48698
Post by: Eiluj The Farseer
I think some places are coming around, but one of my local gaming stores is vehemently against gamers using any IA or forgeworld stuff. Now I understand titans and super heavies and flyers in a non-apocalypse game. Where I have a problem however is Warhammer 40k approved or chapter approved stuff not being allowed. I may be a little biased because I play old codexes, but I think personally it is a crock! Now I know Adepticon allows 1 unit in a team to be in their tournies, but some tournies will not allow them at all. I just do not understand what all the hate is for. I understand that not all may have access to this stuff, but as long as everyone goes over their list prior to battle and what each thing can do if people have quesions on it. I do not see what the problem would be. I do not understand it coming from Grey Knight and Necron players as they have the newest codexes and have some of the newest and coolest GW has to offer. Just wondered what everyone elses opinion was on the matter. I guess why I really have a problem with it is for my Eldar army as Heavy Support choice has always been a premium, with the new IA out, it gives us some sorely needed fast attack slots with the Wasp and the Hornets. I do not think them overly broken or unfair, it just gives another tank that can actually shoot and a war walker in the FA slot, which in my mind should be there anyway. I do like the Warp Hunter Tank as well, but every time I have played it, it has been the focus of much shooting so rarely survives long to do much. Please let me know your feedback. Cheers
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Not really a YMDC question.
28311
Post by: Shrike325
I'm against IA in competitive play (I have no real problem with it in pick-up games, etc.). Although I am not one of the people who thinks everything in FW is broken, the truth is that are a few REALLY broken things around, and it would unbalance a few armies more than others (Tau get the short end of the stick for example).
Furthermore, to your specific example: some HS choices should stay HS. Just because they gave War Walkers jump packs and threw them in FA choices, doesn't necessarily mean they belong there. If you threw jump packs on Long Fangs, and put them in FA, would it be balanced?
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I'm for forge world in regular 40k as long as it's specifically the new ones marked with "for warhammer 40k". Most apocalypse units are undercosted and overpowered, but most standard 40k units are actually pretty underpar. Theres nothing in any of the "for warhammer 40k" unit entries that can compare to psyfledreads, long fangs, sanguinary priests, vendettas, or even the humble th/ ss terminator squad. Adding forge world just increases options and helps to buff up older armies.
I'm against IA in competitive play (I have no real problem with it in pick-up games, etc.). Although I am not one of the people who thinks everything in FW is broken, the truth is that are a few REALLY broken things around, and it would unbalance a few armies more than others (Tau get the short end of the stick for example).
The forge world tau heavy battlesuits are very powerful units that slot into FA and don't reduce your number of rail guns. The tau don't exactly get the short end there.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
"for warhammer 40k". =/= "chapter approved"
We haven't had official chapter approved for years now but chapter approved was official core codex rules and treated as such.
I think there are times when they should not be allowed, and some times they should be allowed. I think there are some units which are ok and if GW added them as official updates to core codexes, it would be a good thing. I think there are some units which are unfair and give already dominate codexes even more power which will promote proxies and stand-ins for super meta builds.
I think when you have an IA allowed tourney, you will find most people int hat event using at least one IA unit because they are expecting to face it. When you have a general play with hundreds of people where only a small number have access to IA or FWmodels, you then have people winning through 'what does that do?' opposed to skill. Unfamiliarity and Yu-Gi-Oh you activated my trap card should not be a tactic used in competative 40k events.
I think things are fine right now where some events have it, some events don't. People who want it all the time to fix holes int heir old edition codexes...w ell that was never the intention for your codex to be rebalanced and FIXED via IA.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I think there are times when they should not be allowed, and some times they should be allowed. I think there are some units which are ok and if GW added them as official updates to core codexes, it would be a good thing. I think there are some units which are unfair and give already dominate codexes even more power which will promote proxies and stand-ins for super meta builds.
I don't think thats actually truly. The only questionable units are only available in codexes where they're sub part unit additions. Assaulting with a dreadnought out of a drop pod is neat except generic space marine dreadnoughts are actually kinda terrible. What units allow for overpowered competitive combinations in your opinion?
48034
Post by: Jstncloud
I am definitely for it, if it comes with limitations. I agree that there are some units that are simply insane and that some armies are severely underpowered (but those same armies are already underpowered in the core game anyways). That all being said I think a good set of restrictions on what can/cannot be used would definitely open the door for more interesting army compositions.
8049
Post by: ArbitorIan
nkelsch wrote:I think when you have an IA allowed tourney, you will find most people int hat event using at least one IA unit because they are expecting to face it. When you have a general play with hundreds of people where only a small number have access to IA or FWmodels, you then have people winning through 'what does that do?' opposed to skill. Unfamiliarity and Yu-Gi-Oh you activated my trap card should not be a tactic used in competative 40k events.
I think over the last few years this has become less of an issue. Given the price increases in standard GW stuff, Forge World is no longer 'inaccesible' to people. To someone without a local GW store, the entire product line is equally inaccessible. To someone with only a small FLGS, then Sisters are exactly as accessible as Death Korps. Well, even LESS so, since their Codex was only available for two months last year...!
As to unfamiliarity, well, there are plenty of Codexes I don't personally own, and plenty of armies that I don't regularly play against. Nobody in my group plays Tyranids or Necrons, and therefore I'm at a disadvantage if I face those.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
Against it.
Reason is that if forces people to buy more additional expensive reading material to play against a person who already has them, as well as several over the top units that would really unbalanced an already unbalanced game system.
Another way to suck the life out of your hobby dollars.
To me this is GW's answer to the Colossus line that PP is gearing up for (as well as the timing of 6th ED).
I believe that this move will drive more people out of the market as the expense of the game will be paid and played by only the hardcore, the fan bois and timmy 10 year old..
The average player will simply stop playing.
28311
Post by: Shrike325
Adam LongWalker wrote:
The average player will simply stop playing.
I say that the average player never plays in a tournament, and so would have no great impact on the game.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Reason is that if forces people to buy more additional expensive reading material to play against a person who already has them,
As opposed to having to buy 300 dollars in codexes...? Do people do that now as it is?
18698
Post by: kronk
Shrike325 wrote:
I say that the average player never plays in a tournament, and so would have no great impact on the game.
Pretty much this. Our playing group uses the IA rules. We have house ruled a few of them. No Lucious Drop Pods, Super Heavies, and Flyers outside of Apoc games and so on. If you pull out a few bad apples, it really isn't that big of a deal. Honestly, there isn't much in the IA books that is as powerful as the Codex Space Marine Assault terminators...
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
If one takes the obvious step of excluding the use of super heavies and flyers, then one simply need to ban the Big Five (Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram).
If those steps are taken I dare say that the complaints would be so few that they were basically non-existent.
People who complain about the exclusion of the Big Five are IMO the people who just wish to exploit Imperial Armours lack of play testing.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
ArbitorIan wrote:nkelsch wrote:I think when you have an IA allowed tourney, you will find most people int hat event using at least one IA unit because they are expecting to face it. When you have a general play with hundreds of people where only a small number have access to IA or FWmodels, you then have people winning through 'what does that do?' opposed to skill. Unfamiliarity and Yu-Gi-Oh you activated my trap card should not be a tactic used in competative 40k events.
I think over the last few years this has become less of an issue. Given the price increases in standard GW stuff, Forge World is no longer 'inaccessible' to people. To someone without a local GW store, the entire product line is equally inaccessible. To someone with only a small FLGS, then Sisters are exactly as accessible as Death Korps. Well, even LESS so, since their Codex was only available for two months last year...!
As to unfamiliarity, well, there are plenty of Codexes I don't personally own, and plenty of armies that I don't regularly play against. Nobody in my group plays Tyranids or Necrons, and therefore I'm at a disadvantage if I face those.
I dunno, I am always surprised on the number of people who have credit cards who can't make international orders, or people without credit cards in general and can't make purchases except for their FLGS. A lot of GWs don't even have access to FW in the US. Most of the ones in my area say you have to go in person to the Bowie battle bunker and participate in a 'group buy' where they get a bunch of people to pool their order to get free shipping. No special deal other than that.
