jancoran wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I would say this is the worst possible game for your example player to get into.

I don't see how Forge World is your information overload point when the game is at an unprecedented level of high speed releases and rules source bloat.

Forge World rules are currently the most stable and easy to keep appraised of part of the "core game"

Their choice to particpate is theirs. Not yours.

Ironically and totally off topic: Everyone and their mother kept saying "gosh GW should be more like Privateer Press and when a new edition comes out, they should get all the rules out a ton faster". For YEARS I heard this.

Then they did it. and nothing but complaining about rules bloat and other obscure, fairly meaningless terminology for what is essentially them TRYING to release everything as FAST as their company can for 7E AS REQUESTED!!! LOL

It's only been 16 months and already they have almost replaced all codexes! This is unprecedented for them by a very long ways. Off topic. But sense you bring it up.

It's not really the raw speed of releases that are the problem. It's that there's very little structure or coherency behind it, and are pushing things through four or five different sales channels, with increasingly insane levels of power & expense across the board, with basically no organization, and are changing design philosophies about every 12-18 months before they can actually finish anything coupled with a total lack of rules support in the form of FAQ & Errata.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
I would say this is the worst possible game for your example player to get into.

I don't see how Forge World is your information overload point when the game is at an unprecedented level of high speed releases and rules source bloat.

Forge World rules are currently the most stable and easy to keep appraised of part of the "core game"

Their choice to particpate is theirs. Not yours.

Ironically and totally off topic: Everyone and their mother kept saying "gosh GW should be more like Privateer Press and when a new edition comes out, they should get all the rules out a ton faster". For YEARS I heard this.

Then they did it. and nothing but complaining about rules bloat and other obscure, fairly meaningless terminology for what is essentially them TRYING to release everything as FAST as their company can for 7E AS REQUESTED!!! LOL

It's only been 16 months and already they have almost replaced all codexes! This is unprecedented for them by a very long ways. Off topic. But sense you bring it up.

So not going to actually address anything I said? I should know better by now...

You are claiming it is no trouble to keep well informed about the releases GW prime puts out but FW is a bridge too far.

This doesn't hold up as there has been constant releases of new rules codexes almost every month (some which are replaced in under 2 years) and many supplementary sources including obscure WD, Online store exclusive, Advent calendar DLCs etc.

Forge World rules on the other hand go many years between updates with FaQs for edition changes being the only semi challenging aspect.

Your argument is deeply flawed.

 Vaktathi wrote:



And here we are, back to the ultimate point. We keep coming back to this. You keep bringing budget in, and additionally equating it with power, and despite that none of the big power units or formations comes from FW.

Its not a comparison. And I have tacitly separated the issue of power from the issue of cost and other issues. I have said repeatedly that the power is not the main or only consideration. It IS a consideration. Denyinfg that is completely disingenuous of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

It's not really the raw speed of releases that are the problem. It's that there's very little structure or coherency behind it, and are pushing things through four or five different sales channels, with increasingly insane levels of power & expense across the board, with basically no organization, and are changing design philosophies about every 12-18 months before they can actually finish anything coupled with a total lack of rules support in the form of FAQ & Errata.

This paragraph is so filled with glittering generalities I cant respond to it meaningfully. "little structure" and "Coherency" is way too vague, while it being through 5 different sales channel is immaterial to the discussion, "insane power levels" is a relative term and not entirely my view of things globally, "basically no organization" also is too vague and its only been 16 months since 7E so i mean... Most of this paragraph is just too difficult to respond to coherently.

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Did all of them say that reason they started playing again was because FW was banned? Did the majority? Did the majority of the people who came to vote on the matter vote on the ban?

Yes.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But if all of that is true that doesn't mean that banning FW is a good thing. It just means that the people who play where in your meta are misinformed.

Assuming the meta is misinformed because otherwise it invalidates your opinionated platform. Gotcha. God forbid anyone makes an informed decision to ban Forgeworld. That's like... unheard of.

It doesn't invalidate my platform. It's just strange that your group singles out FW above all else. Do you ban dataslates, supplements, Sisters of Battle and web bundle formations too?

 Eldarain wrote:

You are claiming it is no trouble to keep well informed about the releases GW prime puts out but FW is a bridge too far.

Ah... no. Again. Mischaracterizing = poor form. What I said was that the game WAS coming at us fast and furious and its a fire hose, yet you'd have players take second fire hose and attach it. I would not.

THAT is what, in fact, was said. What I love most is how you sugesst I said something irrational so that you can tell me how irrational that thing I never said is. Lol.

So lets try again, shall we? I'll answer any fair minded question you put to me. I ignore the ones wherein you do THIS.

 Jancoran wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

I don't understand this logic. I don't know the rules for Adepta Sororitas, Necrons or Orks so I would have to be introduced to them on the fly. Should my local tournament ban them too?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

3. The gentleman whose tournament experience soured him is revealed as a douchebag. He had ONE bad tactical error during the game? The guy was the nicest guy? HE WON?!?! And he still came away acting like a child who got tabled turn 2....?

."

ACTUALLY no. The tournament experience was recent and WASNT what soured me. It was just an example of how unpleasant it is to deal with an army whose rules you're being introduced to on the fly. I didn't make any errors that i can recall, He was nd is a very nice guy and no one acted like a child. I just didn't enjoy it.

Magnify this tenfold for someone who doesnt play three times week, like i do, doesnt win tournaments with regularity as i do and who may be trying to return to the game after a hiatus OR may be new and is collecting their first, possibly second force and learning all there is to know.

Mischaracterizing things is poor form sir. poor form indeed.

I don't understand this logic. I don't know the rules for Adepta Sororitas, Necrons or Orks so I would have to be introduced to them on the fly. Should my local tournament ban them too?

Nah. You should just keep acting obtuse instead.

No, explain it to me. Your platform is that "Players don't know the rules and will have a hard time adapting to them". Why do you assume your players know all of the units in all of the codices to the extent that they can adapt to them on the fly? If you don't assume that then your argument falls apart.

 Jancoran wrote:
Nah. You should just keep acting obtuse instead.

And yep, that's what you have to resort to. You can't answer the question because it would require admitting that your FW bans are arbitrary and make no sense.

 Jancoran wrote:
while it being through 5 different sales channel is immaterial to the discussion

If the use of different sales channels is irrelevant then why are you banning an entire class of rules based on nothing more than what sales channel they were sold through?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It doesn't invalidate my platform. It's just strange that your group singles out FW above all else. Do you ban dataslates, supplements, Sisters of Battle and web bundle formations too?

Democracy is strange. We disallow baby murder yet allow fetus abortions. It isn't your place to judge the group's decisions, only to cast your vote responsibly if you are a part of it. See pg 3 for the full list.

 Vaktathi wrote:
And since you've inserted yourself and your events into the thread, people are going to point out the fundamental flaws in your reasoning.

That'd be neat to see when entering a thread. Not just attacks and insults by people who have no factual arguments to make and claims that what we're doing is stupid based entirely on conjectured opinion. Which is the same basis for how our rules came about in the first place so.... the number one most used argument against us here is "My opinion is better than those of your entire community".

 Eldarain wrote:
So not going to actually address anything I said? I should know better by now...

And what did you say exactly? That this is a terrible game for a type of person? That you refuse FW as too much when GW is already too much? That FW is better than GW? I mean... what kind of response to that are you looking for? They're opinions, same as the one he's giving. You act like there will be less or about the same number of rules to learn by adding FW to the pile after acknowledging there's a ton of GW stuff being released already. If GW is already the source of information overload, why add more to the pile? Your logic would actually suggest that we BAN GAMES WORKSHOP and only play with Forgeworld. Yes yes, same company, we'll figure it out. Ban all of the Codices!

DISCLAIMER: FW rules being excessive are not the reason for my location's FW ban and these comments are purely in defense of the Pro-Choice movement.

 Arkaine wrote:
Your logic would actually suggest that we BAN GAMES WORKSHOP and only play with Forgeworld. Yes yes, same company, we'll figure it out. Ban all of the Codices!

Exactly. Any argument in favor of banning FW rules is even more effective as an argument for banning codex rules and only allowing FW rules. So really the anti-FW side has no argument at all beyond "I don't want to use it".

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No, explain it to me. Your platform is that "Players don't know the rules and will have a hard time adapting to them". Why do you assume your players know all of the units in all of the codices to the extent that they can adapt to them on the fly? If you don't assume that then your argument falls apart.

I didn't assume that so why are you suggesting I DID assume that?

I think a CLOSER restatement of my argument as i have already stated (Bricks: head. Head: bricks), is that there IS in fact a LOT for you to learn; and it's coming fast. New players already have enough on their plates as do returning ones, just trying to keep up to speed with THAT. Hell I'm a veteran of the game and I find it difficult, maybe because I have a life or something weird like that. So given that the core game includes these codeci, that's the MOST I want to inflict on them. I'm not saying that this on its own won't be challenging. I'm saying it absolutely will. That is the point. I personally lost my first eight games and the first 13 of 15 that I played. I know all about that fire hose. I've been there. Done that. Only my deep involvement with the hobby has made that less daunting, but even I cannot claim to be a master of all the codex's, and most would tell you that if there's one person who knows 40K, it's me. I certainly know it well enough to play in any tournament. =)

So THAT is closer to the mark than what you said.

So allow what you like. This discussion should have given you a lot to think about (if you were open to thinking about it and not just jumping the gun to express your own opinion) and you can take whatever parts of what I've said that makes sense and consider them. You could also be like the other sheeple and use ITC as is. Or make your own. Whatevs. I have no personal stake in your decision.

I'm going to keep growing the hobby in my area. If people like Forge World, there will be LOTS of players to play instead of the 6-8 we used to have.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:



And here we are, back to the ultimate point. We keep coming back to this. You keep bringing budget in, and additionally equating it with power, and despite that none of the big power units or formations comes from FW.

Its not a comparison. And I have tacitly separated the issue of power from the issue of cost and other issues. I have said repeatedly that the power is not the main or only consideration. It IS a consideration. Denyinfg that is completely disingenuous of course.

In regards to power, again, there's no evidence that FW has any noticable effect on tournament balance, but when you use a phrase like "good Generals are rewarded not for their budget but for their skill", it's incredibly disingenuous when all the evidence points to the contrary and is basically telling people who want to use FW stuff that they're using it as a power crutch.

What sorts of FW units would realistically cause any major balance issues, particularly any worse than what you can get from a codex or dataslate?

And again, if we're going into cost, rules costs are not that different anymore, often not different at all, while model costs are increasingly being matched and exceeded by GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

It's not really the raw speed of releases that are the problem. It's that there's very little structure or coherency behind it, and are pushing things through four or five different sales channels, with increasingly insane levels of power & expense across the board, with basically no organization, and are changing design philosophies about every 12-18 months before they can actually finish anything coupled with a total lack of rules support in the form of FAQ & Errata.

This paragraph is so filled with glittering generalities I cant respond to it meaningfully. "little structure" and "Coherency" is way too vague, while it being through 5 different sales channel is immaterial to the discussion, "insane power levels" is a relative term and not entirely my view of things globally, "basically no organization" also is too vague and its only been 16 months since 7E so i mean... Most of this paragraph is just too difficult to respond to coherently.

 Jancoran wrote:

GrafWattenburg wrote:

Would you know what a War Convocation could do? It's a White Dwarf formation which many people have never faced, yet it's incredibly, incredibly powerful and (imo) you need a lot of knowledge about its tricks to be able to beat it. .

First, I wasnt excuing the Convocation. Second, in our torunaments, we allow two detchments, three if one is a CAD, which as I SAID... stops the most broken issues from showing up. Banning Forge world isnt the extent of the work we do to stop broken things or unwanted things.

So the War Convocation and all the examples like it are also not awesome. And we have taken the step to disallow those. But you're talking about power...again. And I...again... reiterate that this isnt the only issue with Forge World. It isn't even THE issue. Because it takes ll of four seconds to come up with an example of something in forge World that isn't AS broken as X, Y, and Z. I get it. Ive sid I get it. So why are we STILL on that?

He's not talking about power. Its an example of uncommon rules, that just happen to be powerful.

(One of) You position is that forgeworld shouldn't be allowed because it is too difficult/time consuming/whatever for players to learn the rules.
Our counter is that the rules are ALREADY difficult/time consuming/whatever to learn, and adding Forgeworld doesn't add anything to the mix that doesn't already exist.
It is already very difficult to keep up with the sheer number of special rules available - and a large number of these rules come from non-codex sources. There are rules in White Dwarf, on Black Library, in Codex supplements, Campaign Supplements, in the box sets, and limited-edition GW-web-store-only rules.
Forgeworld rules are actually significantly easier to acquire than a number of these rules, because at least they are still in print! And you can reasonably expect Forgeworld to keep its rules the same for an extended period of time, compared to GW where a codex might be added to / replaced in less than a year!

There are new dataslates and codexes and formations being released every month. I still haven't played against the new Marine Codex despite how 'long' its been around: I'd need to take some time before a game to learn the rules and formations and still have the 'oh no how do I beat that' thoughts. I've never played against Sisters of Battle EVER, I haven't played against Blood Angels or Space Wolves since 4th edition, and I have only 2 games against Necrons this edition. Each of those I would need to take time to learn and possibly be surprised by their tricks. But that is part of the game.

Difficulty / time to learn the rules isn't (to me) an acceptable reason for banning Forgeworld, because GW's 'core' 'codex' rules are just as hard, if not much harder, to keep up with.

 Jancoran wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No, explain it to me. Your platform is that "Players don't know the rules and will have a hard time adapting to them". Why do you assume your players know all of the units in all of the codices to the extent that they can adapt to them on the fly? If you don't assume that then your argument falls apart.

I didn't assume that so why are you suggesting I DID assume that?