That makes FW and IA seem out of reach for a lot of people in the US and 'cost' isn't even the factor. The US economy has seriously changed how banks allow people to use credit cards and there has been a lot of US specific changes which make it very hard for peopel to buy from FW directly. Even my bank requires me to verify international charges in person at the bank or upgrade to a premium credit card which has added fraud protection. Many other banks simply have removed international transactions from people with lower credit limits.
Personally, I like how it is now, the primary event is the core ruleset which has one specific META which people build for, and then there is usually either alternative events or secondary events which have FW included. People can choose one, or the other or both as they play different and you build your army differently based upon the possible field of opponents and units you may face. As long as people are clear what they are expected to face before they show up, that is what is important. Nothing is worse showing up thinking the event is core 40k and then a wishywashy TO allowing some FW unit or list in without disclosing to everyone that is a possibility. Clearly posted and enforced rules is the key to a well-run event.
And even with the new IA book with the 'approved for 40k' , none of the codex FW lists become legal through that mechanism, so no DKoK or Dredbash unless it is a full-blown FW event.
48698
Post by: Eiluj The Farseer
Shrike325 wrote:I'm against IA in competitive play (I have no real problem with it in pick-up games, etc.). Although I am not one of the people who thinks everything in FW is broken, the truth is that are a few REALLY broken things around, and it would unbalance a few armies more than others (Tau get the short end of the stick for example).
Furthermore, to your specific example: some HS choices should stay HS. Just because they gave War Walkers jump packs and threw them in FA choices, doesn't necessarily mean they belong there. If you threw jump packs on Long Fangs, and put them in FA, would it be balanced?
I don't believe War Walkers should be HS choices in the first place since their role is scouting and outflanking. I think they fit the FA slot better anyway. I hope in the new codex (if we ever get one) that they are reassigned. JMO Automatically Appended Next Post: Adam LongWalker wrote:Against it.
Reason is that if forces people to buy more additional expensive reading material to play against a person who already has them, as well as several over the top units that would really unbalanced an already unbalanced game system.
Another way to suck the life out of your hobby dollars.
To me this is GW's answer to the Colossus line that PP is gearing up for (as well as the timing of 6th ED).
I believe that this move will drive more people out of the market as the expense of the game will be paid and played by only the hardcore, the fan bois and timmy 10 year old..
The average player will simply stop playing.
I don't think it forces anyone to buy anything. The same is true for any regular GW army you have, you "have" to buy a competative army or you will get squashed. I think if you look at the 'Warhammer 40k' or 'Chapter Approved' stuff most of this is not broken. I also agree that there are plenty of broken units already in GW line up - look at grey knights, space wolves, blood angels.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
Just because they gave War Walkers jump packs and threw them in FA choices, doesn't necessarily mean they belong there. If you threw jump packs on Long Fangs, and put them in FA, would it be balanced?
They don't have Jumppacks....they have JetPacks. A big difference
48698
Post by: Eiluj The Farseer
nkelsch wrote:ArbitorIan wrote:nkelsch wrote:I think when you have an IA allowed tourney, you will find most people int hat event using at least one IA unit because they are expecting to face it. When you have a general play with hundreds of people where only a small number have access to IA or FWmodels, you then have people winning through 'what does that do?' opposed to skill. Unfamiliarity and Yu-Gi-Oh you activated my trap card should not be a tactic used in competative 40k events.
I think over the last few years this has become less of an issue. Given the price increases in standard GW stuff, Forge World is no longer 'inaccessible' to people. To someone without a local GW store, the entire product line is equally inaccessible. To someone with only a small FLGS, then Sisters are exactly as accessible as Death Korps. Well, even LESS so, since their Codex was only available for two months last year...!
As to unfamiliarity, well, there are plenty of Codexes I don't personally own, and plenty of armies that I don't regularly play against. Nobody in my group plays Tyranids or Necrons, and therefore I'm at a disadvantage if I face those.
I dunno, I am always surprised on the number of people who have credit cards who can't make international orders, or people without credit cards in general and can't make purchases except for their FLGS. A lot of GWs don't even have access to FW in the US. Most of the ones in my area say you have to go in person to the Bowie battle bunker and participate in a 'group buy' where they get a bunch of people to pool their order to get free shipping. No special deal other than that.
That makes FW and IA seem out of reach for a lot of people in the US and 'cost' isn't even the factor. The US economy has seriously changed how banks allow people to use credit cards and there has been a lot of US specific changes which make it very hard for peopel to buy from FW directly. Even my bank requires me to verify international charges in person at the bank or upgrade to a premium credit card which has added fraud protection. Many other banks simply have removed international transactions from people with lower credit limits.
Personally, I like how it is now, the primary event is the core ruleset which has one specific META which people build for, and then there is usually either alternative events or secondary events which have FW included. People can choose one, or the other or both as they play different and you build your army differently based upon the possible field of opponents and units you may face. As long as people are clear what they are expected to face before they show up, that is what is important. Nothing is worse showing up thinking the event is core 40k and then a wishywashy TO allowing some FW unit or list in without disclosing to everyone that is a possibility. Clearly posted and enforced rules is the key to a well-run event.
And even with the new IA book with the 'approved for 40k' , none of the codex FW lists become legal through that mechanism, so no DKoK or Dredbash unless it is a full-blown FW event.
It really is not all that hard nor that expensive, if you go to forgeworlds website and order. I got wasps #3, Hornets #3, warp Hunter and those were not that much more than the GW models in the states, the IA books were more expensive, but the same price on the GW website (though I believe they stopped selling them in Jan 2012). So I do not think it is that difficult to acquire the pieces. IMO Obviously I am for including 'Warhammer 40' approved stuff from IA and 'Chapter Approved' stuff Automatically Appended Next Post: I like all the posts this is getting, obviously this is a cause for much debate and much heated discussions...
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
So long as it's only 40k type units (no flyers, no super heavies, no gargantuans), I support their inclusion.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Adam LongWalker wrote:Against it.
Reason is that if forces people to buy more additional expensive reading material to play against a person who already has them, as well as several over the top units that would really unbalanced an already unbalanced game system.
Another way to suck the life out of your hobby dollars.
To me this is GW's answer to the Colossus line that PP is gearing up for (as well as the timing of 6th ED).
I believe that this move will drive more people out of the market as the expense of the game will be paid and played by only the hardcore, the fan bois and timmy 10 year old..
The average player will simply stop playing.
Cost should have nothing to do with it. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the books, most people don't own all the codex books as it is now. This is already a luxury hobby that is fast approaching FW prices anyway (will be there in the net 36-60 months if prices keep rising at the rate they have been). If we're taking cost into consideration here, we should also ban IG and Ork armies because most people can't afford fully fleshed out 2000pt armies of those either when they often cost 2-4x what a similar points SM army will cost.
There's a couple bad apples in FW stuff, but less than what I'd need to count on one hand, and it won't ruin 40k anymore than the silly stuff that's already in there (long fangs, purifiers, psyrifleman dreads, vendettas, vulkan, Grey Hunters, etc) and would add a lot of variety to games and armies that otherwise may not change for years on end, and may even provide some under-represented armies with some new tools and shift the meta (e.g. Tau might be more playable with the FW suits and vehicles, Eldar too)
34242
Post by: -Loki-
Vaktathi wrote:Cost should have nothing to do with it. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the books, most people don't own all the codex books as it is now.
This is also, I feel, another reason Forgeworld released Imperial Armour Apocalypse Second Edition.
Do you want the rules for all 5th edition IA units? buy this one book. it's got them all, and their up to date rules. If tournaments want to painlessly include Forgeworld units, it's very easy to say 'You can use anything marked as a Warhammer 40,000 unit and is not a flier in IAA Second Edition'. This takes care of variant army lists, super heavy vehicles, fliers and any outlying IA units that FW forgot about but might be a bit too powerful. They can then, on top of that, say 'Also, you can't use the Caestus Assault Ram, Land Raider Achilles, Lucius drop pod, etc' if they want to ban any specific units.
IAA Second Edition puts everything in one place, with updated rules, and makes it nice and easy for anyone to get the rules for 95% of what FW offers outside of campaign specific army lists and some outlying units.
47269
Post by: deathholydeath
Vaktathi wrote:Adam LongWalker wrote:Against it.
Reason is that if forces people to buy more additional expensive reading material to play against a person who already has them, as well as several over the top units that would really unbalanced an already unbalanced game system.
Another way to suck the life out of your hobby dollars.
To me this is GW's answer to the Colossus line that PP is gearing up for (as well as the timing of 6th ED).
I believe that this move will drive more people out of the market as the expense of the game will be paid and played by only the hardcore, the fan bois and timmy 10 year old..
The average player will simply stop playing.
Cost should have nothing to do with it. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the books, most people don't own all the codex books as it is now. This is already a luxury hobby that is fast approaching FW prices anyway (will be there in the net 36-60 months if prices keep rising at the rate they have been). If we're taking cost into consideration here, we should also ban IG and Ork armies because most people can't afford fully fleshed out 2000pt armies of those either when they often cost 2-4x what a similar points SM army will cost.
There's a couple bad apples in FW stuff, but less than what I'd need to count on one hand, and it won't ruin 40k anymore than the silly stuff that's already in there (long fangs, purifiers, psyrifleman dreads, vendettas, vulkan, Grey Hunters, etc) and would add a lot of variety to games and armies that otherwise may not change for years on end, and may even provide some under-represented armies with some new tools and shift the meta (e.g. Tau might be more playable with the FW suits and vehicles, Eldar too)
This. FW is not much more expensive than GW prices now. I can get a landraider for 66$ or an armageddon pattern medusa for 82$ roughly. 16$ difference isn't that much in a game like this. And FW stuff definitely isn't more overpowered than Ward's stuff.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Eiluj The Farseer wrote:It really is not all that hard nor that expensive, if you go to forgeworlds website and order. I got wasps #3, Hornets #3, warp Hunter and those were not that much more than the GW models in the states, the IA books were more expensive, but the same price on the GW website (though I believe they stopped selling them in Jan 2012). So I do not think it is that difficult to acquire the pieces. IMO Obviously I am for including 'Warhammer 40' approved stuff from IA and 'Chapter Approved' stuff
What part of Banks not allowing people to make international purchases or people not having credit cards do you seem to purposefully dismiss?
IA and FW is not accessible to everyone and is not as easy as you think to get. There is a reason many people need to purchase through re-sellers who make the purchase count as domestic for billing.
The system in place now works fine. There is no need for all events to be forced to be one way or another, especially to please eldar players simply because they have a junky old codex.
3537
Post by: wildger
Adam LongWalker wrote:Against it.
Reason is that if forces people to buy more additional expensive reading material to play against a person who already has them, as well as several over the top units that would really unbalanced an already unbalanced game system.
Another way to suck the life out of your hobby dollars.
To me this is GW's answer to the Colossus line that PP is gearing up for (as well as the timing of 6th ED).
I believe that this move will drive more people out of the market as the expense of the game will be paid and played by only the hardcore, the fan bois and timmy 10 year old..
The average player will simply stop playing.
First, if you don't like it, you don't have to play. No one forces you to play 40K. Second, if you cannot afford it, don't disallow those who can. Third, high price does not drive people out of the market. They simply play other miniature games. Fourth, average players do not play in a competitive tournament. They simply don't play at all. Only those with blind loyalty do. They all think that 40K is the only game in the world that they can play.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
nkelsch wrote:Eiluj The Farseer wrote:It really is not all that hard nor that expensive, if you go to forgeworlds website and order. I got wasps #3, Hornets #3, warp Hunter and those were not that much more than the GW models in the states, the IA books were more expensive, but the same price on the GW website (though I believe they stopped selling them in Jan 2012). So I do not think it is that difficult to acquire the pieces. IMO Obviously I am for including 'Warhammer 40' approved stuff from IA and 'Chapter Approved' stuff
What part of Banks not allowing people to make international purchases or people not having credit cards do you seem to purposefully dismiss?
IA and FW is not accessible to everyone and is not as easy as you think to get. There is a reason many people need to purchase through re-sellers who make the purchase count as domestic for billing.
The system in place now works fine. There is no need for all events to be forced to be one way or another, especially to please eldar players simply because they have a junky old codex.
You need to get out of your credit crisis or just have a friend place the order for you if you're too young. Hell, most FLGS' are happy to place orders for players. Are you in prison or something?
3330
Post by: Kirasu
A lot of people can't afford to play warhammer in general, but we don't just cancel all tournaments because of that. You can actually buy a lot of FW models for a pretty comparable amount to a similar GW kit.. .For example the Warp Hunter kit is about 55$ and comes with the fire prism sprue
I allow Forgeworlds in all Pittsburgh area tournaments I run and haven't had a problem. The amount of people that actually bring FW to events is so low that it's not worth all the hysteria. Although I agree, some units arent balanced well and I don't allow the non-standard drop pods. Granted, I also think that no FW can compare to the lack of balance that is the Grey Knight codex so It's hard for me to ban things for "balance" issues when you have the GK book allowed
Not allowing FW because some people can't easily grab FW models off of retail shelves is a poor reason imo. I think FW adds variety and character to a tournament system that has been very very stale for years now (yay mech!) and I'm always in favor of it within reason. The entire hobby is expensive.. It's like joining a country club and complaining that someone has a more expensive polo shirt than you do.. At the end of the day you're playing a hobby that the vast majority of people can't afford
If you want to play with FW come to Pittsburgh!
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
If I remember right the forge world whirlwinds are actually cheaper than games work shop whirlwinds.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Yeah exactly.. I actually order most of my eldar from FW cause it's cheaper to buy their kits and get free eldar sprues with them
4295
Post by: vhwolf
Kirasu wrote:A lot of people can't afford to play warhammer in general, but we don't just cancel all tournaments because of that. You can actually buy a lot of FW models for a pretty comparable amount to a similar GW kit.. .For example the Warp Hunter kit is about 55$ and comes with the fire prism sprue
I allow Forgeworlds in all Pittsburgh area tournaments I run and haven't had a problem. The amount of people that actually bring FW to events is so low that it's not worth all the hysteria. Although I agree, some units arent balanced well and I don't allow the non-standard drop pods. Granted, I also think that no FW can compare to the lack of balance that is the Grey Knight codex so It's hard for me to ban things for "balance" issues when you have the GK book allowed
Not allowing FW because some people can't easily grab FW models off of retail shelves is a poor reason imo. I think FW adds variety and character to a tournament system that has been very very stale for years now (yay mech!) and I'm always in favor of it within reason. The entire hobby is expensive.. It's like joining a country club and complaining that someone has a more expensive polo shirt than you do.. At the end of the day you're playing a hobby that the vast majority of people can't afford
If you want to play with FW come to Pittsburgh!
Or Vegas we have allowed forgeworld stuff for over ten years and never had problems with it. In truth almost no one brings any.
48698
Post by: Eiluj The Farseer
nkelsch wrote:Eiluj The Farseer wrote:It really is not all that hard nor that expensive, if you go to forgeworlds website and order. I got wasps #3, Hornets #3, warp Hunter and those were not that much more than the GW models in the states, the IA books were more expensive, but the same price on the GW website (though I believe they stopped selling them in Jan 2012). So I do not think it is that difficult to acquire the pieces. IMO Obviously I am for including 'Warhammer 40' approved stuff from IA and 'Chapter Approved' stuff
What part of Banks not allowing people to make international purchases or people not having credit cards do you seem to purposefully dismiss?
IA and FW is not accessible to everyone and is not as easy as you think to get. There is a reason many people need to purchase through re-sellers who make the purchase count as domestic for billing.
The system in place now works fine. There is no need for all events to be forced to be one way or another, especially to please eldar players simply because they have a junky old codex.
I did not dismiss banks not allowing international purchases, as I have done it with my AMERICAN credit cards and I know friends that have done the same, I doubt we have the same credit card. But please try to be a little kinder on your posts. I started this thread to have people post their views, but you do not need to be short, crass or rude when people post back.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
Here in Orlando, we've started to have FW back in tournaments lately. Besides me, maybe only two other people are using FW units. I'm sure that will change once people begin to see that playing FW units is no big deal. I hope that the trend spreads to other stores in the area. I know two FLGS in the area that allow FW units now. Hopefully, others will follow.