I think a CLOSER restatement of my argument as i have already stated (Bricks: head. Head: bricks), is that there IS in fact a LOT for you to learn; and it's coming fast. New players already have enough on their plates as do returning ones, just trying to keep up to speed with THAT. Hell I'm a veteran of the game and I find it difficult, maybe because I have a life or something weird like that. So given that the core game includes these codeci, that's the MOST I want to inflict on them. I'm not saying that this on its own won't be challenging. I'm saying it absolutely will. That is the point. I personally lost my first eight games and the first 13 of 15 that I played. I know all about that fire hose. I've been there. Done that. Only my deep involvement with the hobby has made that less daunting, but even I cannot claim to be a master of all the codex's, and most would tell you that if there's one person who knows 40K, it's me. I certainly know it well enough to play in any tournament. =)

So THAT is closer to the mark than what you said.

So allow what you like. This discussion should have given you a lot to think about (if you were open to thinking about it and not just jumping the gun to express your own opinion) and you can take whatever parts of what I've said that makes sense and consider them. You could also be like the other sheeple and use ITC as is. Or make your own. Whatevs. I have no personal stake in your decision.

I'm going to keep growing the hobby in my area. If people like Forge World, there will be LOTS of players to play instead of the 6-8 we used to have.

Games Workshop rule releases this past year: Tau Empire, Dark Angels, Clan Raukaan, Sentinels of Terra, Space Marines, Cult Mechanicus, Imperial Knights, Craftworld Eldar, Skitarii, Khorne Daemonkin, Harlequins, Necrons, Blood Angels, Haemonculus Covens, and Dark Eldar

Forgeworld rule releases this past year: The Horus Heresy Book Five: Tempest (The Horus Heresy series is a separate game system)

This does not take into account data slates, campaign supplements, white dwarf formation, or limited time formations that GW publishes or the experimental rules that Forgeworld writes. Please stop making this point. It is wrong.

You are still capitalising random words. Please stop, It hurts to try and read.

 Vaktathi wrote:
...it's hard to respond to that with anything other than "well the reasoning used by the community is wrong for the above reasons".

And yet, yours is the more reasonable reaction that apparently is rarer than an original copy of Bloodbowl. Additionally, it should end there rather than delving into how horrible our community is for using said rules.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why would I want to join your community? From the outside it looks like you're a bunch of TFGs, and I have no more interest in fighting people just to be allowed to play with my army. I'll just take my money elsewhere if a group insists on terrible rules like yours, and warn new players to avoid you.

Trasvi wrote:

He's not talking about power. Its an example of uncommon rules, that just happen to be powerful.

(One of) You position is that forgeworld shouldn't be allowed because it is too difficult/time consuming/whatever for players to learn the rules.
Our counter is that the rules are ALREADY difficult/time consuming/whatever to learn, and adding Forgeworld doesn't add anything to the mix that doesn't already exist.

Difficulty / time to learn the rules isn't (to me) an acceptable reason for banning Forgeworld, because GW's 'core' 'codex' rules are just as hard, if not much harder, to keep up with.

Ironic that your argument is the same as mine yet we do not conclude the same thing. Isn't that interesting? We agree on the underlying truth, yet...

I ALSO think the rules are coming fast and furious and what you are in effect going to end up with by allowing both... is two fire hoses instead of one. You're going to end up with people who feel they cannot compete and cannot afford to stay in the game. That's what you will have. I heard the grumblings when we allowed forge World. We did, by the way, in case you think otherwise. We did allow it a couple of times to see what would happen. Results were predictable. LOTS of unsmiling faces at the award ceremony. It was unfortunate. It wasn't even that they won. it was just the feeling of confusion and disadvantage that came with the matches involving those units. We encountered the same thing this year. We foolishly allowed more than one super heavy when we had always capped it. Predictable results. It isn't as if you can't see the problem coming. You can.

T.O.'s absolutely must institute composition into their rules. Its absolutely necessary. I do it. The ITC does it. And so on. For good reason. And yeah some people will not come because of it. And that is, as i have said, silly. The only person suffering then is them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
...it's hard to respond to that with anything other than "well the reasoning used by the community is wrong for the above reasons".

And yet, yours is the more reasonable reaction that apparently is rarer than an original copy of Bloodbowl. Additionally, it should end there rather than delving into how horrible our community is for using said rules.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why would I want to join your community? From the outside it looks like you're a bunch of TFGs, and I have no more interest in fighting people just to be allowed to play with my army. I'll just take my money elsewhere if a group insists on terrible rules like yours, and warn new players to avoid you.

Arkaine: I cant see peregrines messages. Hehehe. and he can keep his money, s can anyone whose going to dramatize what a "big deal it is" to have to use something else to fill that gap in their army. Short of someone having nothing but one army, which happens to be Forge World... this kinda falls on def ears. "Making a point" is fine. I am sure someone wants the prizes.

 Jancoran wrote:
Arkaine: I cant see peregrines messages. Hehehe. and he can keep his money, s can anyone whose going to dramatize what a "big deal it is" to have to use something else to fill that gap in their army. Short of someone having nothing but one army, which happens to be Forge World... this kinda falls on def ears. "Making a point" is fine. I am sure someone wants the prizes.

And guess what: that's exactly what I have. I CAN NOT PLAY A 1750-2000 POINT ARMY WITHOUT FW RULES. So you can try to pretend that this is just a hypothetical situation, but the simple fact is that it would cost hundreds to thousands of dollars to build a legal army just to comply with one person's version of 40k. Unless you want to buy those models for me and pay to have them commission painted to the standard of the rest of my army you can stop trying to pretend that it's no big deal to just bring a non-FW army.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
...it's hard to respond to that with anything other than "well the reasoning used by the community is wrong for the above reasons".

And yet, yours is the more reasonable reaction that apparently is rarer than an original copy of Bloodbowl. Additionally, it should end there rather than delving into how horrible our community is for using said rules.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why would I want to join your community? From the outside it looks like you're a bunch of TFGs, and I have no more interest in fighting people just to be allowed to play with my army. I'll just take my money elsewhere if a group insists on terrible rules like yours, and warn new players to avoid you.

Well, I can't speak for others, I can only speak for myself, I try not to generally come off and call an entire gaming group names and other such things, though I also realize I am by no means perfect and probably come off as a raging donkey-cave other times, but this topic also seems to rouse particularly fierce passions.

 Jancoran wrote:
So given that the core game includes these codeci, that's the MOST I want to inflict on them.

And, once again, there is no such thing as a "core game". It's a myth invented by people like you, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the game published by GW.

Indeed, the concept of a "core" game is both outdated and completely nonsensical with the way GW presents 40k at this point.

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
It doesn't invalidate my platform. It's just strange that your group singles out FW above all else. Do you ban dataslates, supplements, Sisters of Battle and web bundle formations too?

Democracy is strange. We disallow baby murder yet allow fetus abortions. It isn't your place to judge the group's decisions, only to cast your vote responsibly if you are a part of it. See pg 3 for the full list.

[

No, but I can offer criticism and why I disagree with it. I think your group unfairly discriminates against FW rules. GW units can be just as expensive and many are catching up in price so... I don't really think that banning it saves the player money in that he doesn't feel pressured to buy Resin models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No, explain it to me. Your platform is that "Players don't know the rules and will have a hard time adapting to them". Why do you assume your players know all of the units in all of the codices to the extent that they can adapt to them on the fly? If you don't assume that then your argument falls apart.

I didn't assume that so why are you suggesting I DID assume that?

Because if you didn't your argument wouldn't have legs to stand on.

I think a CLOSER restatement of my argument as i have already stated (Bricks: head. Head: bricks), is that there IS in fact a LOT for you to learn; and it's coming fast. New players already have enough on their plates as do returning ones, just trying to keep up to speed with THAT. Hell I'm a veteran of the game and I find it difficult, maybe because I have a life or something weird like that. So given that the core game includes these codeci, that's the MOST I want to inflict on them. I'm not saying that this on its own won't be challenging. I'm saying it absolutely will. That is the point. I personally lost my first eight games and the first 13 of 15 that I played. I know all about that fire hose. I've been there. Done that. Only my deep involvement with the hobby has made that less daunting, but even I cannot claim to be a master of all the codex's, and most would tell you that if there's one person who knows 40K, it's me. I certainly know it well enough to play in any tournament. =)

There is no core game. The idea of Codices+Expansions died a long time ago. IA books are every bit a part of 40k as Codices are. 40k is a confusing mess of allies, detatchments, formations, dataslates, e-codices and more. Banning IA units won't do much to alleviate the struggle of a player who wants to know about the state of the game.

Besides, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By banning FW you create a paradigm where no one can learn the rules. You ban FW because people aren't familiar with the rules.

So THAT is closer to the mark than what you said.

So allow what you like. This discussion should have given you a lot to think about (if you were open to thinking about it and not just jumping the gun to express your own opinion) and you can take whatever parts of what I've said that makes sense and consider them. You could also be like the other sheeple and use ITC as is. Or make your own. Whatevs. I have no personal stake in your decision.

I'm going to keep growing the hobby in my area. If people like Forge World, there will be LOTS of players to play instead of the 6-8 we used to have.

Well, I thought that the "To FW or not to FW" debate died in 6th ed before this thread. I didn't know it was still such a contentious issue and it's made me ponder why it is so contentious.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
No, but I can offer criticism and why I disagree with it. I think your group unfairly discriminates against FW rules. GW units can be just as expensive and many are catching up in price so... I don't really think that banning it saves the player money in that he doesn't feel pressured to buy Resin models.

You're welcome to your viewpoint and it's difficult to argue whether it saves money or not, as dealing with a hypothetical can be tricky. GW+FW vs GW alone, a decision had to be made and that just happened to be the most popular one. But I would disagree with your stance that we unfairly discriminate. Indeed, we fairly discriminate against FW rules. Due process and player voting and all that! It might seem unfair to someone new, but they're welcome to proposition its reinstatement and vote on it too. The subject comes up often enough and event rules are listed well in advance if anyone wants to contest them. In fact, our recent 1000pt tourney had someone argue that Flyers should be put on the ban list for that event to cut down on the amount of AA he would have to bring in his list. The vote went up and it was 27 for, 8 against, Flyers banned for the event. We've even had a guy try to push for disallowing Eldar in tournaments. He's never succeeded in getting the vote numbers though.

Funny, couldn't take part in that 1000 pts event, since I need a flyer to hit 1k pts on my Scion army and the other army I have is a DKoK Siege/Assault Brigade list.

The Tyranid player felt it too, being unable to bring a flying Hive Tyrant. The rule that gets me the most is when special characters are banned, usually for 500 pt battles. No Ahriman means no troop choice Sons because feth being a Tzeentch sorcerer.

 Arkaine wrote:
The Tyranid player felt it too, being unable to bring a flying Hive Tyrant. The rule that gets me the most is when special characters are banned, usually for 500 pt battles. No Ahriman means no troop choice Sons because feth being a Tzeentch sorcerer.

So why do you keep including such horrible rules in your events?

 Jancoran wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

He's not talking about power. Its an example of uncommon rules, that just happen to be powerful.

(One of) You position is that forgeworld shouldn't be allowed because it is too difficult/time consuming/whatever for players to learn the rules.
Our counter is that the rules are ALREADY difficult/time consuming/whatever to learn, and adding Forgeworld doesn't add anything to the mix that doesn't already exist.

Difficulty / time to learn the rules isn't (to me) an acceptable reason for banning Forgeworld, because GW's 'core' 'codex' rules are just as hard, if not much harder, to keep up with.

Ironic that your argument is the same as mine yet we do not conclude the same thing. Isn't that interesting? We agree on the underlying truth, yet...

I ALSO think the rules are coming fast and furious and what you are in effect going to end up with by allowing both... is two fire hoses instead of one. You're going to end up with people who feel they cannot compete and cannot afford to stay in the game. That's what you will have. I heard the grumblings when we allowed forge World. We did, by the way, in case you think otherwise. We did allow it a couple of times to see what would happen. Results were predictable. LOTS of unsmiling faces at the award ceremony. It was unfortunate. It wasn't even that they won. it was just the feeling of confusion and disadvantage that came with the matches involving those units. We encountered the same thing this year. We foolishly allowed more than one super heavy when we had always capped it. Predictable results. It isn't as if you can't see the problem coming. You can.

T.O.'s absolutely must institute composition into their rules. Its absolutely necessary. I do it. The ITC does it. And so on. For good reason. And yeah some people will not come because of it. And that is, as i have said, silly. The only person suffering then is them..

Between all the different ways that GW is releasing rules, there are already 3 'Fire Hoses' on at full pressure; adding in the 'Garden Hose' of Forge World releasing a book every six months or so really shouldn't be an issue.

If people feel they 'cannot afford to stay in the game'... that isn't something restricted to Forge World, by a long shot. In fact its completely orthogonal to your inclusion of Forge World. Forge World releases new models, units and factions at a VASTLY slower pace than GW does. None of these are required models for any factions (and in fact are explicitly restricted from most formations). GW on the other hand is consistently releasing new models and formations, constantly mixing up the Force Org chart and min/max unit sizes. They're the ones that turned Imperial Knights to Lords of War (thus banning them from a lot of tournaments) and Wraithknights from plain-old MC's to LoW GMC's (thus banning them from a lot of tournaments). They're the ones that invalidate supplements and move previous Troops to Elites, invalidating people's entire armies and requiring them to essentially re-purchase the entire faction.
(and the expense argument is kind of funny as, in Australia, its cheaper to buy Death Korp minis from ForgeWorld and get them shipped from England than Cadians from GW down the road).

If people feel they 'cannot compete'... again, that's something compeltely orthogonal to your inclusion of Forge World. The majority of Forge World items are either already excluded from normal 40k games (being 'Apocalypse only', or '30k only') or have their rules published in GW Escalation already. THIS is the power argument, and it should be blindingly apparent that 95% of normal 40k units and formations are leagues ahead of any Forge World units. Even when you restrict it to 'CAD only', factions like Daemons, Necrons, Marines or Eldar perform exceptionally well with just their main codex. There are very few 'must-have' forgeworld units, and they are completely outclassed by the 'must-have' 40k units like Scatterbikes and Wraithknights in 'normal' codexes.