53116
Post by: helium42
I think that tournament organizers should format their tournaments as they see fit. If they listen to the desires of the people who will be playing in said tournament, then they will be successful.
I personally would not play in a tournament that allowed FW models and rules, but I'm sure that there are many who would. I have no problem playing a pick-up game against an opponent with FW stuff though, and actually like seeing models I have never seen before across the table from me.
52010
Post by: Go Big Green!
If a tournament does allow FW models then it shouldn't be just specific units. It should be all or none.
30773
Post by: warhawkstriker
The general consensus at my FLGS is that if you payed that much for a model then yes you can use it. and as far as tournaments go, it seems like the organizers are going to take a look at the units, and if they are the really broken ones then say you cant use them. And if they are otherwise okay then you can use them.
3330
Post by: Kirasu
It's getting harder for me to justify banning anything from FW in my events as long as Psyrifle dreads exist
52795
Post by: kshaw2000
Shrike325 wrote:I'm against IA in competitive play (I have no real problem with it in pick-up games, etc.). Although I am not one of the people who thinks everything in FW is broken, the truth is that are a few REALLY broken things around, and it would unbalance a few armies more than others (Tau get the short end of the stick for example).
quote]
tounements are for taking the broken to your advantage. people expect it. why should someone not take advantage. not in friendly games, but tournements matter.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Kirasu wrote:It's getting harder for me to justify banning anything from FW in my events as long as Psyrifle dreads exist
Indeed. While I still really do not like the dread drop pod, and though now not totally broken still not enamored of the LR Achilles, aside from those two and maybe 1 or 2 others, there's not a whole lot to complain about, and if people are willing to put up with Psyrifleman dreads, 140pt 5ML split fire long fang units, Vendettas, Purifiers, razorspam lists, FNP on damn near everything, etc. then FW stuff isn't going to phase them once they get over the initial "zomg!@(*$" shock .
I am continually amused the way some people will repeatedly face razorfangspam armies with 11 IFV's and 3 long fang units packing more long range AT and AP2/3 than most IG armies with decent CC to boot, but are totally against playing an army with a Hazard Suit, Land Raider Prometheus, Quad Launcher Thudd Gun or Autocannon Chimera.
Once they realize that the "bad" FW stuff isn't any worse and much more limited than the general codex stuff, and that the vast majority of stuff ranged from "ok" to "poor" but can really add a lot to many games, they get over it really fast as long as you don't have goobers fawning over the broken stuff or making FW stuff out to be "zomg the most totally amazing kick ass units in the game!". (had an issue recently where one dude was trying to talk up how badass his FW list was and was just making people not want to play against it and I had to get into how it's really not that badass in reality and get him to stop going over the top with it if he wanted to get people ok with FW stuff).
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
It's too bad GW had to waffle and still encourage players to "ask permission". This whole argument could of been avoided. Without the option to "opt out" people wouldn't make up things to cry about.
2757
Post by: austinitor
I feel many of those against are playing a lame sort of meta-game: protecting the primacy of their unbalanced armies (i.e., those considered to be in the "top tier" that is often posted about).
Any number of armies have FoC issues that make them especially unbalanced against other common builds (i.e. Tyranids difficulty in getting anti-tank), or simply bad/overcosted units (e.g. Vypers, or really anything in the Eldar FA selections). Forge World "for 40k" items fix some of these issues, which are largely symptoms of codex creep (made ever-worse by the fact that variously colored SMurfs have a nasty habit of "lapping" other armies, especially xenos, with their codex re-dos happening every edition, while some armies seem to only get a new codex every other edition). Forge World now really fills the role that Chapter Approved did in the past.
As to the bogus canard about buying every Forge World book to get the rules your opponents are using, that's really ridiculous. I personally wouldn't play against someone who would not allow me to see the rules for what I was playing against.Do other competitive players really buy the entire library of codexes that are available? There are certainly other legal ways to get your hands on such rules, e.g. a licensed copy of Army Builder (among other army list creating programs).
More to the point, all of the tournament rules I've seen require players to bring their codexes and relevant FAQ (not their opponents codexes and FAQs). Why not simply allow a player using units from IA to bring the IA book (and relevant FAQs), as well? Automatically Appended Next Post: Go Big Green! wrote:If a tournament does allow FW models then it shouldn't be just specific units. It should be all or none.
I certainly agree with this. If the special rules for a given unit are simply too wonky, address them in the tournsment FAQ and work out some reasonable way for them to work. Automatically Appended Next Post: Please excuse my ignorance, but which national banks forbid international purchases on debit cards? I've never heard of this being an issue, but I guess I could anticipate getting a "fraud prevention" call.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Can we make a sticky for this stuff? It seriously comes up once a month.
16070
Post by: Sarge
My local folks have never allowed FW. Apparently I'm the only one that affects in my area so the impetus to change is small.
958
Post by: mikhaila
You've got a problem in saying " IA in all tournaments", since the TO certainly needs to have a copy of the rules available. A TO who doesn't own the IA books is going to be a lot less likely to allow the rules.
Then of course we can get to the next set of classic arguements:
- Should you have to own the IA book to use the rules?
-Should you have to own the FW models to use the rules?
Automatically Appended Next Post: helium42 wrote:I think that tournament organizers should format their tournaments as they see fit. If they listen to the desires of the people who will be playing in said tournament, then they will be successful.
.
This statement I whole heartedly agree with.
10127
Post by: Happygrunt
I think allowing IA: 2 edition and the variant armies (DKoK, Tyrant's Legion, Corsairs) would be nice. I mean, those are as powerful as some 40k books, and adds in more flavor to the game. Just require that the player has the rules for these units/ armies on them.
2757
Post by: austinitor
mikhaila wrote:You've got a problem in saying "IA in all tournaments", since the TO certainly needs to have a copy of the rules available. A TO who doesn't own the IA books is going to be a lot less likely to allow the rules.
That may be true, but the INAT FAQ (in its Appendix) and a number of other tournament FAQs are already doing a good job of addressing IA units/army lists. I suppose this would be an opportunity for Forge World to do a sort of Rogue Trader/Outrider program to educate TOs regarding their expansions to the game. I find it hard to imagine TOs wishing to turn down the gift of IA books, which, IMHO are beautifully done.
mikhaila wrote:Then of course we can get to the next set of classic arguements:
- Should you have to own the IA book to use the rules?
Most tournaments require that you have your codex already; this would simply be an extension of that (and a slight one at that, as for at least a few armies, "your codex" has meant "a couple of White Dwarf issues/articles").
mikhaila wrote:-Should you have to own the FW models to use the rules?
I think that this is somewhat irrelevant, so long as the models are modeled to be WYSIWYG (i.e. converted to be armed with what their army list entry specifies). Most the tournament rules I've seen posted already require this.
958
Post by: mikhaila
austinitor wrote:That may be true, but the INAT FAQ (in its Appendix) and a number of other tournament FAQs are already doing a good job of addressing IA units/army lists. I suppose this would be an opportunity for Forge World to do a sort of Rogue Trader/Outrider program to educate TOs regarding their expansions to the game. I find it hard to imagine TOs wishing to turn down the gift of IA books, which, IMHO are beautifully done.
I would please like to have whatever happyhappy drugs you are smoking!! 
Forgeworld will never have an outrider program.) Hell, GW doesn't have any type of outrider/Kommando program anymore. FW offers retailers 0% in discounts. You pay exactly what a store pays. Even offers to order 10-20k at a time have been turned down. For a brief time stores could order IA books off the GW website and sell them as special orders. They just took that away from us. Your right that TO's would never turn down IA books, but what in the world makes you think someone is going to be giving them away? 
I brought up the other two points, because they always seem to pop up as well, and follow along with "every tournament should allow FW". Many people don't see why they should have to have an IA book to use the rules, or why they can't use a scratchbuild model, or conversion.
In the end, it's going to up to local groups of players, clubs, stores, or TO's as to whether they allow FW into their tournaments.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
mikhaila wrote:
I brought up the other two points, because they always seem to pop up as well, and follow along with "every tournament should allow FW". Many people don't see why they should have to have an IA book to use the rules, or why they can't use a scratchbuild model, or conversion.
... or terrible proxy, or their shoe to represent a forgeworld model... It is a slippery slope. People claim FW is cheap and the same price as GW models and easy to obtain then they turn around and say they shouldn't have to obtain the rules/models to use them.
2757
Post by: austinitor
nkelsch wrote:... or terrible proxy, or their shoe to represent a forgeworld model... It is a slippery slope. People claim FW is cheap and the same price as GW models and easy to obtain then they turn around and say they shouldn't have to obtain the rules/models to use them.
"Slippery slope" fallacy followed by a strawman; weak sauce. 
That said, but to humor these bogus arguments in the spirit of good faith, how would a "terrible proxy" or "their shoe" meet the WYSIWYG requirement most tournaments run under?
7942
Post by: nkelsch
austinitor wrote:nkelsch wrote:... or terrible proxy, or their shoe to represent a forgeworld model... It is a slippery slope. People claim FW is cheap and the same price as GW models and easy to obtain then they turn around and say they shouldn't have to obtain the rules/models to use them.
"Slippery slope" fallacy followed by a strawman; weak sauce.
That said, but to humor these bogus arguments in the spirit of good faith, how would a "terrible proxy" or "their shoe" meet the WYSIWYG requirement most tournaments run under?
Because there are people who don't believe tourneys should run under WYSIWYG and there are people who believe any plastic dreadnought with any weapon options should be able to count as any other dreadnought with any other weapon options. People will be wanting to use GW plastic dreadnoughts as contemptor dreadnoughts and claim it is WYSIWYG even though it is not. We already see this with the different types of space marine dreadnoughts where people don't care the difference between a regular and ironclad and claim they are WYSIWYG.
33203
Post by: aedel88
Very much for IA and FW in standard 40K tournaments, I think the diversity reflects the mess that is the warhammer 40K universe, and will enhance the hobby. A touch of the wackiness that occurs in apocalypse games should be in every 40K game.
Units marked for 40K not apocalypse should only be used. A copy of the rules must be on hand and easily available.
Models should be the correct ones, absolutely no proxies, and painted to the correct scheme for force used.
Anything that enhanced the game and inspirers players to do something new and different should be encouraged.
The TO always has final say and would need to publish what is allowed in advance.
48698
Post by: Eiluj The Farseer
It would all be so much easier if since they are the same company, just merge and stamp things for 40k and for appoc games and be done with it. That being said, I do not see the two coming together anytime soon as 1.) we are dealing with two different groups that each have their own ideas and are each kings of their own court and 2.) GW can never get its head out of its arse and do anything in an efficient and timely manner. I have been playing since 1989 and it has always been like this.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Eiluj The Farseer wrote:It would all be so much easier if since they are the same company,
They are the same company.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
nkelsch wrote:
Because there are people who don't believe tourneys should run under WYSIWYG and there are people who believe any plastic dreadnought with any weapon options should be able to count as any other dreadnought with any other weapon options. People will be wanting to use GW plastic dreadnoughts as contemptor dreadnoughts and claim it is WYSIWYG even though it is not. We already see this with the different types of space marine dreadnoughts where people don't care the difference between a regular and ironclad and claim they are WYSIWYG.
As long as they have the proper weapons on the Dreadnought, why wouldn't you be able to run it as an Ironclad? There's no other Dreadnoughts in the book that can have dual DCCWs or a Hurricane Bolter anywway, is there?
2757
Post by: austinitor
AlmightyWalrus wrote:As long as they have the proper weapons on the Dreadnought, why wouldn't you be able to run it as an Ironclad? There's no other Dreadnoughts in the book that can have dual DCCWs or a Hurricane Bolter anywway, is there?
Totally agreed; I don't care if your model is a scrathbuild or conversion; there is no reason to create special restrictions on modelling units that appear only in Imperial Armor when conversions are already a necessary part of the game (especially for units from Codexes that GW is not timely in providing models for. Here are some prominent examples:
the latest Tyranid models that took two years, post codex, 'til release
the various Space Wolf wolves
Eldar Shining Spears (rules appeared early in 2nd edition; models did not appear 'til late in 3rd)
Eldar corsairs (rules appeared in 2nd edition under the name "pirates"; models did not appear 'til late in 5th, along with new rules and being re-named "Corsairs")
49995
Post by: -666-
Forgeworld is expensive plus you need to buy more books to use them. I do not want to see it become commonly allowed in tournaments for those reasons. There is a lot of broken stuff in there.
38919
Post by: The_Stormrider
I think it would be a great thing for the hobby in general and for the tournament scene to allow IA units into the tournament circuit. That is of course the ones that are designated "40k" not "apocalypse". I am also all for allowing well made counts as models. They just need to be wsiwyg and properly sized.
8491
Post by: TwilightWalker
-666- wrote:Forgeworld is expensive plus you need to buy more books to use them. I do not want to see it become commonly allowed in tournaments for those reasons. There is a lot of broken stuff in there.
"Broken" you say. Just what, exactly, is so broken? There's a discussion going on in 40k General Discussion, and I'd like to hear your input on it.
As for expensive plus buying more books, I honestly don't care what someone else pays for his army, all the better for him and GW. But if he has to bring his book/rules like every other person has to in a tournament, I don't see what's so hard about taking a look yourself. Especially if TOs include the provision of a player bringing copies to pass out to his opponents (temporarily).
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Where are the tournament police who prevent really interested parties from hosting tournaments using FW units? mikhaila wrote:In the end, it's going to up to local groups of players, clubs, stores, or TO's as to whether they allow FW into their tournaments.
All politics are local. Decisions are market-driven. Location location location. There's a large number of cliches to choose from, but Mike covers it right there - there is no centralized authority to argue with here, as each tournament makes their own decisions. Some have started testing the waters (looking at you, BAO); others have had limited inclusions for years (Adepticon's Team & Gladiator tournaments). If enough people care enough to deal with the headaches of organizing an event, then they're free to allow FW units, and see if enough other people are interested in attending to make the event viable.
49995
Post by: -666-
Not many people own Forgeworld as compared to the total number of people who play 40k and there is a good reason for that. I own lots of Forgeworld but think it has its place in Apocalypse. I don't think it will come to pass as generally accepted for these reasons.
958
Post by: mikhaila
austinitor wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:As long as they have the proper weapons on the Dreadnought, why wouldn't you be able to run it as an Ironclad? There's no other Dreadnoughts in the book that can have dual DCCWs or a Hurricane Bolter anywway, is there?
Totally agreed; I don't care if your model is a scrathbuild or conversion; there is no reason to create special restrictions on modelling units that appear only in Imperial Armor when conversions are already a necessary part of the game (especially for units from Codexes that GW is not timely in providing models for. Here are some prominent examples:
the latest Tyranid models that took two years, post codex, 'til release
the various Space Wolf wolves
Eldar Shining Spears (rules appeared early in 2nd edition; models did not appear 'til late in 3rd)
Eldar corsairs (rules appeared in 2nd edition under the name "pirates"; models did not appear 'til late in 5th, along with new rules and being re-named "Corsairs")
There's not much of a link between converting models for things GW has rules for but no models, and using a conversion instead of models that FW has a model and rules for.
Some tournaments will allow IA rules, with scatchbuilt or converted models.
Some tournemants will allow IA rules, but only with the appropriate models from FW.
Some tournaments will insist you need to have the IA book, some will just ask for a copy of the rules off the FW website.
Some tournaments may even let you proxy a coke can as a contemtor and use rules you illegally downloaded.
It's up to the TO to set the rules for the tournament. Players can choose to support, or not support, based on whether they want to play with that rules set.
I'm working with a few other people to set up a large 3 day event later this year. The lead guy for 40k wants to run the GT with no IA, and a second tournament that allows it. I enjoy getting to use my ork Mekboy list from IA8, and will probably play in the friday event. But I'm not going to demand he let me use IA in the GT. If I was playing I'd skip the IA list, shift some models around, and run a list from the regular Ork codex. (Only not playing in the 40k GT since i'll be off running the WFB GT.)