If people don't like multiple Super Heavies... then you could ban super heavies but allow non-super-heavies from Forge World. Or you could go have a look at the resident super-heavy-only Codex Imperial Knights, or the completely battleforged 5-Wraithknight codex.

I don't come to the same conclusion as you because all of your arguments for restricting Forge World apply better to restricting core GW rules. Everything Forgeworld does badly, GW does five times worse and five times as often.

About the only legitimate argument for banning Forgeworld is "the players who attend my events have an irrational dislike of Forgeworld, and as much as I disagree I must appease them".

 TheCustomLime wrote:


No, but I can offer criticism and why I disagree with it. I think your group unfairly discriminates against FW...

There is no core game... T

You ban FW because people aren't familiar with the rules.

Well, I thought that the "To FW or not to FW" debate died in 6th ed before this thread. I didn't know it was still such a contentious issue and it's made me ponder why it is so contentious.

All hyperbole. we dont "discriminate". Using loaded words is the sign of someone who has no argument. Gimme a break.

We dont "BAN" what you call "FW people" (if thats even a thing). We just tell them to bring something else when they show up. and they do. it's not as if no one here owns forge World et al. LOTS of them do.

and you "thought" it died in 6E for no good reason, since your "thought" ignores the evidence we have in this very thread of the continuing debate. Lol.

It is contentious only in your mind. in my mind, it is a simple matter of caring about growing the hobby more and caring about indulging this less. So as was said, no one has an enormous boner for screwing over Forge world players. That's really not the sentiment that anyone on this thread has expressed, ever. So chill with the "cries of "Dixcrimination! and "Banning!" and so on. It's done purely for the betterment of the overall tournament goers experience. And...as was said... Run tournaments if you're this keen on it. it pays great.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:

We've even had a guy try to push for disallowing Eldar in tournaments. He's never succeeded in getting the vote numbers though.

Hilarity.

 Jancoran wrote:


We dont "BAN" what you call "FW people" (if thats even a thing). We just tell them to bring something else when they show up

Its certainly a thing, personally, I'd be stuck at playing 1k points game only, with a single army.

Trasvi wrote:

Between all the different ways that GW is releasing rules, there are already 3 'Fire Hoses' on at full pressure; adding in the 'Garden Hose' of Forge World releasing a book every six months or so really shouldn't be an issue.

If people feel they 'cannot afford to stay in the game'... that isn't something restricted to Forge World, by a long shot.

If people feel they 'cannot compete'... again, that's something compeltely orthogonal to your inclusion of Forge World.

If people don't like multiple Super Heavies... then you could ban super heavies but allow non-super-heavies from Forge World. Or you could go have a look at the resident super-heavy-only Codex Imperial Knights, or the completely battleforged 5-Wraithknight codex.

I don't come to the same conclusion as you because all of your arguments for restricting Forge World apply better to restricting core GW rules. .

Hehehe. SHOULD isn't an argument. So I wont comment on this first point. Reality trumps "should" 9 times out of nine. And restricting GW units is happening IN ADDITION so I'll ignore this last point also.

Second point: it is immaterial whether its restricted to forge World or not. It is in fact a cost driver we don't wish to inflict in order to keep up with the Jones's.

Third, Competing IS an issue, so saying otherwise is...odd. But whatever. That is immaterial also because even if there were a universe in which Forge World units offered no advantages worth mentioning (which is a load of dingo's kidneys if you ask me) You still are making the game that much more difficult to anticipate and grasp. You're STILL attaching the fire hose which you cannot deny.

On your fourth point here: Your mixing debates there. the issue is simply that Super Heavies as a class MUST be limited because of two factors: unequal access to them being the most obvious (though I know your argument would of course be "and thats where Forge World steps in to fill the gap, to which I reply YES but then the people with unequal access must pay twice as much for the counter which i a big deal actually) and frankly, Super heavies are just too few points in many cases. I think the only really well pointed Super heavy I've seen is the Obelisk. that is a Super heavy that is beefy enough to earn its name but sort of sits just bout right in my opnion on cost. There is a reason someone takes three Wraith Knights though. and its not to be friendly. Its to win. Thats the case whether its Forge World or not so a limitation is appropriate regardless of source on that.

What it comes down to on this is you seem perfectly okay with banning or limiting some stuff. Yet when it HAPPENS to be your forge World, suddenly you're not. Odd that. You'd ban a War Convocation would you? If you were T.O. and you knew the War Convocation was set to WALK all over every army there with about a thousand extra points of whatevs just cause: War Convocation... You'd be okay with putting some controls on that? Yes? no? So it is with Forge World. Some is under powered. Some overpowered. No one takes the over costed ones as a rule. Just like the codex's. So basically just the really powerful ones get used. And just like the Codex's, we need composition as part of the rules to keep the parity we want in our tournaments. So we say No Forge World because no one is gonna take the weak stuff anyways (and lets not encourage a lamb to its slaughter even if they would like to very willingly) and then we say no to the overpowered Forge World all in one fell swoop which then saves everyone money, avoids the angst of spending your entire round going "What? It does WHAT? i thought you said..." and it also gives all the newer players and the returners a good experience that they will want to repeat. Lst step: put a control on the really broken regular GW stuff, understanding that is the basis of the game and cant be negated altogether.

If those don't sound like positive outcomes to you.. well.. Then...

 Jancoran wrote:
You're STILL attaching the fire hose which you cannot deny.

No, you're attaching a small trickle of additional rules to the fire hose you already have. Complaining about a few additional FW rules when no-FW 40k already has so much to keep track of is just insanity.

You'd ban a War Convocation would you? If you were T.O. and you knew the War Convocation was set to WALK all over every army there with about a thousand extra points of whatevs just cause: War Convocation... You'd be okay with putting some controls on that? Yes? no? So it is with Forge World.

That's not at all the same. Banning a single overpowered formation is a carefully-targeted rule change that minimizes the number of people who have their stuff banned. The equivalent to a blanket ban on FW rules would be declaring that, since this one formation is overpowered, ALL formations are banned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:
If those don't sound like positive outcomes to you.. well.. Then...

It only sounds like a positive outcome because you're ignoring the people who don't have legal armies for your personal version of 40k and don't show up at all. But I guess it's fine to exclude people like me from tournaments as long as your little clique doesn't have to suffer the burden of learning how the game works.

 Jancoran wrote:
[

Second point: it is immaterial whether its restricted to forge World or not. It is in fact a cost driver we don't wish to inflict in order to keep up with the Jones's.

How exactly is it a cost driver, especially one that merits this sort of treatment, particularly any moreso than a grip of other things you *don't* ban? Like dataslates, campaign books, etc.

People aren't *forced* to buy every FW book just to compete, just as they aren't *forced* to buy every codex or dataslate or supplement, just the ones they might want to use, and their opponents can get read the rules they same way they might with a codex they're not familiar with or a new datalslate.

With codex books at $50-60 now, their cost overlaps with FW books rather than being a fraction of the cost. and practically nobody buys all the books anymore the way they used to in previous editions.

This "keeping up with the joneses" idea has no merit to it, its your own invention, especially when FW books tend to come out at a relatively slow pace and stick around for a good while.

Third, Competing IS an issue, so saying otherwise is...odd. But whatever. That is immaterial also because even if there were a universe in which Forge World units offered no advantages worth mentioning (which is a load of dingo's kidneys if you ask me) You still are making the game that much more difficult to anticipate and grasp. You're STILL attaching the fire hose which you cannot deny.

And, superheavies/GC's aside, what units are going to be any bigger issues than what they're already going to face from codex books, and how are they going to require extraordinary adaptations they don't already have to anticipate in the current metagame?

Lets also not forget the many units that FW basically acts as a lifeline for, units which once were codex units that GW simply decided not to continue to produce them anymore (usually because they're metal or metal hybrid kits) like Griffons and Rapier Laser destroyers.

On your fourth point here: Your mixing debates there. the issue is simply that Super Heavies as a class MUST be limited because of two factors: unequal access to them being the most obvious (though I know your argument would of course be "and thats where Forge World steps in to fill the gap, to which I reply YES but then the people with unequal access must pay twice as much for the counter which i a big deal actually) and frankly, Super heavies are just too few points in many cases. I think the only really well pointed Super heavy I've seen is the Obelisk. that is a Super heavy that is beefy enough to earn its name but sort of sits just bout right in my opnion on cost. There is a reason someone takes three Wraith Knights though. and its not to be friendly. Its to win. Thats the case whether its Forge World or not so a limitation is appropriate regardless of source on that.

What it comes down to on this is you seem perfectly okay with banning or limiting some stuff. Yet when it HAPPENS to be your forge World, suddenly you're not. Odd that.

Because you're banning an absurdly gigantic array of things and multiple armies to boot. It's not the fact that you're drawing a line, it's that you're drawing an absurdly over-encompassing line.

Want to ban Lynxes? Tau'nars? Scorpions? Brass Scorpions? People would be fine with that. Pick out the things you think are truly egregious and most people will probably be fine with that. But when you say "no anything from Forgeworld, sorry, that includes your Leman Russ Annihilator, Decimator Daemon engine, Sonic Dread, DKoK armies, Reapiers, etc just so we can get rid of the handful of things we don't like!".

Even doing something like banning all formations doesn't prevent people from using gargantuan numbers of models or fielding entire armies.

 Jancoran wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

Between all the different ways that GW is releasing rules, there are already 3 'Fire Hoses' on at full pressure; adding in the 'Garden Hose' of Forge World releasing a book every six months or so really shouldn't be an issue.

If people feel they 'cannot afford to stay in the game'... that isn't something restricted to Forge World, by a long shot.

If people feel they 'cannot compete'... again, that's something compeltely orthogonal to your inclusion of Forge World.

If people don't like multiple Super Heavies... then you could ban super heavies but allow non-super-heavies from Forge World. Or you could go have a look at the resident super-heavy-only Codex Imperial Knights, or the completely battleforged 5-Wraithknight codex.

I don't come to the same conclusion as you because all of your arguments for restricting Forge World apply better to restricting core GW rules. .

Hehehe. SHOULD isn't an argument. So I wont comment on this first point. Reality trumps "should" 9 times out of nine. And restricting GW units is happening IN ADDITION so I'll ignore this last point also.

"LOGIC isn't an argument. So I wont comment on this first point. Stubbornness trumps "logic" 9 times out of nine. "
That's what you're saying. And its sure, if your players have an irrational dislike of Forgeworld then you might have to cater for them. But don't pretend its anything more than being irrational.

Second point: it is immaterial whether its restricted to forge World or not. It is in fact a cost driver we don't wish to inflict in order to keep up with the Jones's.

If players want to stay up-to-date with the latest-and-greatest, its going to cost them money. It isn't the case that core-GW products require less spending/keeping up with. In fact, it is far more often the case that GW stuff costs MORE. So banning Forge World on the premise that its going to save you / your players money doesn't make sense. If that were truly the reason, you'd ban GW books and keep forge world. Or you'd restrict everyone to their 3rd ed codexes and 3rd ed rulebook because that ensures that nothing will change.

Third, Competing IS an issue, so saying otherwise is...odd. But whatever. That is immaterial also because even if there were a universe in which Forge World units offered no advantages worth mentioning (which is a load of dingo's kidneys if you ask me) You still are making the game that much more difficult to anticipate and grasp. You're STILL attaching the fire hose which you cannot deny.

If your players can't grasp the special rules of Forge World units they certainly cannot grasp the core-GW rules.
You might have an argument IF every player was intimately familiar with all the current codices, dataslates, formations and campaign supplements. Given that is extremely unlikely to be the case as core-GW is releasing new rules/models with alacrity, it doesn't make sense to ban models whose rules haven't changed signficiantly/at all in 5 years on account of them being too difficult to grasp.
A new Tau codex is being released in a few short days. At even the most stringent tournaments I'm expected to be able to play against that within a month of it being released, possibly never having seen it before and having opponents have to explain a ton of quite complicated formation rules. Yet you're blanket-banning the entire of Forgeworld, the vast majority of which which can be most easily described as 'they're Guardsmen but worse' or 'its a Leman Russ with a different turret'. There's nothing along the lines of 'if you kill this unit then all of my reserves arrive on turn 2 and get relentless and can charge from deep strike. And if 3 of them are next to each other they get +1 BS and if they all fire at the same unit they get +1BS. But not THOSE 3 seemingly identical models, they get Monster Hunter instead.'
Simply put, unfamiliarity is not an excuse because EVERYONE is going to be unfamiliar with something, and GW puts out unfamiliar rules far more often than FW does.

On your fourth point here: Your mixing debates there. the issue is simply that Super Heavies as a class MUST be limited because of two factors: unequal access to them being the most obvious (though I know your argument would of course be "and thats where Forge World steps in to fill the gap, to which I reply YES but then the people with unequal access must pay twice as much for the counter which i a big deal actually) and frankly, Super heavies are just too few points in many cases. I think the only really well pointed Super heavy I've seen is the Obelisk. that is a Super heavy that is beefy enough to earn its name but sort of sits just bout right in my opnion on cost. There is a reason someone takes three Wraith Knights though. and its not to be friendly. Its to win. Thats the case whether its Forge World or not so a limitation is appropriate regardless of source on that.

Ok. So what?
That applies equally to Forge World and to GW codexes. If you don't like superheavies, then ban superheavies equally across all the ways you can take them (Forgeworld and Codex) but allow players to bring their Death Korp. Its not that hard.

What it comes down to on this is you seem perfectly okay with banning or limiting some stuff. Yet when it HAPPENS to be your forge World, suddenly you're not. Odd that.

I don't own a single Forgeworld model. I play a single-CAD Daemons list that uses absolutely NOTHING outside of the Daemons codex and the core rulebook. No dataslates, no allies, no fortifications, no nothing.

You'd ban a War Convocation would you? If you were T.O. and you knew the War Convocation was set to WALK all over every army there with about a thousand extra points of whatevs just cause: War Convocation... You'd be okay with putting some controls on that? Yes? no?