And there were eldar pirate models back in rogue trader, so not really a good example. I had an entire army of them.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
-666- wrote:Forgeworld is expensive plus you need to buy more books to use them. I do not want to see it become commonly allowed in tournaments for those reasons.
FW models aren't much more expensive now in many cases than normal GW models. In fact, in some places FW is now cheaper than GW stuff, and many models GW are releasing now in others are on par with FW pricing. It was cheaper for me to buy Forgeworld dreadnoughts than buy the GW kits.
At the current rate of GW price increases, there will no longer be a difference in price in 3-5 years at all pretty much anywhere.
As for the rules, many units and lists have free PDF rules online, and most people don't own all the codex's anyway, so expecting everyone to *have* to buy the FW books is a bit silly.
Cost shouldn't have anything to do with it, already there are vast differences in cost for mainline codex armies, you could build a kitted FW Space Marine army for less than many IG or Ork tournament lists. If we're going to take cost into consideration as a Tournament requirement, then we might as well ban Sisters, Imperial Guard, and Orks right now.
There is a lot of broken stuff in there.
There's relatively little in there that's broken if you actually look at it, especially compared with Long Fangs, Purifiers, Vendettas, etc that's in normal codex books.
48698
Post by: Eiluj The Farseer
DarknessEternal wrote:Eiluj The Farseer wrote:It would all be so much easier if since they are the same company,
They are the same company.
That is what I said "since they are the same company" Automatically Appended Next Post: I just wish since technically it is the same game we are talking about, that everything could be used.
But I see what has been previously posted and I agree it is more of a US thing and there is no way to "make" it integrated. I have talked with many people on DAKKA from outside the US and using forgeworld stuff is not a big deal at all to them and commonly accepted. I think most of it does stem from Forgeworld wanting everyone to order direct instead of in stores, for if there were forgeworld or GW with FW stuff, I think all of this would not be an issue at all. I know one of my FLGS does not allow them in tournements there because they do not like that FW will not deal with them or that they can stock their stuff and thus it is reflected in the tourneys.
2757
Post by: austinitor
mikhaila wrote:Some tournaments will allow IA rules, with scatchbuilt or converted models.
Some tournemants will allow IA rules, but only with the appropriate models from FW.
It strikes me as quite arbitrary, and rather silly, really, to have different rules for converted codex models and converted IA models (e.g., only Forge World models being used to represent IA units). Why should these be treated differently? You're simply stating that they will be, without any justification.
mikhaila wrote:
I'm working with a few other people to set up a large 3 day event later this year. The lead guy for 40k wants to run the GT with no IA, and a second tournament that allows it. I enjoy getting to use my ork Mekboy list from IA8, and will probably play in the friday event. But I'm not going to demand he let me use IA in the GT. If I was playing I'd skip the IA list, shift some models around, and run a list from the regular Ork codex. (Only not playing in the 40k GT since i'll be off running the WFB GT.)
I think this raises an interesting point, regarding understanding the real, credible objections to IA rules (I think that the Forge World models argument is too silly to really get into): is it the IA-published army lists or IA-published units that are most commonly objected to?
mikhaila wrote:And there were eldar pirate models back in rogue trader, so not really a good example. I had an entire army of them.
Ah, I guess I forgot about those RT-era models. I think they were OOP by time I started playing (in the mid 90s).
3330
Post by: Kirasu
mikhaila wrote:
And there were eldar pirate models back in rogue trader, so not really a good example. I had an entire army of them.
Ah, I guess I forgot about those RT-era models. I think they were OOP by time I started playing (in the mid 90s).
I think I'd prefer converted FW models than someone using RTT eldar pirates(I have a lot of them and they make my soul die everytime I view them)
958
Post by: mikhaila
Kirasu wrote:mikhaila wrote:
And there were eldar pirate models back in rogue trader, so not really a good example. I had an entire army of them.
Ah, I guess I forgot about those RT-era models. I think they were OOP by time I started playing (in the mid 90s).
I think I'd prefer converted FW models than someone using RTT eldar pirates(I have a lot of them and they make my soul die everytime I view them)
They really were horrible, spawning a generation of "Banana headed Git" jokes. ) I was more pointing out that they actually did have pirate models for the eldar pirate rules, not that you really saw anyone ever use them. The new FW stuff is great I've got 3 squads of the aspect warriors painted up, need to work on getting/painting more of the new stuff. Automatically Appended Next Post: austinitor wrote:mikhaila wrote:Some tournaments will allow IA rules, with scatchbuilt or converted models.
Some tournemants will allow IA rules, but only with the appropriate models from FW.
It strikes me as quite arbitrary, and rather silly, really, to have different rules for converted codex models and converted IA models (e.g., only Forge World models being used to represent IA units). Why should these be treated differently? You're simply stating that they will be, without any justification.
Nope, not stating anything other than that there are different opinions on the subject, and not trying to justify any of those.
Some TO's/groups take the veiw that since you bought the really cool FW model and painted it up, that you should get to use it now and then.
Others look at it as a rules question, and that if the rules are ok, then any model is fine as long as it's WYSIWY by the rules.
And some don't want to use FW/ IA rules at all.
Different veiwpoints, different ways to play the game. I don't have opinions on the subject anymore, I run different styles of tournaments, and people can come or not come as they please.
The only thing I'll take a stand on is that different groups/storses/ TO's/Tournaments should be free to play the game the way they want. And unless you have a few thousand Commisars to put a gun to every TO's head, I don't really see any way to make them all play the same way.)
48698
Post by: Eiluj The Farseer
So by the looks of the voting, most people think that IA should be a part of regular 40k games, some think there should be limitations. Where I am at people like to see the models, but automatically think they are broken. I played against someone in a casual game and was sure that the Wasps, hornets and warp hunter were completely broken units, even though he was playing GK with three psyfleman dreadnaughts and 2 paladin squads, 1 with draigo and one with libby. The game went to turn 7 and he did manage to win by pushing me off a contested objective and yet he still was upset at my units. I thought it was a really close game and thought both sides were more evenly matched. just my opinion though.
2757
Post by: austinitor
Eiluj The Farseer wrote:So by the looks of the voting, most people think that IA should be a part of regular 40k games, some think there should be limitations. Where I am at people like to see the models, but automatically think they are broken. I played against someone in a casual game and was sure that the Wasps, hornets and warp hunter were completely broken units, even though he was playing GK with three psyfleman dreadnaughts and 2 paladin squads, 1 with draigo and one with libby. The game went to turn 7 and he did manage to win by pushing me off a contested objective and yet he still was upset at my units. I thought it was a really close game and thought both sides were more evenly matched. just my opinion though.
I suspect this underlies most of the resistance: people with the "win at any cost" attitude who have intentionally selected broken armies and army lists do not want a broader diversity of competitive armies.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
austinitor wrote:Eiluj The Farseer wrote:So by the looks of the voting, most people think that IA should be a part of regular 40k games, some think there should be limitations. Where I am at people like to see the models, but automatically think they are broken. I played against someone in a casual game and was sure that the Wasps, hornets and warp hunter were completely broken units, even though he was playing GK with three psyfleman dreadnaughts and 2 paladin squads, 1 with draigo and one with libby. The game went to turn 7 and he did manage to win by pushing me off a contested objective and yet he still was upset at my units. I thought it was a really close game and thought both sides were more evenly matched. just my opinion though.
I suspect this underlies most of the resistance: people with the "win at any cost" attitude who have intentionally selected broken armies and army lists do not want a broader diversity of competitive armies.
Way to demonize opposing points of view to claim the moral highground with totally false and unsubstantiated generalizations. Good job.
And FW only allows those 'broken' armies to have larger advantages while doing nothing for the tier 2 xenos codexes...
958
Post by: mikhaila
austinitor wrote:Eiluj The Farseer wrote:So by the looks of the voting, most people think that IA should be a part of regular 40k games, some think there should be limitations. Where I am at people like to see the models, but automatically think they are broken. I played against someone in a casual game and was sure that the Wasps, hornets and warp hunter were completely broken units, even though he was playing GK with three psyfleman dreadnaughts and 2 paladin squads, 1 with draigo and one with libby. The game went to turn 7 and he did manage to win by pushing me off a contested objective and yet he still was upset at my units. I thought it was a really close game and thought both sides were more evenly matched. just my opinion though.
I suspect this underlies most of the resistance: people with the "win at any cost" attitude who have intentionally selected broken armies and army lists do not want a broader diversity of competitive armies.
That's a pretty damn big brush your using to paint anyone that doesn't agree with you.
2757
Post by: austinitor
Demonizing a viewpoint? No, just applying a healthy amount of cynicism to the disingenuous arguments put forward by those in your camp, and admittedly speculating at the true, underlying reasons behind resistance to IA rules. "People don't have debit/credit cards or their banks won't let them make international purchases" and "little Johnny is going to use his shoe to proxy a Caestus Assault Ram, will be allowed to do so because common WYSIWYG rules for tournaments will magically not apply" simply are not credible arguments.
Of course it is a generalization. However, I think it is fair to say that the account Eiluj posted supports the particular suspicion on my part. I'm not suggesting that I have empirical evidence/statistical significance/whatever; this is a forum discussion, not a scientific journal. As such, I'm not calling you out on your lack of empirical evidence for your arguments, and instead applying my judgment to the credibility of your arguments and inferring that, as they are ridiculous on their face, that they are indeed disingenuous and being used as a screen for some other truly held viewpoint (e.g. "I don't like Imperial Armour rules", "I don't want my broken dark lance spam/psy riflemen/nob bikers/leaf blower list to risk losing"). Given your following remark, I suspect you are simply in the "I don't like Imperial Armour rules" camp, as you imply that they've missed an opportunity to up-balance some weaker xenos lists.
On your more substantive, but somewhat off-topic, point: I take it, then, that you don't consider Craftworld Eldar part of the "tier 2 xenos" codices? For sake of argument, would you care to link to/post what you consider to be the current tiers for the various codices?
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
nkelsch wrote:
Way to demonize opposing points of view to claim the moral highground with totally false and unsubstantiated generalizations. Good job.
And FW only allows those 'broken' armies to have larger advantages while doing nothing for the tier 2 xenos codexes...
O_o
So, the example just given about how such a "tier 2 xenos" codex was able to compete on an even level with a GK army (an army that is seen as one of, if not *the*, top tier armies) through the use of FW units means that the GK army get more advantages while doing for the "tier 2" xenos army.... 
What is this, I don't even...
If you were at all familiar with FW's Tau and Eldar offerings, they get a rather large number of cool things from FW that really enhance their competitiveness and unit selection. Stuff like Tetra's, Hornets, Wasps, XV-9 Hazard suits, corsair infantry, alternate suit/hammerhead weapons, etc.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
austinitor wrote:Demonizing a viewpoint? No, just applying a healthy amount of cynicism to the disingenuous arguments put forward by those in your camp, and admittedly speculating at the true, underlying reasons behind resistance to IA rules. "People don't have debit/credit cards or their banks won't let them make international purchases" and "little Johnny is going to use his shoe to proxy a Caestus Assault Ram, will be allowed to do so because common WYSIWYG rules for tournaments will magically not apply" simply are not credible arguments.
IA doesn't balance codexes... It is not a credible argument either.
Of course it is a generalization. However, I think it is fair to say that the account Eiluj posted supports the particular suspicion on my part. I'm not suggesting that I have empirical evidence/statistical significance/whatever; this is a forum discussion, not a scientific journal. As such, I'm not calling you out on your lack of empirical evidence for your arguments, and instead applying my judgment to the credibility of your arguments and inferring that, as they are ridiculous on their face, that they are indeed disingenuous and being used as a screen for some other truly held viewpoint (e.g. "I don't like Imperial Armour rules", "I don't want my broken dark lance spam/psy riflemen/nob bikers/leaf blower list to risk losing"). Given your following remark, I suspect you are simply in the "I don't like Imperial Armour rules" camp, as you imply that they've missed an opportunity to up-balance some weaker xenos lists.
I actually like them. I simply don't like them as an all the time or the new default for games. I think both styles of games have value and neither needs to be made the default. Not to mention, in 6 months, 6th edition will come out making all FW units unsuited for competative play as none of them were designed for 6th edition while all the core codexes have been. I care about the meta as a whole, not how my personal codex gets an advantage.
On your more substantive, but somewhat off-topic, point: I take it, then, that you don't consider Craftworld Eldar part of the "tier 2 xenos" codices? For sake of argument, would you care to link to/post what you consider to be the current tiers for the various codices?
Every tourney has loads of number crunching... the tiers are real even if you pretend them not to be. You can pretend to be purposely dense about win/loss ratios and the perceived tiers, but there are loads of hard statistical data from real events which shows it to be true.
Here is an example:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/09/40k-some-statistics-nova-2011.html
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
nkelsch wrote:Not to mention, in 6 months, 6th edition will come out making all FW units unsuited for competative play as none of them were designed for 6th edition while all the core codexes have been.
Few or none of the codex's will have been designed for 6E play if 6E comes out in 6 months, certainly likely nothing older than 2011 at best, and whatever comes out this year, meaning not a lot. The situation with the core codex's won't be any different than FW rules will.
2757
Post by: austinitor
I think that IA11 goes a long way towards balancing Codex: Eldar. Do you disagree?
I think that the argument re: "unsuited for competative play as none of them were designed for 6th edition while all the core codexes have been" is quite incorrect, given the number of armies that were "lapped" by 5th edition (i.e. those did not get a 5th edition release, such as Tau, Eldar, and Black Templars). Are you suggesting that xenos codices, spare Orks, are not "core" codices?
I don't disagree that there are "tiers"; I simply wanted to know which list you were using, so thanks for posting that. Quite an interesting article, and with some good number-crunching.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Steelmage99 wrote:If one takes the obvious step of excluding the use of super heavies and flyers, then one simply need to ban the Big Five (Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram).
If those steps are taken I dare say that the complaints would be so few that they were basically non-existent.
People who complain about the exclusion of the Big Five are IMO the people who just wish to exploit Imperial Armours lack of play testing.
Having played against all five of those units, I can tell you that this post smacks of someone who has only theoryhammered the rules on paper and never actually seen them used on the tabletop... The Land Raider Achilles can be difficult to handle, this is true, but I find that is more an issue of the player gearing up for S8 spam and forgoing higher strength weaponry. The Deathstorm is a bit of a pain, but its BS2 and chances are it won't accomplish much anyway (although there was the one time my opponent destroyed 500+ points of models with a single one, but the dice rolls were obscenely above average...). The Lucius is actually not that bad either, its hardly different from the usual meltadread drop pod in terms of its anti-tank ability, really it boils down to one of two things: 1. Your opponent took a cc dread, in which case its not shooting, its basically a meltadread drop pod but it does its job in the assault phase instead of the shooting phase. 2. Your opponent took a shooty dread, in which case it shoots at something which it may ormay not blow up and either assaults it or whatever comes up inside of it and gets tarpitted depending. In either case its meh. Caestus is a paper tiger, i've never actually seen it successfully fire its 5" melta template... Hades Breaching Drill... I'm ROFLing that its even on the list...
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Vaktathi wrote:nkelsch wrote:Not to mention, in 6 months, 6th edition will come out making all FW units unsuited for competative play as none of them were designed for 6th edition while all the core codexes have been.
Few or none of the codex's will have been designed for 6E play if 6E comes out in 6 months, certainly likely nothing older than 2011 at best, and whatever comes out this year, meaning not a lot. The situation with the core codex's won't be any different than FW rules will.
Not true, they have said every codex since Tyranids was designed with the new 6th edition in mind which is January 2010. GW has a good history of making codexes with the next edition in mind.
The FW rules people have access to none of this and have never even been attempting to make balanced or fair rules hence a ton of their units being over costed.
This is the problem when people who are not part off the core product development process make an add-on. This is why it should be treated as such... as a 'sometimes' thing. It is not FW's job or mission to rebalance the design teams core codexes with the addition of units. Just people people with poor tier old codexes think it does or want it to accomplish that goal doesn't mean it is. They are nothing more than fun rules for fun models. Claiming they are the fix for everything unfair with the current meta and should become the default ruleset is where I have a problem with that.