If I were TO (and I am) then I would use targetted bans and restrictions that limit known problems. Ie, the ITC style where some Forgeworld is allowed but not others, where some formations are allowed but not others, where specific psychic powers are nerfed but not others...

So it is with Forge World. Some is under powered. Some overpowered. No one takes the over costed ones as a rule. Just like the codex's. So basically just the really powerful ones get used. And just like the Codex's, we need composition as part of the rules to keep the parity we want in our tournaments. So we say No Forge World because no one is gonna take the weak stuff anyways (and lets not encourage a lamb to its slaughter even if they would like to very willingly) and then we say no to the overpowered Forge World all in one fell swoop which then saves everyone money, avoids the angst of spending your entire round going "What? It does WHAT? i thought you said..." and it also gives all the newer players and the returners a good experience that they will want to repeat. Lst step: put a control on the really broken regular GW stuff, understanding that is the basis of the game and cant be negated altogether.

...Are you listening to yourself?
Applying your logic, you should be banning EVERYTHING out of ALL codexes because people are only going to take the powerful stuff.
No hyperbole. That is literally where your reasoning leads.
If instead you're going to put targetted restrictions against known problem 'core'-40k units... why can't you use those same targetted restrictions against Forgeworld units??

I spend far more time going 'what what?' against NORMAL GW codexes, because all the new ones have formations released yesterday that I've never seen before.

We had a tournament a while back run by our local gaming club which has regular attendance of at least twenty people. For the tournament, the TO blanket banned FW.

As a result of this, only four people showed up, three of whom were the guys that ran the club.

It's admirable that people are trying to keep the competitive 40K scene going, but for me no comp is going to save that mess of a ruleset.

What is hilarious though is the banning of Forgeworld for cost/rules issues in the age of Apocalypse 40K.

Ironically the most balanced and tournament friendly ruleset that GW produces is the Forge World Horus Heresy rules. Shame more tournaments don't run that instead of trying to 'fix' 40K

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
The people who DECIDED that a Forge World restriction was a deal breaker missed out on a big haul and that's a shame.

I see. So not spending hundreds to thousands of dollars to buy a new army because my existing one isn't legal under your house rules is "deciding not to play"? No amount of trying to present it as pro-FW people voluntarily missing out on fun and prizes is going to change the fact that you are openly saying "you are not welcome here" to people who don't have armies that comply with your personal version of 40k.

This^

Wow.

I have no words for the travesty that is people banning Forge World.

I would be unable to participate in their events, as my only armies are 30k Mechanicum and Armored Battlegroup.

The fact that this is going on only reinforces to me the correlation between obstinacy and ignorance.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow.

I have no words for the travesty that is people banning Forge World.

I would be unable to participate in their events, as my only armies are 30k Mechanicum and Armored Battlegroup.

The fact that this is going on only reinforces to me the correlation between obstinacy and ignorance.

You realize you can't use your FW/GW army as you sadly glance over and see someone using their "core" game army list of 5 Wraith Knights.

This reminds me of TFG that I ran into back when I still played 40k sometime between 3rd and 4th edition. I've got Imperial Guard with some Imperial Armor support with a Leman Russ Vanquisher and Leman Russ Exterminator. Nothing fancy, just stuff that was previously available in the 3rd ed guard codex. He's got Tau with stuff from the Taros book including the battlesuit commander (R'ymyr?) and some sort of fast attack (Piranha/Tetra?).

Before the game starts, I call his attention to my tanks, explaining how they're different and describing the Vanquisher cannon. No complaints. Then turn 1, after my Vanquisher takes out a Hammerhead at long range and the Exterminator shreds a Fire Warrior squad, the whinging about how overpowered FW stuff is and how I shouldn't be bringing it. This is a guy who has been smack talking about how hot the Tau FW, but he brought an army built to kill Space Marines, so my army is broken because it wasn't what he built to fight against even though this was a pre-planned game.

Needless to say, I explicitly avoided playing with the guy again outside of random tournament matchups.

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Did all of them say that reason they started playing again was because FW was banned? Did the majority? Did the majority of the people who came to vote on the matter vote on the ban?

Yes.

Arkaine,

It sounds like your group knows what it wants and is fully supporting your tournaments.

I may not agree with it, but I don't play there and it's not my business. Good for you guys. Keep on, keeping on.

 Jancoran wrote:


If it wasnt core to the game, you'd have a point. But anyone who doesnt want to do that much is probably not going to tournaments anyways. So there's that.

Define 'core to the game'.

Be sure to include a source, I am not interested in fanfiction.

 Vaktathi wrote:


Because you're banning an absurdly gigantic array of things and multiple armies to boot. It's not the fact that you're drawing a line, it's that you're drawing an absurdly over-encompassing line.

Want to ban Lynxes? Tau'nars? Scorpions? Brass Scorpions? People would be fine with that. Pick out the things you think are truly egregious and most people will probably be fine with that. But when you say "no anything from Forgeworld, sorry, that includes your Leman Russ Annihilator, Decimator Daemon engine, Sonic Dread, DKoK armies, Reapiers, etc just so we can get rid of the handful of things we don't like!".

Even doing something like banning all formations doesn't prevent people from using gargantuan numbers of models or fielding entire armies.

"People would be fine with that" is an indicator to me that you understand on some level the need for balance. yet despite your understanding of the need for it, you don't include economic balance amongst those virtues you defend. You seem to think that there should be a line. So to me its just a simple matter of a difference of opinion where.

Okay fine. We disagree where it's drawn. Cool. At least we agree that there is a need to DRAw the line. It is unfortunate that we dont agree where but thats not going to get solved here.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:


if your players have an irrational dislike of Forgeworld then you might have to cater for them. But don't pretend its anything more than being irrational.

If players want to stay up-to-date with the latest-and-greatest, its going to cost them money. It isn't the case that core-GW products require less spending/keeping up with.

If your players can't grasp the special rules of Forge World units they certainly cannot grasp the core-GW rules... Simply put, unfamiliarity is not an excuse because EVERYONE is going to be unfamiliar with something, and GW puts out unfamiliar rules far more often than FW does.

If I were TO (and I am) then I would use targetted bans and restrictions that limit known problems. Ie, the ITC style where some Forgeworld is allowed but not others, where some formations are allowed but not others, where specific psychic powers are nerfed but not others...

...Are you listening to yourself?
Applying your logic, you should be banning EVERYTHING out of ALL codexes because people are only going to take the powerful stuff.
No hyperbole. That is literally where your reasoning leads.

You are intentionally missing the point and mincing words. Let me help you with that. First, restating my point in parody isn't an argument. So we';ll just ignore that. Because what I said is what you get to argue against, Nothing else.

"Irrational" is another loaded word with no agreement behind it so we will ignore that

We agree that it costs them money to keep up with the core game, and time. This is the price of entry. There is no one on the forum who can really change that. it is a lot. We've all agreed. So you're just beating a dead horse by pointing it out, yet again.

But then you make the error Ive been trying to explain to you: you use comparative statements like "more/less than" to describe GW vs. FW. and you just dont seem to understand that its additive. You just dont seem to grasp that the amounts arent BEING compared. They are being ADDED. And when you ADD the sum total of what COULD be known about 40K and could spend on it and the amount that COULD be known about Forge World and could be spent on it... and add the time spent EXPERIENCING both being added together to get good against it... You start to see how much that really is.

If you want to argue that practicing against this stuff isnt necessary, I will just shut you down right there. If you want to argue that synergies dont exist that you must see in order to really appreciate, then we're done talking because youre full of it if thats what you're selling. But if you want to agree that those two things are true then i think its pretty damn evident that you are going to force the financial and time expenditure issues for players ot go to tourney and be effective. There is enough as it is without adding that, and that's been agreed to here again and again.

So you must stop comparing them and understand its the cumulative total of it all that just drives people away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozocrone wrote:
We had a tournament a while back run by our local gaming club which has regular attendance of at least twenty people. For the tournament, the TO blanket banned FW.

As a result of this, only four people showed up, three of whom were the guys that ran the club.

Yup. That could happen when someone wants to make a point instead of have fun. Which is their call. Nothing wrong with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
The people who DECIDED that a Forge World restriction was a deal breaker missed out on a big haul and that's a shame.

I see. So not spending hundreds to thousands of dollars to buy a new army because my existing one isn't legal under your house rules is "deciding not to play"? No amount of trying to present it as pro-FW people voluntarily missing out on fun and prizes is going to change the fact that you are openly saying "you are not welcome here" to people who don't have armies that comply with your personal version of 40k.

This^

That is as simple minded as it gets. spend your money how you like. No ones stopping you. and when you play in my tournament, you'll get to have fun with the models out of that "hundreds of thouands" that dot say Forge World. Unless you're an unplasant, unhappy prson who would rather take his ball and leave. Which suits me fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow.

I have no words for the travesty that is people banning Forge World.

I would be unable to participate in their events, as my only armies are 30k Mechanicum and Armored Battlegroup.

The fact that this is going on only reinforces to me the correlation between obstinacy and ignorance.

I looooove hyprbole.

If that's your only army then yeah. You wont have an option. You're the exception to the rule though. Most people have an army. Most are smart enough to build one without Forge World stuff. But if thats all you choose to own, then yeah. You'd be left out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow.

I have no words for the travesty that is people banning Forge World.

I would be unable to participate in their events, as my only armies are 30k Mechanicum and Armored Battlegroup.

The fact that this is going on only reinforces to me the correlation between obstinacy and ignorance.

You realize you can't use your FW/GW army as you sadly glance over and see someone using their "core" game army list of 5 Wraith Knights.

Assuming they were allowed. Sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


If it wasnt core to the game, you'd have a point. But anyone who doesnt want to do that much is probably not going to tournaments anyways. So there's that.

Define 'core to the game'.

Be sure to include a source, I am not interested in fanfiction.

I'm pretty sure I did this already. The codex's and the main rulebook. Thats the core. We've typically allowed the Campaign setting stuff as well, since GW uses it like Prestige Classes in 3.X D&D to sell their books. Quite annoying. I am happy that they arent doing that with the Tau Codex and are including the Campaign stuff i nthe Codex. It appears they've wised up on that? Hope to see more of that in the future.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow.

I have no words for the travesty that is people banning Forge World.

I would be unable to participate in their events, as my only armies are 30k Mechanicum and Armored Battlegroup.

The fact that this is going on only reinforces to me the correlation between obstinacy and ignorance.

I looooove hyprbole.

If that's your only army then yeah. You wont have an option. You're the exception to the rule though. Most people have an army. Most are smart enough to build one without Forge World stuff. But if thats all you choose to own, then yeah. You'd be left out.

What's the red part supposed to mean? That I'm stupid? That I lack the intelligence to build a list without Forge World models and rules?

Because if that's actually what you meant, then you really need to both 1) Check Rule #1 and 2) deeply consider why you believe there is a correlation between intelligence and using Forge World army lists.

If it isn't what you meant, then could you care to explain how I should interpret that phrase?

 Jancoran wrote:
I'm pretty sure I did this already. The codex's and the main rulebook. Thats the core. We've typically allowed the Campaign setting stuff as well, since GW uses it like Prestige Classes in 3.X D&D to sell their books. Quite annoying. I am happy that they arent doing that with the Tau Codex and are including the Campaign stuff i nthe Codex. It appears they've wised up on that? Hope to see more of that in the future.

There's actually another company with this diametric split of models. Privateer Press puts out Warmachine as both an individual and identical product to Hordes. As both are compatible and balanced against each other, WarmaHordes tournaments are common. However, you'll also see tourneys where only one is played (this area that one is Warmachine) and no Hordes armies are permitted entry. The armies do play differently and have their own thematic and visual style so it's not too uncommon here to see one being excluded from the event, despite PP's games being quite well balanced against each other. They are technically different games but made to be compatible with each other much like the 30k armies can be played in 40k.

But know what isn't its own game? HeroClix. Which actually has several universes blended into one, theoretically compatible with each other regardless of the set and subtype you use. Yet you wouldn't normally see Yu-Gi-Oh figures fighting Lord of the Rings characters fighting Marvel and DC heroes all on the same table because the TOs decide which sets are permitted and which aren't. Luckily the gaming company WizKids itself gives formats that can be run for more standardized play. Modern Age vs Golden Age, yet Modern HeroClix (standard competitive format) disallows any sets that aren't Marvel or DC based so even though stuff like Mage Knight Resurrection, Pacific Rim Kaiju, Yu-Gi-Oh, LOTR sets, Bioshock Infinite, Halo all exist as HeroClix sets and are balanced for play within the system (one can even argue the DC/Marvel stuff is overpowered), they can't be used in tournaments. Because reasons.

The concept of set dissemination isn't unheard of, and at least HeroClix costs more to play competitively than 40k ever will, and in both of these instances the official company chose to do it. Don't they know they're excluding all those Legolas fans who own NO OTHER ARMY but their Hobbit one? GW has never been a typical gaming company so they tend to release this amorphous blob of rules with no harmony between them, but the player communities can harvest format rules any way they'd like given that there isn't a Standard Competitive Format released by the company declaring legalities like so many other games.

Some stores ban it because they can't sell it and assume that a sale to FW is a sale lost. Sometimes this is true other times it is not.

Some player worry about units they are unfamiliar with with players they don't know well because its very easy to make a good unit broken if you misread the rules.

I am usually fine with forgeworld as long as a copy of the rules is available. I have several of my own forgeworld units.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow.

I have no words for the travesty that is people banning Forge World.

I would be unable to participate in their events, as my only armies are 30k Mechanicum and Armored Battlegroup.

The fact that this is going on only reinforces to me the correlation between obstinacy and ignorance.

I looooove hyprbole.

If that's your only army then yeah. You wont have an option. You're the exception to the rule though. Most people have an army. Most are smart enough to build one without Forge World stuff. But if thats all you choose to own, then yeah. You'd be left out.

What's the red part supposed to mean? That I'm stupid? That I lack the intelligence to build a list without Forge World models and rules?

Because if that's actually what you meant, then you really need to both 1) Check Rule #1 and 2) deeply consider why you believe there is a correlation between intelligence and using Forge World army lists.

If it isn't what you meant, then could you care to explain how I should interpret that phrase?

Yup. My apology. That wasnt the intent. You should interpret that as two separate statements. As in: most people are smart enough to build a list without forge world so doing so should present little challenge to them aaaand that if you have no force other than forge world, youd be the exception to the rule that would be left out.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow.

I have no words for the travesty that is people banning Forge World.

I would be unable to participate in their events, as my only armies are 30k Mechanicum and Armored Battlegroup.

The fact that this is going on only reinforces to me the correlation between obstinacy and ignorance.

I looooove hyprbole.

If that's your only army then yeah. You wont have an option. You're the exception to the rule though. Most people have an army. Most are smart enough to build one without Forge World stuff. But if thats all you choose to own, then yeah. You'd be left out.

What's the red part supposed to mean? That I'm stupid? That I lack the intelligence to build a list without Forge World models and rules?

Because if that's actually what you meant, then you really need to both 1) Check Rule #1 and 2) deeply consider why you believe there is a correlation between intelligence and using Forge World army lists.

If it isn't what you meant, then could you care to explain how I should interpret that phrase?

Yup. My apology. That wasnt the intent. You should interpret that as two separate statements. As in: most people are smart enough to build a list without forge world so doing so should present little challenge to them aaaand that if you have no force other than forge world, youd be the exception to the rule that would be left out.

But the problem isn't that I -can't- build a list without Forge World. The problem is that I shouldn't be forced to. It's like telling a Chaos player "Oh, you can just build a guard army" if you ban Chaos from a tournament.

Like, yes, it's feasible for them to build a Guard army, but they play -Chaos-.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
Some stores ban it because they can't sell it and assume that a sale to FW is a sale lost. Sometimes this is true other times it is not.

Some player worry about units they are unfamiliar with with players they don't know well because its very easy to make a good unit broken if you misread the rules.

I am usually fine with forgeworld as long as a copy of the rules is available. I have several of my own forgeworld units.

I own some by accident, some death korps models that were left at my hisoos but i just use them as Guard. Its not like youre evil for buying or playing w them. Thats really not the suggestion. And I can totally see the argument by the stores on a "sale lost". Of the four stores I run tournies for, this has never come up, but it could!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow.

I have no words for the travesty that is people banning Forge World.

I would be unable to participate in their events, as my only armies are 30k Mechanicum and Armored Battlegroup.

The fact that this is going on only reinforces to me the correlation between obstinacy and ignorance.

I looooove hyprbole.

If that's your only army then yeah. You wont have an option. You're the exception to the rule though. Most people have an army. Most are smart enough to build one without Forge World stuff. But if thats all you choose to own, then yeah. You'd be left out.

What's the red part supposed to mean? That I'm stupid? That I lack the intelligence to build a list without Forge World models and rules?

Because if that's actually what you meant, then you really need to both 1) Check Rule #1 and 2) deeply consider why you believe there is a correlation between intelligence and using Forge World army lists.

If it isn't what you meant, then could you care to explain how I should interpret that phrase?

Yup. My apology. That wasnt the intent. You should interpret that as two separate statements. As in: most people are smart enough to build a list without forge world so doing so should present little challenge to them aaaand that if you have no force other than forge world, youd be the exception to the rule that would be left out.

But the problem isn't that I -can't- build a list without Forge World. The problem is that I shouldn't be forced to. It's like telling a Chaos player "Oh, you can just build a guard army" if you ban Chaos from a tournament.

Like, yes, it's feasible for them to build a Guard army, but they play -Chaos-.

First, understand that "should" isnt an argument I'll ever accept. Not attacking you, just letting you know where I am coming from.

But what happened in your case... is... that you chooooose not to be able to. And I respect your choice. It still means you will not be in our tournaments, were you in my area, but casual play isnt going to be affected I am sure. Someone choosing to play nothing but Forge World is not a crime.

You also cannot expect some armies to reasonably compete without FW, because they're willing to plug in the holes that GW leaves.

Take the newest CSM codex for example. It sucks. Flat out simple as that. Loyalist versions are better, they lack allies, the internal balance is horrible, etc.
If you actually live in an area where people are good and not CAAC, you cannot bring stuff from the codex and expect to actually have a decent chance of winning.

SO, queue Forge World to bring in an armory for CSM's to actually have reasonable options. When Serpent Spam was big, I actually had a chance because I had Sicarans, and with the Purge FOC, I can better utilize my slots and ally in different things.

So PLEASE explain how you want CSM players to compete. I don't want your people's garbage of "Oh they do fine here". Anecdotal evidence of your LGS means little. Someone proved that earlier when they made mention that a tournament banned FW and only 4 people showed up.

Build me a winning CSM list without FW. You cannot.

 Jancoran wrote:

I'm pretty sure I did this already. The codex's and the main rulebook. Thats the core. We've typically allowed the Campaign setting stuff as well, since GW uses it like Prestige Classes in 3.X D&D to sell their books. Quite annoying. I am happy that they arent doing that with the Tau Codex and are including the Campaign stuff i nthe Codex. It appears they've wised up on that? Hope to see more of that in the future.

I specifically said 'no fanfiction'.

Give. Me. The. Source.

If people think FW is balanced, try playing against the new Supremacy armour.

Yeah

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So PLEASE explain how you want CSM players to compete. I don't want your people's garbage of "Oh they do fine here". Anecdotal evidence of your LGS means little. Someone proved that earlier when they made mention that a tournament banned FW and only 4 people showed up.

Likewise, there have been two posters and many supporters regarding tournaments of ~30 people showing up to FW banned events, so evidence of your poor turnouts matter little to us. Local Game Stores vary greatly and the area you're housed in matters. If you're living in the ghetto surrounded by underpaid blue collars on welfare your meta is going to differ from the one invested into by suburbanites living on capitol hill. Perhaps a group even bans unpainted models, penalizes them in tournaments, or disallows proxies because you should own hundreds of configurations or magnetized models. What if the CSM player is near the top of the meta and "doing fine here"? The assumptions made across the board here are that players will only run the 5 Wraithknight list when playing Eldar, the Skyhammer Annihilation Force if playing Space Marines, or the War Convocation when playing AdMech. Sometimes even competitive players don't feel the need to obliterate their opponents with something they KNOW to be excessive force and prefer to compete with a self-imposed handicap. Other times they just want to field the models they actually OWN without buying an entirely new CSM army because Thousand Sons aren't cool anymore.

I think the tendencies of your local area matter a great deal. What I need you to PLEASE explain is why you're turning the topic into a definitive YMDC on the merits of banning Forgeworld when it's clearly a widely varying opinion influenced by location and community. Maybe people in New Jersey are simply friendlier than you are and less prone to bring TFG lists to even a competitive tournament.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You also cannot expect some armies to reasonably compete without FW, because they're willing to plug in the holes that GW leaves.

Take the newest CSM codex for example. It sucks. Flat out simple as that. Loyalist versions are better, they lack allies, the internal balance is horrible, etc.
If you actually live in an area where people are good and not CAAC, you cannot bring stuff from the codex and expect to actually have a decent chance of winning.

SO, queue Forge World to bring in an armory for CSM's to actually have reasonable options. When Serpent Spam was big, I actually had a chance because I had Sicarans, and with the Purge FOC, I can better utilize my slots and ally in different things.

So PLEASE explain how you want CSM players to compete. I don't want your people's garbage of "Oh they do fine here". Anecdotal evidence of your LGS means little. Someone proved that earlier when they made mention that a tournament banned FW and only 4 people showed up.

Build me a winning CSM list without FW. You cannot.

I can and have. I just took my Night Lords, as mentioned to an ITC tournament brimming with Forge World. Defeated a Forge World Tyranid list, defeated the Decurion Necrons list and would have defeated the Chaos Daemon list with its flying Sorcerers had I not forgotten to score points on two different occassions ( that loss was on me, not my list. Just boned it).

So I'm really not in agreement at all. In another game most recently they fought the Iron Hands and I tied that game after killing just one Tactical Marine the entire game. My opponent was in the ard boyz finals and has a lot of tourney wins.

So I guess what Im saying is: maybe its not the codex. Maybe its the list or maybe the General. As I proved last Saturday, you can be very competitive with Chaos. I can't sit here and have an entire thread on that so feel free to pm me but I dont share this mentality on Chaos. Ill agree with you this far though: there is no doubt the codex needs an update but I also dont think its so terrible that you need Forge World to make a difference. Well let me rephrase that. I don't.

 Caranthir987 wrote:
If people think FW is balanced, try playing against the new Supremacy armour.

Yeah

Oneshotted by grav.

Next!

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

I'm pretty sure I did this already. The codex's and the main rulebook. Thats the core. We've typically allowed the Campaign setting stuff as well, since GW uses it like Prestige Classes in 3.X D&D to sell their books. Quite annoying. I am happy that they arent doing that with the Tau Codex and are including the Campaign stuff i nthe Codex. It appears they've wised up on that? Hope to see more of that in the future.

I specifically said 'no fanfiction'.

Give. Me. The. Source.

Eh... what? I did.

No. You repeat that rulebook + codex is 'core' but you have no source. Where did GW say they are? Quote page and paragraph.

I hear tell the tau supremacy armor is prrrreeeeettttttyyyy good for its points cost. Hope they dont start swinging back to the old "stat it so it sells" fallback.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

I'm pretty sure I did this already. The codex's and the main rulebook. Thats the core. We've typically allowed the Campaign setting stuff as well, since GW uses it like Prestige Classes in 3.X D&D to sell their books. Quite annoying. I am happy that they arent doing that with the Tau Codex and are including the Campaign stuff i nthe Codex. It appears they've wised up on that? Hope to see more of that in the future.

I specifically said 'no fanfiction'.

Give. Me. The. Source.

Eh... what? I did.

Aren't the codices listed as an "Expansion of the warhammer 40,000 core rulebook" which would mean the only core rules are literally just the BRB?

Everything else, codex included, is an expansion of the basic game.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Caranthir987 wrote:
If people think FW is balanced, try playing against the new Supremacy armour.

Yeah

Oneshotted by grav.

Next!

haha nope

Someone did the math and it would take 2 cent stars with reroll misses to take it down in one turn.

Even if they come in by pod, they are going to eat interceptor from the inevitable 4+ sources, usually a riptide pie plate or two. And you can forget a land raider or walking to get in range. They would be focused by the entire tau army before then.

Because it has 10 wounds and 4++?

Well, send two sword-Wraithknights at it then. Cheaper and dispatches it swiftly in melee.

Or hell, send something Invisible at it and it can't do anything.

 Orock wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Caranthir987 wrote:
If people think FW is balanced, try playing against the new Supremacy armour.

Yeah

Oneshotted by grav.

Next!

haha nope

Someone did the math and it would take 2 cent stars with reroll misses to take it down in one turn.

What?

 Orock wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Caranthir987 wrote:
If people think FW is balanced, try playing against the new Supremacy armour.

Yeah

Oneshotted by grav.

Next!

haha nope

Someone did the math and it would take 2 cent stars with reroll misses to take it down in one turn.

Even if they come in by pod, they are going to eat interceptor from the inevitable 4+ sources, usually a riptide pie plate or two. And you can forget a land raider or walking to get in range. They would be focused by the entire tau army before then.

equivalent points of grav destroyers from Cult Mechanicus will one-shot it in one turn without utilizing -any- of their free special rules.

The tau'nar is very good. It's also a titian, and it's rules are 1st generation PDF rules, so it really isn't comparable to most of FW.

 Orock wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Caranthir987 wrote:
If people think FW is balanced, try playing against the new Supremacy armour.

Yeah

Oneshotted by grav.

Next!

haha nope

Someone did the math and it would take 2 cent stars with reroll misses to take it down in one turn.

Even if they come in by pod, they are going to eat interceptor from the inevitable 4+ sources, usually a riptide pie plate or two. And you can forget a land raider or walking to get in range. They would be focused by the entire tau army before then.

True Dat

It's not like, you know.. with all that interceptor the Tau have, that they wouldn't have like ... you know.. considered that someone may try to grav it to death, and put riptides and broadsides in with EWO's. Considering they are the best units in the Tau codex and all...

Ashiraya, its good how you have all the solutions to taking out the Supremacy armour. Play against a decent player who has a couple of goalkeeper riptides round one, and let us know how you get on


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit 1126 PL - do you think that your grav servitors are going to get near the supremacy suit? Without weathering several rounds of supremacy fire or eating some high yield missiles to the face with your 4+ save.

I like the model, and its a cool concept, but I'll put my battle reports up from my tournament at the weekend and you can see how it just dominates everything.

The best way to deal with it, is to try and tie it up for a round or two and then get a knight or wraithknight in there. But it still has a chance to smash you in combat as well.

I agree with some posts on here - regular GW codices like Eldar and Necron Decurion are fairly unbalanced. However FW is exceptional at putting out unplayable units, especially when the opponent has an army that adheres to normal codices FOC.

Let's give it a rest, everyone.

The Casual At All Costs mindset is such that anything outside of their narrow definition of fun is to be considered suspect at best and invalid at worst. As they see their version of the game as superior to all others, CAAC players cannot be reasoned with as they will resort to any argument to maintain what they considered to be the be-all end-all of the game, no matter how blatantly irrational their arguments may be.

Mods, lock this thread. It stopped being productive twelve pages ago.

I think a lot of the problems would be solved by merging the FW and normal GW sites into one, my friend refuses to play vs forgeworld because he only want to fight 'official GW stuff'

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
I think a lot of the problems would be solved by merging the FW and normal GW sites into one, my friend refuses to play vs forgeworld because he only want to fight 'official GW stuff'

Tell your friend to stop being stupid. If FW isn't "official GW stuff" then neither are your friend's Citadel miniatures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Caranthir987 wrote:
However FW is exceptional at putting out unplayable units, especially when the opponent has an army that adheres to normal codices FOC.

No, they really aren't. You can complain about the Tau abomination, but does anyone remember the Revenant titan and Ctan (you know, the reasons why the entire Escalation book was banned in most tournaments)? Those were "main GW" units that were at least as bad as the Tau thing, and arguably much worse.

Also, why are we talking about "normal codices FOC" as if that means anything in 7th edition? This isn't 5th edition anymore.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cosmicsoybean wrote:
I think a lot of the problems would be solved by merging the FW and normal GW sites into one, my friend refuses to play vs forgeworld because he only want to fight 'official GW stuff'

Tell your friend to stop being stupid. If FW isn't "official GW stuff" then neither are your friend's Citadel miniatures.

Oh trust me I know. "sorry man, no FW, you can play with ___ instead then."
And living in a small town an hour highway drive from the nearest LGS... its hard to get games as is, so i havn't bought any cool FW models :(

 Jancoran wrote:


"People would be fine with that" is an indicator to me that you understand on some level the need for balance. yet despite your understanding of the need for it, you don't include economic balance amongst those virtues you defend.

No, I understand that, however, as I've explained multiple times, the "economic balance" isn't what you have claimed it is, and you don't seem to apply the "economic balance" argument to anything but Forgeworld as some unfortunate double-standard that for some reason doesn't apply to anything else.. Should Green Tide armies be banned because they cost twice what Grey Knight armies cost to build? Different armies and units have always had different costs, often wildly different.

You don't seem too hot on banning DLC-style dataslates or extraneous campaign books nor be advocating the banning of web-bundle-exclusive formations that require several hundred dollars of investment to legally obtain. Should CSM's be banned since they have two supplement books people have to buy while Tyranids have none?

Again when codex books were $20, and Character models were $12, you might have had a point. When Codex books are now $60, charactrs are $25-35, sorry, the argument just no longer holds.

Your "economic balance" argument has no legs to stand on at this point, and feels like a flimsy justification to continue a bias held over from multiple editions ago.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


If it wasnt core to the game, you'd have a point. But anyone who doesnt want to do that much is probably not going to tournaments anyways. So there's that.

Define 'core to the game'.

Be sure to include a source, I am not interested in fanfiction.

I'm pretty sure I did this already. The codex's and the main rulebook. Thats the core.

No, that's what *you* call the core, but there is no such definition to be found in the rules of the game. No such concept of a "core" game is to be found within the 7th edition rules.

Additionally, by your definition, dataslates, campaign books, etc are not "core" either, but you don't seem to have an issue with those.

I have nothing against Forgeworld at all, some of my best friends use Forgeworld! The rulebook is very 'Citadel minature' orientated though.

"An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures"
Are Forgeworld models 'Citadel miniatures'?

It also says "The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop's publications such as codexes, codex supplements and datslates".
It doesn't explicitly mention Forgeworld rules, but they aren't excluded either; are they Games Workshop publications?

Personally I am happy to play anything*, the person I am up against is more important to me than the models we happen to be using.

That said, I don't think anyone is wrong for having their own preferences on how they like to play or creating restrictions for their events.

nareik wrote:
I have nothing against Forgeworld at all, some of my best friends use Forgeworld! The rulebook is very 'Citadel minature' orientated though.

"An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures"
Are Forgeworld models 'Citadel miniatures'?

It also says "The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop's publications such as codexes, codex supplements and datslates".
It doesn't explicitly mention Forgeworld rules, but they aren't excluded either; are they Games Workshop publications?

Given that they're written by GW employees at GW HQ with GW Copyrights and state that they are "Published by Games Workshop", with a "Games Workshop" stamp on the spine, one would assume so . One will notice the above line does not mention White Dwarf, Campaign books, or other such things either that nobody seems to discriminate against the way they do FW

nareik wrote:
I have nothing against Forgeworld at all, some of my best friends use Forgeworld! The rulebook is very 'Citadel minature' orientated though.

"An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures"
Are Forgeworld models 'Citadel miniatures'?

It also says "The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop's publications such as codexes, codex supplements and datslates".
It doesn't explicitly mention Forgeworld rules, but they aren't excluded either; are they Games Workshop publications?

Personally I am happy to play anything*, the person I am up against is more important to me than the models we happen to be using.

That said, I don't think anyone is wrong for having their own preferences on how they like to play or creating restrictions for their events.

Spoiler:

*as long as it is form the stock chaos marine codex and nothing else

Problem is there is no actual definition of what a Citadel miniature is in the BRB. It's why MFA is such a divisive issue.

Actually, trying to follow the BRB by the letter rather than the spirit is a exercise in insanity. I believe one awesome poster made a list of the the insanity of pure RAW WH40k.

And given that in the intro to most of the current FW books, it explicitly says that the rules presented here, are intended as official rules of GW and 40k products, and as was mentioned above, published by GW, I tend to go with that. Oh, there is the standard caveat that some players might not know the rules, so be sure to discuss it with your opponent before the game. Problem solved.

I am still unsure what the holdout is. The idea they are overpowered is debunked (as they themselves seem to admit). The idea they are over costed vs. GW is debunked is debunked. The idea that it is just one more rule set seems to be the sticking point, but is ridiculous when GW's rules are looked at in their entirety across various platforms (nobody can fully know even one army based on the various addememndum.) So I'm not really sure what the holdup is other than some folks who don't like it...it seems, based upon the complaints raised, that they would actually prefer to play 30k if they only knew what it was about.

"I don't care that you spent a gakload of cash and effort buying, building and painting this model, nor do I care that you got it because you think its awesome and has awesome rules, its a minor inconvenience to me to face unknown units so put it back in your bag and prepare to footslog your boys into my new stormsurge spam list"

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You also cannot expect some armies to reasonably compete without FW, because they're willing to plug in the holes that GW leaves.

Take the newest CSM codex for example. It sucks. Flat out simple as that. Loyalist versions are better, they lack allies, the internal balance is horrible, etc.
If you actually live in an area where people are good and not CAAC, you cannot bring stuff from the codex and expect to actually have a decent chance of winning.

SO, queue Forge World to bring in an armory for CSM's to actually have reasonable options. When Serpent Spam was big, I actually had a chance because I had Sicarans, and with the Purge FOC, I can better utilize my slots and ally in different things.

So PLEASE explain how you want CSM players to compete. I don't want your people's garbage of "Oh they do fine here". Anecdotal evidence of your LGS means little. Someone proved that earlier when they made mention that a tournament banned FW and only 4 people showed up.

Build me a winning CSM list without FW. You cannot.

I can and have. I just took my Night Lords, as mentioned to an ITC tournament brimming with Forge World. Defeated a Forge World Tyranid list, defeated the Decurion Necrons list and would have defeated the Chaos Daemon list with its flying Sorcerers had I not forgotten to score points on two different occassions ( that loss was on me, not my list. Just boned it).

So I'm really not in agreement at all. In another game most recently they fought the Iron Hands and I tied that game after killing just one Tactical Marine the entire game. My opponent was in the ard boyz finals and has a lot of tourney wins.

So I guess what Im saying is: maybe its not the codex. Maybe its the list or maybe the General. As I proved last Saturday, you can be very competitive with Chaos. I can't sit here and have an entire thread on that so feel free to pm me but I dont share this mentality on Chaos. Ill agree with you this far though: there is no doubt the codex needs an update but I also dont think its so terrible that you need Forge World to make a difference. Well let me rephrase that. I don't.

No, you didn't. If you did and actually got results at those tournaments, people would talk about a topping CSM list. So I'm calling you out on that.

For the record, ITC is house rules.

You don't count. Take your artistic ability and ideas elsewhere!

So what about the Vendetta. The only official model for it is a forge world one.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
So what about the Vendetta. The only official model for it is a forge world one.

Buy the Valkarie and use official GW lascannons TM as a kitbash like all good soldiers do.

sure you can kit bash it just like we all do and proxy it. But technically the official model is only available from forge world. Additionally the Galaxy of War book mentions forge world along side other expansions. It seems odd to allow the skyhammer or data slates but not an IA book.

The official model will not be allowed because it is not official.

By that logic there is not legal model for the Vendetta

HoundsofDemos wrote:
By that logic there is not legal model for the Vendetta

Exactly...

 Ashiraya wrote:
No. You repeat that rulebook + codex is 'core' but you have no source. Where did GW say they are? Quote page and paragraph.

Word play now? Sorry man. No idea what youre after. My answer is what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
I hear tell the tau supremacy armor is prrrreeeeettttttyyyy good for its points cost. Hope they dont start swinging back to the old "stat it so it sells" fallback.

Its good.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
No. You repeat that rulebook + codex is 'core' but you have no source. Where did GW say they are? Quote page and paragraph.

Word play now? Sorry man. No idea what youre after. My answer is what it is.

Where does it say that BRB+Codex is the "Core Game"? It's a simple question. You seem so adamant about the existence of this "core game" but you seem to avoiding the question of the proof of it's existence.

 Jancoran wrote:
Word play now? Sorry man. No idea what youre after. My answer is what it is.

So, your answer is evasion and simply repeating your "core game" myth without ever citing any rules from GW.

nareik wrote:
I have nothing against Forgeworld at all, some of my best friends use Forgeworld! The rulebook is very 'Citadel minature' orientated though.

"An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures"
Are Forgeworld models 'Citadel miniatures'?

It also says "The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop's publications such as codexes, codex supplements and datslates".
It doesn't explicitly mention Forgeworld rules, but they aren't excluded either; are they Games Workshop publications?

Personally I am happy to play anything*, the person I am up against is more important to me than the models we happen to be using.

That said, I don't think anyone is wrong for having their own preferences on how they like to play or creating restrictions for their events.

Spoiler:

*as long as it is form the stock chaos marine codex and nothing else

Isnt that interesting. Citadel you say. Huh. Why that would mean that...

 Jancoran wrote:

nareik wrote:
I have nothing against Forgeworld at all, some of my best friends use Forgeworld! The rulebook is very 'Citadel minature' orientated though.

"An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures"
Are Forgeworld models 'Citadel miniatures'?

It also says "The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop's publications such as codexes, codex supplements and datslates".
It doesn't explicitly mention Forgeworld rules, but they aren't excluded either; are they Games Workshop publications?

Personally I am happy to play anything*, the person I am up against is more important to me than the models we happen to be using.

That said, I don't think anyone is wrong for having their own preferences on how they like to play or creating restrictions for their events.

Spoiler:

*as long as it is form the stock chaos marine codex and nothing else

Isnt that interesting. Citadel you say. Huh. Why that would mean that...

There is no definition of what a Citadel miniature is, Janc. You can't use the strict letter of the BRB to enforce rules it simply doesn't work.

 Jancoran wrote:
Isnt that interesting. Citadel you say. Huh. Why that would mean that...

That would mean that FW rules are ok, you just have to use Citadel miniatures to represent them on the tabletop. And of course it would mean that proxies/conversions/etc are banned, and it would be illegal to use a FW marine kit to represent a C:SM tactical squad. But somehow I doubt you're going to enforce that part of the rule.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
No. You repeat that rulebook + codex is 'core' but you have no source. Where did GW say they are? Quote page and paragraph.

Word play now? Sorry man. No idea what youre after. My answer is what it is.

No, you were asked for a source as to what constitutes the "core game" that isn't just your say so, that defines it in anywhere int he rules or from any GW source as "codex+rulebook". That's what you were asked, and did not provide a response to other than just re-iterating what your definition was.

Your concept of "core game" is an erroneous one, something of your own creation, the concept of a "core game" is not something that has any basis in the rules of the game.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

nareik wrote:
I have nothing against Forgeworld at all, some of my best friends use Forgeworld! The rulebook is very 'Citadel minature' orientated though.

"An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures"
Are Forgeworld models 'Citadel miniatures'?

It also says "The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop's publications such as codexes, codex supplements and datslates".
It doesn't explicitly mention Forgeworld rules, but they aren't excluded either; are they Games Workshop publications?

Personally I am happy to play anything*, the person I am up against is more important to me than the models we happen to be using.

That said, I don't think anyone is wrong for having their own preferences on how they like to play or creating restrictions for their events.

Spoiler:

*as long as it is form the stock chaos marine codex and nothing else

Isnt that interesting. Citadel you say. Huh. Why that would mean that...

There is no definition of what a Citadel miniature is, Janc. You can't use the strict letter of the BRB to enforce rules it simply doesn't work.

Oooooh. Im not allowed, eh? Lol. Not even the main rulebook? Ok.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
No. You repeat that rulebook + codex is 'core' but you have no source. Where did GW say they are? Quote page and paragraph.

Word play now? Sorry man. No idea what youre after. My answer is what it is.

No, you were asked for a source as to what constitutes the "core game" that isn't just your say so, that defines it in anywhere int he rules or from any GW source as "codex+rulebook". That's what you were asked, and did not provide a response to.

Don't bother at this point. He doesn't provide sources and apparently has a magical Night Lords list that happens to win most of its games against tournament lists which, ya know, hasn't won any tournaments.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
You can't use the strict letter of the BRB to enforce rules it simply doesn't work.

Visit YMDC some time.

Wait... you think i win no tournaments? Perhaps you need to visit www.warsound.com. perhaps you can get a truer accounting. Since you are so willing to take on that tone.

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
You can't use the strict letter of the BRB to enforce rules it simply doesn't work.

Visit YMDC some time.

Yup. RAW 40k is weird, contradictory and downright broken.

 Jancoran wrote:
Wait... you think i win no tournaments? Perhaps you need to visit www.warsound.com. perhaps you can get a truer accounting. Since you are so willing to take on that tone.

Guessing from your sig that you're Unorthodoxy.

Malifaux, Star Trek, X-wing, even Magic? All dead?? Warhammer is your only active forum.

I can get the others but Magic?? That's like the lifebread of every store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
You can't use the strict letter of the BRB to enforce rules it simply doesn't work.

Visit YMDC some time.

Yup. RAW 40k is weird, contradictory and downright broken.

Which totally won't stop people attempting to use the strict letter of the BRB to enforce their position. Visit YMDC some time, it's a riot!

 Arkaine wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Wait... you think i win no tournaments? Perhaps you need to visit www.warsound.com. perhaps you can get a truer accounting. Since you are so willing to take on that tone.

Guessing from your sig that you're Unorthodoxy.

Malifaux, Star Trek, X-wing, even Magic? All dead?? Warhammer is your only active forum.

I can get the others but Magic?? That's like the lifebread of every store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
You can't use the strict letter of the BRB to enforce rules it simply doesn't work.

Visit YMDC some time.

Yup. RAW 40k is weird, contradictory and downright broken.

Which totally won't stop people attempting to use the strict letter of the BRB to enforce their position. Visit YMDC some time, it's a riot!

Star trek, star wars, 40k, Magic, d&d, warmachine and flames of war are all VERY active here. The forum has a lot of casuals. But they all check in on that and the associated facebook pages


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Wait... you think i win no tournaments? Perhaps you need to visit www.warsound.com. perhaps you can get a truer accounting. Since you are so willing to take on that tone.

Guessing from your sig that you're Unorthodoxy.

Malifaux, Star Trek, X-wing, even Magic? All dead?? Warhammer is your only active forum.

I can get the others but Magic?? That's like the lifebread of every store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
You can't use the strict letter of the BRB to enforce rules it simply doesn't work.

Visit YMDC some time.

Yup. RAW 40k is weird, contradictory and downright broken.

Which totally won't stop people attempting to use the strict letter of the BRB to enforce their position. Visit YMDC some time, it's a riot!

Star trek, star wars, 40k, Magic, d&d, warmachine and flames of war are all VERY active here. The forum has a lot of casual posters and lurkers. But they all check in on that and the associated facebook pages

 Jancoran wrote:
Wait... you think i win no tournaments? Perhaps you need to visit www.warsound.com. perhaps you can get a truer accounting. Since you are so willing to take on that tone.

I'm not going to visit your bloody blog. I will read tournament reports from the sources and the top 16 lists from the same place

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Wait... you think i win no tournaments? Perhaps you need to visit www.warsound.com. perhaps you can get a truer accounting. Since you are so willing to take on that tone.

I'm not going to visit your bloody blog. I will read tournament reports from the sources and the top 16 lists from the same place

His blog is the website in his signature... he linked you to the tournament report source.

Yup. 1++ FNP (As in, a FNP you can never technically fail) is totally legal under RAW.

Other silliness:

One use only: Rule refers to something called a battle. There is something called a game in 40k but the overall event that concerns the 40k rules isn't called a battle. Therefore, the rule is meaningless.

Preferred enemy: Technically speaking, if a unit that has this rule but doesn't specify a faction then it has to reroll 1s to hit/wound if for whatever reason it commits friendly fire. The rule states that an unspecified preferred enemy applies to everyone. Not just enemy models. This can also be true if the preferred enemy specifies your own faction.

Vehicles can move up and down straight walls as long as they have enough movement to do so. You can move a Taurox up the side of the building like there were suction cups on the treads or something.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Wait... you think i win no tournaments? Perhaps you need to visit www.warsound.com. perhaps you can get a truer accounting. Since you are so willing to take on that tone.

I'm not going to visit your bloody blog. I will read tournament reports from the sources and the top 16 lists from the same place

Do as you like but do not question my tournament ability again until youve looked deeper. Ive provided you access to do so. Only your own stubborn nature can stop you now.

You do realize that your ability to beat the hardcore tournament lists and ForgeWorld models you've never seen before, with an army that is generally considered bottom of the barrel, is evidence in favour of including Forgeworld, right?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Vehicles can move up and down straight walls as long as they have enough movement to do so. You can move a Taurox up the side of the building like there were suction cups on the treads or something.

In the fluff listed for the Taurox Prime, there are...

Trasvi wrote:
You do realize that your ability to beat the hardcore tournament lists and ForgeWorld models you've never seen before, with an army that is generally considered bottom of the barrel, is evidence in favour of including Forgeworld, right?

No. I don't see that. What I see is that I had to bring my A game. THAT'S what I found out. Lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:

Malifaux, Star Trek, X-wing, even Magic? All dead?? Warhammer is your only active forum.

Oh... it just hit me as i re-read this and another post. Some clarity might help. Warsound.com isnt my forum by the way. it's just the local one that everyone is on here. My blog is completely separate.

 Jancoran wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
You do realize that your ability to beat the hardcore tournament lists and ForgeWorld models you've never seen before, with an army that is generally considered bottom of the barrel, is evidence in favour of including Forgeworld, right?

No. I don't see that. What I see is that I had to bring my A game. THAT'S what I found out. Lol.

So? You had to bring your A-Game. Isn't that what tournaments are about? I'd hope that people in a tournament aren't going thinking they'l cruise to victory.
But bringing your A-game, with a bottom tier army, you managed to defeat some armies consisting of Forgeworld models you'd never played against before.
That invalidates your 'cumulative experience cost' argument. You could defeat those enemies regardless of having no experience against them. There is no 'cost' to learning to play against these armies, because (like pretty much everything else in 40k) once you know the archetypes you can play against anything.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Your "economic balance" argument has no legs to stand on at this point, and feels like a flimsy justification to continue a bias held over from multiple editions ago.

Indeed. Heck, I was against allowing Forge World in 5th ed.

However, as has been shown multiple times in this thread, there isn't a compelling reason based on cost, rules or balance any more.
If you don't like Forge World for personal reasons, that fine. Don't try and pretend it's anything else though

Jancoran, you're pushing a meta where people who take hard (or rough, as you refer to them) lists are actively ostracised.
You also seem to have a personal bias against Forgeworld.

I also haven't noticed you taking best general, which seems to run counter intuitive to what you've been saying. Have I missed some results?

Just what I've found on those links.

nareik wrote:
I have nothing against Forgeworld at all, some of my best friends use Forgeworld! The rulebook is very 'Citadel minature' orientated though.

"An army is a collection of one or more units of Citadel miniatures"
Are Forgeworld models 'Citadel miniatures'?

It also says "The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop's publications such as codexes, codex supplements and datslates".
It doesn't explicitly mention Forgeworld rules, but they aren't excluded either; are they Games Workshop publications?

Personally I am happy to play anything*, the person I am up against is more important to me than the models we happen to be using.

That said, I don't think anyone is wrong for having their own preferences on how they like to play or creating restrictions for their events.

Spoiler:

*as long as it is form the stock chaos marine codex and nothing else

Yes they are GW publications, here are pictures of an IA book I took to prove it.
http://i.imgur.com/HAU9ICB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/67cRj27.jpg?1

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Wait... you think i win no tournaments? Perhaps you need to visit www.warsound.com. perhaps you can get a truer accounting. Since you are so willing to take on that tone.

I'm not going to visit your bloody blog. I will read tournament reports from the sources and the top 16 lists from the same place

Do as you like but do not question my tournament ability again until youve looked deeper. Ive provided you access to do so. Only your own stubborn nature can stop you now.

Your tournament ability?

But your group bans all FW and most of the good formations right?

Even I can win in a race against a bunch of cripples, but that doesn't mean that I'm fast.

 Vash108 wrote:


Yes they are GW publications, here are pictures of an IA book I took to prove it.
http://i.imgur.com/HAU9ICB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/67cRj27.jpg?1

On top of that, if you read the copyright at the beginning of the book, you will learn that the names, images AND rules are all property of GW. Not FW.

FW is a publisher of GW rules.

And if anyone pulls the ever so stupid argument of: "GW must say it's official, if FW says it, it's not."

GW is a friggin' shark when it comes to it's IP. Can you honestly sit with a straight face and say: GW is letting a company publish stuff in it's name while saying it is official and the lawyers are just.."Nawww let's give these boys a pass." GW would go after them like uncle Bob on a 24 of Coors light.

You can hate FW out of personal reason but saying it's:
- Expensive
- Unbalanced
- Overpowered
- Not official

Is just a lie. You can tell yourself a lie, you can live a lie. You might even convince other people to believe the lie but in the end it's still a lie and you know it.

 Erik_Morkai wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:


Yes they are GW publications, here are pictures of an IA book I took to prove it.
http://i.imgur.com/HAU9ICB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/67cRj27.jpg?1

On top of that, if you read the copyright at the beginning of the book, you will learn that the names, images AND rules are all property of GW. Not FW.

FW is a publisher of GW rules.

And if anyone pulls the ever so stupid argument of: "GW must say it's official, if FW says it, it's not."

GW is a friggin' shark when it comes to it's IP. Can you honestly sit with a straight face and say: GW is letting a company publish stuff in it's name while saying it is official and the lawyers are just.."Nawww let's give these boys a pass." GW would go after them like uncle Bob on a 24 of Coors light.

You can hate FW out of personal reason but saying it's:
- Expensive
- Unbalanced
- Overpowered
- Not official

Is just a lie. You can tell yourself a lie, you can live a lie. You might even convince other people to believe the lie but in the end it's still a lie and you know it.

I hate FW A) for personal reasons and B) because of the price and C) because I live in the US, so shipping is bananas. Also, England is inferior to the US.

Happy?

so you hate 40k and games workshop.

I pray the tau vs admech book dosent crank up the cheeze to match the tau supremacy debacle, otherwise some locals are going to be pissed when firgeworld gets re-banned here.

 Orock wrote:
I pray the tau vs admech book dosent crank up the cheeze to match the tau supremacy debacle, otherwise some locals are going to be pissed when firgeworld gets re-banned here.

You said the 'B' word! Incoming flamers... no need to take a cover save, templates ignore those.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
so you hate 40k and games workshop.

nope, just certain aspects. Same way I hate all Tau. I can pick and choose what part of the game I want to play, same with how I play D&D or MTG. For instance, I refuse to play tournament banned decks.

My local GW store manager loves FW stuff, and that carries over to the players. Nothing FW is looked down upon (that I'm aware of) at my GW shop.

SG

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
You do realize that your ability to beat the hardcore tournament lists and ForgeWorld models you've never seen before, with an army that is generally considered bottom of the barrel, is evidence in favour of including Forgeworld, right?

No. I don't see that. What I see is that I had to bring my A game. THAT'S what I found out. Lol.

So? You had to bring your A-Game. Isn't that what tournaments are about? I'd hope that people in a tournament aren't going thinking they'l cruise to victory.
But bringing your A-game, with a bottom tier army, you managed to defeat some armies consisting of Forgeworld models you'd never played against before.
That invalidates your 'cumulative experience cost' argument. You could defeat those enemies regardless of having no experience against them. There is no 'cost' to learning to play against these armies, because (like pretty much everything else in 40k) once you know the archetypes you can play against anything.

No it just means Im good. And that Good Generals dont need to get wrapped up as much as you are in the quest to include Forge Wrold. It means the existing units can compete and that suggesting that cannot is not a function of the list itself. In my opinion.

 Jancoran wrote:
And that Good Generals dont need to get wrapped up as much as you are in the quest to include Forge Wrold.

I see. So being a good general means complying with Jancoran's personal version of 40k. That's a rather narcissistic way of looking at things.

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
Jancoran, you're pushing a meta where people who take hard (or rough, as you refer to them) lists are actively ostracised.
You also seem to have a personal bias against Forgeworld.

I also haven't noticed you taking best general, which seems to run counter intuitive to what you've been saying. Have I missed some results?

Just what I've found on those links.

Ask around. I've won Best Overall a dozen times and Best general twice that at least. My painting isn't excellent at all, and I had to have cornea transplants last year which should illustrate part of that problem) so I've had to take the Best General quite a few times instead of Best Overall, but I'm okay with that. Didn't win the last one thanks to my gaffe in not moving a couple rhinos when i had the chance, but you can verify all that bluster with the players on that forum. They will also let you know that i win those tournaments using by and large what most consider unothodox lists. I could use the netlists I see here and probably do even better buuuuut...

I run tournaments a lot more frequently than I play in them, as I've devoted a great deal of time to resurrecting the hobby from its 8th Edition Fantasy and 6th Edition 40K wreckage. My last TSHFT I only lost one game ,and i was 5-0 at the OFCC (a comp'd tournament) two years ago and 4-1 this year.

My gaming chops are solid. But in case you doubted it, you can go right to the people who would know, on the forum I'm on all the time and ask them yourself. It's just bragging until someone verifies it, right? =)

I havent attended things like the LVO, BAO and such because its too much money and to prove what, really? I did go to the Seattle GT quite a few years ago and was 3-1-1. Darn Wraith Army in 5E caused 5 wounds out of 20 on two different sisters blobs and sent them off the table right after coming on from reserve! Whuuuut! Had he not, who knows? Jarring way to go but its dice. what can ya do?

Still all in all, I think I'm qualified to speak on 40K. hehehe.

Saying you went 5-0 at the OFCC, an event where lists are actively managed, judged, and pre-approved by committee, isn't saying much.

Either way, we're getting off topic here. Throwing around e-peens and touting results of small local events that nobody has any inclination to check up on is utterly immaterial to the greater point.

Which is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, as Erik_Morkai noted, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" have all been debunked.

I agree the new tau suits rules are silly, but doing what the ITC does makes more sense than blanket bans. If a unit or power or ability is such an outlier in power, then ban or modify that particular thing. Banning forge world unfairly hobbles several armies, takes away variety from the game, and does little to balance anything.

Local TO's don't have the time or interest to go thru and green light/red light firgeworld, so its infinatley easier. You look at them as super fans of the game willing to bend over backwards to ensure fair and fun competitive play. When its closer to the opposite, them lamenting that Ithey can't just make enough to be profitable off magic alone and disgruntled about having to put effort into making sure leagues and tournaments happen to keep interest and thus customers buying. The day my local shops can support themselves on magic alone (ironically at least one could if the other didn't exist to split the sales) they will probably throw their tabletop terrain in the dumpster and take a flame thrower to it. Dont like it? Drive 2 hours to the next store.

 Orock wrote:
Local TO's don't have the time or interest to go thru and green light/red light firgeworld, so its infinatley easier.

If they're not red-light/gree-lighting non-FW stuff like codex books, campaigns, dataslates, etc, why would they need to do so with FW?

I mean, if they are doing so, great, FW shouldn't add much more work to that, but if they aren't, why would they need to go out of their way to do anything with FW either way?

You look at them as super fans of the game willing to bend over backwards to ensure fair and fun competitive play. When its closer to the opposite, them lamenting that Ithey can't just make enough to be profitable off magic alone and disgruntled about having to put effort into making sure leagues and tournaments happen to keep interest and thus customers buying.

In a lot of places this is not the case, events like 40k tournaments are labors of love, not great profit drivers to cover what Magic will not, particularly in recent years as GW's market share has receded. At least in my own experience, there are fewer tournaments in general, there's more and more centralization around a handful of events while smaller venues are seeing attendance drop dramatically or cease entirely (my own local store had tournaments typically of ~15-24 people in 4E and 5E, their last few 7E events had half a dozen people show up), and in those places they're putting on tournaments because they want to and/or to support a core of longstanding regulars, not to cover a profit gap that Magic doesn't cover.

 Orock wrote:
Local TO's don't have the time or interest to go thru and green light/red light firgeworld, so its infinatley easier. You look at them as super fans of the game willing to bend over backwards to ensure fair and fun competitive play. When its closer to the opposite, them lamenting that Ithey can't just make enough to be profitable off magic alone and disgruntled about having to put effort into making sure leagues and tournaments happen to keep interest and thus customers buying. The day my local shops can support themselves on magic alone (ironically at least one could if the other didn't exist to split the sales) they will probably throw their tabletop terrain in the dumpster and take a flame thrower to it. Dont like it? Drive 2 hours to the next store.

Sounds like you have more problems than just FW, my friend.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In a lot of places this is not the case, events like 40k tournaments are labors of love, not great profit drivers to cover what Magic will not, particularly in recent years as GW's market share has receded. At least in my own experience, there are fewer tournaments in general, there's more and more centralization around a handful of events while smaller venues are seeing attendance drop dramatically or cease entirely (my own local store had tournaments typically of ~15-24 people in 4E and 5E, their last few 7E events had half a dozen people show up), and in those places they're putting on tournaments because they want to and/or to support a core of longstanding regulars, not to cover a profit gap that Magic doesn't cover.

Sounds like you have more problems than anti-Forgeworld people, my friend.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Saying you went 5-0 at the OFCC, an event where lists are actively managed, judged, and pre-approved by committee, isn't saying much.

Either way, we're getting off topic here. Throwing around e-peens and touting results of small local events that nobody has any inclination to check up on is utterly immaterial to the greater point.

Which is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, as Erik_Morkai noted, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" have all been debunked.

I said it was comp'd. so. I mean... Whatever man. Same comp for everyone. Just letting ya' know. I dont particularly care what you think of it. Play me and prove me wrong but dont hide behind the keyboard and tell me those wins arent legit.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Saying you went 5-0 at the OFCC, an event where lists are actively managed, judged, and pre-approved by committee, isn't saying much.

Either way, we're getting off topic here. Throwing around e-peens and touting results of small local events that nobody has any inclination to check up on is utterly immaterial to the greater point.

Which is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, as Erik_Morkai noted, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" have all been debunked.

I said it was comp'd. so. I mean... Whatever man. Same comp for everyone. Just letting ya' know. I dont particularly care what you think of it. Play me and prove me wrong but dont hide behind the keyboard and tell me those wins arent legit.

Come at me scrublord, I'm ripped!

We may have played each other at some point. I've attended the OFCC (an event where "winning" games and win rates are intentionally de-emphasized and not treated as terribly relevant, in favor of sportsmanship and having a good time) and other area events (such as at Guardian, the old Deep Strike tournaments in Vancouver, etc), but this is irrelevant deflection from the actual topic of discussion, which was my point. We can all compare e-peens all we want, but the topic of discussion is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" all seem to be non-issues.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Saying you went 5-0 at the OFCC, an event where lists are actively managed, judged, and pre-approved by committee, isn't saying much.

Either way, we're getting off topic here. Throwing around e-peens and touting results of small local events that nobody has any inclination to check up on is utterly immaterial to the greater point.

Which is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, as Erik_Morkai noted, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" have all been debunked.

I said it was comp'd. so. I mean... Whatever man. Same comp for everyone. Just letting ya' know. I dont particularly care what you think of it. Play me and prove me wrong but dont hide behind the keyboard and tell me those wins arent legit.

Come at me scrublord, I'm ripped!

You look ripped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
We may have played each other at some point. I've attended the OFCC (an event where "winning" games and win rates are intentionally de-emphasized and not treated as terribly relevant, in favor of sportsmanship and having a good time) and other area events (such as at Guardian, the old Deep Strike tournaments in Vancouver, etc), but this is irrelevant deflection from the actual topic of discussion, which was my point. We can all compare e-peens all we want, but the topic of discussion is "why people are still so weird about FW" when, arguments about, cost, balance, officaldom, and the concepts of a "core game" all seem to be non-issues.

OFCC is awesome, but dont claim its uncompetitive. Saw plenty of competitive lists. Two years ago, my 5-0 was against TWO Eldar Wave spam lists, a Triple Dreadknight list, a Dark Eldar that brought Venomspam AND a beast star WITH his Wraith Knight and then there was the one opponent who actually showed up with a friendly list (Blood angels and IG festooned with Forge World).

And if OFCC was the only tournament I'd gone to... You'd have a point. =)
Farseer Anath'lan was the one that wanted to question my record so I gave him the tool with which to prove himself right or wrong.

Well, then it has changed since the last time I attended one, because it was very much an uncompetitive event last time I attended one, and a true serpent spam army is the type of thing they wouldn't have allowed last time I was there (I remember getting any sort of Mech IG list in was basically a no-go and they balked at the CSM list I ran because it had so many 2+ saves with 12 Terminators and 6 Obliterators).

But again, we're talking about FW, and it doesn't seem like allowing FW is causing any issues with balance.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, then it has changed since the last time I attended one, because it was very much an uncompetitive event last time I attended one, and a true serpent spam army is the type of thing they wouldn't have allowed last time I was there (I remember getting any sort of Mech IG list in was basically a no-go and they balked at the CSM list I ran because it had so many 2+ saves with 12 Terminators and 6 Obliterators).

But again, we're talking about FW, and it doesn't seem like allowing FW is causing any issues with balance.

It has changed. A lot. So yeah their new thing is "Fair Friendly matchups" and then they just put the hard lists against the hard lists. I guess... But I DIDNT bring that kind of list so i was fighting up hill in four of those games.

I am hoping for a return to the old OFCC ways but at the moment the power curve is way up there with any other tournament Ive been to recently. But I DO understand your perception.

As for Forge World (which OFCC allowed without STATED restrictions), it does cause issues with balance. Numerous examples have been given. That some are willing to look past those issues completely is a matter of choice, but the issues themselves are well chronicled here.

s I've said repeatedly: play your game. I just don't want it in tournament play. Like all other comp, which the majority agree is necessary, this is just a matter of WHERE the line is being drawn not whether it should be.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, then it has changed since the last time I attended one, because it was very much an uncompetitive event last time I attended one, and a true serpent spam army is the type of thing they wouldn't have allowed last time I was there (I remember getting any sort of Mech IG list in was basically a no-go and they balked at the CSM list I ran because it had so many 2+ saves with 12 Terminators and 6 Obliterators).

But again, we're talking about FW, and it doesn't seem like allowing FW is causing any issues with balance.

It has changed. A lot. So yeah their new thing is "Fair Friendly matchups" and then they just put the hard lists against the hard lists. I guess...

I am hoping for a return to the old OFCC ways but at the moment the power curve is way up there with any other tournament Ive been to recently. But I DO understand your perception.

As for Forge World (which OFCC allowed without STATED restrictions), it does cause issues with balance. Numerous examples have been given. That some are willing to look past those issues completely is a matter of choice, but the issues themselves are well chronicled here.

s I've said repeatedly: play your game. I just don't want it in tournament play. Like all other comp, which the majority agree is necessary, this is just a matter of WHERE the line is being drawn not whether it should be.

"Numerous examples"? I think I saw the titans, and that's about it. And, again, FW causes not more balance issues than those in the codexs.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"Numerous examples"? I think I saw the titans, and that's about it. .

read more. thats the only cure for that problem.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, then it has changed since the last time I attended one, because it was very much an uncompetitive event last time I attended one, and a true serpent spam army is the type of thing they wouldn't have allowed last time I was there (I remember getting any sort of Mech IG list in was basically a no-go and they balked at the CSM list I ran because it had so many 2+ saves with 12 Terminators and 6 Obliterators).

But again, we're talking about FW, and it doesn't seem like allowing FW is causing any issues with balance.

It has changed. A lot. So yeah their new thing is "Fair Friendly matchups" and then they just put the hard lists against the hard lists. I guess...

I am hoping for a return to the old OFCC ways but at the moment the power curve is way up there with any other tournament Ive been to recently. But I DO understand your perception.

As for Forge World (which OFCC allowed without STATED restrictions), it does cause issues with balance. Numerous examples have been given. That some are willing to look past those issues completely is a matter of choice, but the issues themselves are well chronicled here.

s I've said repeatedly: play your game. I just don't want it in tournament play. Like all other comp, which the majority agree is necessary, this is just a matter of WHERE the line is being drawn not whether it should be.

You say we can'tbring Forgeworld units to your tournament games. Guess ill just have to pull out my Armorcast Revenant Titan. It has (as you put it) "official" GW rules (Escalation AND Apocalypse) and is not an apocalypse formation. Pic for reference if you need any proof.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"Numerous examples"? I think I saw the titans, and that's about it. .

read more. thats the only cure for that problem.

Or, you could just state one of your numerous examples. If they are really that common, they I'm sure you can name at least a few off the top of your head.

As much as I dislike most of Peregrine's opinions this is one of the few times I agree with him 100%.

 Xerics wrote:


You say we can'tbring Forgeworld units to your tournament games. Guess ill just have to pull out my Armorcast Revenant Titan. It has (as you put it) "official" GW rules (Escalation AND Apocalypse) and is not an apocalypse formation. Pic for reference if you need any proof.

Cool. Except as was mentioned like ten times already, We covered that base. see point 3 under list construction:

http://www.40kambassadors.com/rules.php


So maybe read the thread and then maybe make your point? Or whatever?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"Numerous examples"? I think I saw the titans, and that's about it. .

read more. thats the only cure for that problem.

Or, you could just state one of your numerous examples. If they are really that common, they I'm sure you can name at least a few off the top of your head.

Not feeling like repeating myself one hundred times. This thread is long enough. Just read it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:
As much as I dislike most of Peregrine's opinions this is one of the few times I agree with him 100%.

Hehehe. Nice qualifier. And the cool thing is, everyone GETS to have their opinion, free of charge.

FW causes balance issues?
I'm guessing you have missed the countless threads about Eldar on here then ..............


Personally, I love the models they make and the rules are pretty decent.
Granted some stuff is higher tier, but that's the case with 40k as a whole anyway.



Seems more to me that people are still stuck in the past with FW being a different thing entirely.
The game has moved forward now.
All IA books are official GW items (if you think they weren't, read the liscensing in the books)
And they now have a lovely badge on them saying 40k expansion, much like the data slates.



I find it adds a ton of e tra units to the game and opens up alot more possibilities, so your less likely to see the usual spam at a tournament.

40k does have poor balance and there are numerous units that are either OTT or so bad they need to be redone to even be considered in a competitive environment.
However, that's just the state of 40k as it currently is.

I have never had an issue with playing with or against FW units or armies in the past.
I have more of an issue playing jetbike spam to be honest.



As a final note, the models look amazing to boot.
However, I likely army to look decent, I'm not one of those that will take a unit for OP rules rather than the fugly models.
So FW for me adds variety and a touch of class to an army.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"Numerous examples"? I think I saw the titans, and that's about it. .

read more. thats the only cure for that problem.

Or, you could just state one of your numerous examples. If they are really that common, they I'm sure you can name at least a few off the top of your head.

Not feeling like repeating myself one hundred times. This thread is long enough. Just read it.

It's literally naming units. You expended the same amount of effort telling me off that it would take to name them.

About the only units I can recall people talking about were things like Dreadclaw drop pods (hardly broken at triple the price of a normal drop pod), making references to Lucius pattern drop pods from two editions ago, Titans (who's rules are written by GW at this point), and the Tau'nar (which, while undercosted, is hardly worse than any number of other SH/GC units with rules written by GW and typically won't pass muster in most tournament restrictions anyway e.g. ITC).

Unless there's something more concrete, or you just want to deflect away with another non-answer like telling people to re-read the thread, then I think it's safe to say there's no real leg to stand on here.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Not feeling like repeating myself one hundred times. This thread is long enough. Just read it.

It's literally naming units. You expended the same amount of effort telling me off that it would take to name them.

My thoughts exactly.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


You say we can'tbring Forgeworld units to your tournament games. Guess ill just have to pull out my Armorcast Revenant Titan. It has (as you put it) "official" GW rules (Escalation AND Apocalypse) and is not an apocalypse formation. Pic for reference if you need any proof.

Cool. Except as was mentioned like ten times already, We covered that base. see point 3 under list construction:

http://www.40kambassadors.com/rules.php


So maybe read the thread and then maybe make your point? Or whatever?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

"Numerous examples"? I think I saw the titans, and that's about it. .

read more. thats the only cure for that problem.

Or, you could just state one of your numerous examples. If they are really that common, they I'm sure you can name at least a few off the top of your head.

Not feeling like repeating myself one hundred times. This thread is long enough. Just read it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xerics wrote:
As much as I dislike most of Peregrine's opinions this is one of the few times I agree with him 100%.

Hehehe. Nice qualifier. And the cool thing is, everyone GETS to have their opinion, free of charge.

LOL the website says, and I quote, "The Ambassadorial Tournament is a 4-round bracket tournament, not for the faint of heart.". It very much is for the feint of heart if you have to put so much restrictions on it.