I do not agree that IA balances Eldar. Xenos races go neglected because people buy space marines. FW doesn't balance the codexes as even with the new toys, the lower tier codexes are still out gunned in every situation, and ot doesn't close the gap either. FW was not design for or intended to balance and 'fix' 4th edition codexes. If GW attempted to do that they should have said that, but they didn't and they aren't.
I play Orks, my codex does just fine without spamming lifta wagons (which were one of the totally unfair broken unit types before they got the rules nerfed in the latest release.)
5111
Post by: MikeMcSomething
It's pretty egregious when you compare the Wasp or Hornet to a Vyper or War Walker, but then you compare something like Mandrakes or half the Tyranid codex to...anything really and you realize that the GW rules don't seem to be polished any better than the IA ones. Most people objecting are probably old-guard neckbeards with PTSD from someone in 1995 stomping their 3rd-ed army with a 1000$ Thunderhawk or something equally absurd.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
nkelsch wrote:Not true, they have said every codex since Tyranids was designed with the new 6th edition in mind which is January 2010. GW has a good history of making codexes with the next edition in mind.
Just remember, 'they' in this regard is a rumour source. Not GW.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
It'd be cool to be actually able to use my Elysians in non-random games...
5111
Post by: MikeMcSomething
I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority of cases if you took the worst and best units in a given codex, the variance between their performance would be larger than the variance between an average codex unit and any forgeworld model.
2757
Post by: austinitor
MikeMcSomething wrote:It's pretty egregious when you compare the Wasp or Hornet to a Vyper or War Walker,
If I understand you, here, correctly, I agree. Vypers seem to be widely regarded as inferior Land Speeders for the same points, and thus, unbalanced. Likewise, Shining Spears and (much more so) Swooping Hawks seem to be held as quasi-useful, at best. Essentially, the entire Eldar fast attack section contains poorly functioning, over-costed units, from pretty much everything I've read (though it seems people tend to run, if anything, Vypers, as they're one of the few possible anti-tank options in the section).
Likewise, Eldar Heavy Support is very over-crowded, over-costed, and there are some real stinkers in there, as well (e.g., support weapons; static units with ludicrously short ranges, and in tournament errata, like in this week's Indy open, reduced below their already dubious functionality by granting Vibro Cannon targets normal cover saves).
If anyone is interested, I'll try to chase down some of the commentary on the matter I'm referring to, but my point in adding this cursory analysis is to show that a creating superior unit or two,inside of 5E game balance, was trivial, to do. In my view, this acts to better balance the codex against current armies, as Codex: Eldar did not benefit from a 5E Codex: Space Marines style reduction in points cost, or crazy new special rules (WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!)
MikeMcSomething wrote: but then you compare something like Mandrakes or half the Tyranid codex to...anything really and you realize that the GW rules don't seem to be polished any better than the IA ones. Most people objecting are probably old-guard neckbeards with PTSD from someone in 1995 stomping their 3rd-ed army with a 1000$ Thunderhawk or something equally absurd.
For sooth, I think it is more a case of "the one desirable 40k IA Ork unit was broken in its over-power, but is now broken in its underpower, and thus, those other xenos shouldn't have nice things." 
-recently re-kindled old timey player, who reminds you that 1995 was indeed 2nd edition days, though I didn't get in 'til '96 or so. That said, I do recall my Armorcast Tempest being pretty sweet when Eldar had no GW-produced vehicles other than walkers and the (still current) jetbike.
Mr Hyena wrote:I think it would be pretty neat. Likewise, it would be cool to see Eldar Corsairs, and that Gretchen tank list. Largely, I think it would be cool to add a few more armies to shake things up a bit and skew the "latest codex wins the tourney" trend.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
chaos0xomega wrote: The Lucius is actually not that bad either, its hardly different from the usual meltadread drop pod in terms of its anti-tank ability, really it boils down to one of two things: 1. Your opponent took a cc dread, in which case its not shooting, its basically a meltadread drop pod but it does its job in the assault phase instead of the shooting phase. 2. Your opponent took a shooty dread, in which case it shoots at something which it may ormay not blow up and either assaults it or whatever comes up inside of it and gets tarpitted depending. In either case its meh.
Not only that, but Lucius Pods are a separate FA choice(meaning Dreads taking up 2 FoC choices just to be able to charge on the turn they arrive) and the codex that would most want one( BA for Furiosos and DC Dreads) don't get access to it outside of Apocalypse(which grants it to both them and GKs and moves it to being a Dedicated Transport for all dread types, including Contemptors). Honestly, the new version with its increased cost, non-dedicated status, and Dangerous Terrain roll for charging actually makes you think about it instead of auto-include.
5111
Post by: MikeMcSomething
Even if a given FW choice is better in all cases than a Codex choice, I haven't seen a good argument as to how that's somehow different than the same imbalance within a codex. The fact that the FW choices are usually not better is just icing on the cake.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
MikeMcSomething wrote:I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority of cases if you took the worst and best units in a given codex, the variance between their performance would be larger than the variance between an average codex unit and any forgeworld model.
But you see, units in a codex are allowed to be overpowered, because they're in a codex.
5111
Post by: MikeMcSomething
-Loki- wrote:MikeMcSomething wrote:I'm willing to bet that for the vast majority of cases if you took the worst and best units in a given codex, the variance between their performance would be larger than the variance between an average codex unit and any forgeworld model.
But you see, units in a codex are allowed to be overpowered, because they're in a codex.
Now it all makes perfect sense!
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
chaos0xomega wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:If one takes the obvious step of excluding the use of super heavies and flyers, then one simply need to ban the Big Five (Lucius Pattern Drop Pod, Deathstorm Drop Pod, Hades Breaching Drill, Land Raider Achilles and the Caestus Assault Ram).
If those steps are taken I dare say that the complaints would be so few that they were basically non-existent.
People who complain about the exclusion of the Big Five are IMO the people who just wish to exploit Imperial Armours lack of play testing.
Having played against all five of those units, I can tell you that this post smacks of someone who has only theoryhammered the rules on paper and never actually seen them used on the tabletop... The Land Raider Achilles can be difficult to handle, this is true, but I find that is more an issue of the player gearing up for S8 spam and forgoing higher strength weaponry. The Deathstorm is a bit of a pain, but its BS2 and chances are it won't accomplish much anyway (although there was the one time my opponent destroyed 500+ points of models with a single one, but the dice rolls were obscenely above average...). The Lucius is actually not that bad either, its hardly different from the usual meltadread drop pod in terms of its anti-tank ability, really it boils down to one of two things: 1. Your opponent took a cc dread, in which case its not shooting, its basically a meltadread drop pod but it does its job in the assault phase instead of the shooting phase. 2. Your opponent took a shooty dread, in which case it shoots at something which it may ormay not blow up and either assaults it or whatever comes up inside of it and gets tarpitted depending. In either case its meh. Caestus is a paper tiger, i've never actually seen it successfully fire its 5" melta template... Hades Breaching Drill... I'm ROFLing that its even on the list...
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on the relative "brokenness" of the various units. That wasn't really my point either.
Relative power-level or not, the units mentioned are the ones I hear complaints about every time I bring up IA.
So my solution was simply to remove those "offending" units, in order to play with all the others. Sort of like a sacrifice for the greater good, ie the ability to freely play with IA (with the mentioned units banned).
The thing I failed to articulate properly in my previous post was the reactions I received when proposing this.
I have, in my experience, found that people who champions the use of IA usually argues that the units in IA, as a whole, are not unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up a number of units from IA that most certainly are not broken, all the while carefully avoiding the Big Five mentioned earlier.
When I talk to opponents of the use of IA, they usually argues that some units are unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up the Big Five.
Here is the kicker;
When I bring the two parties together and suggest a modification that should leave all parties involved happy (exclude the Big Five, allow everything else save Super Heavies/Flyers), I get a lot of resistance.
Not from the previously opposed to IA-crowd (they are mostly fine with IA being allowed like that), but from the pro-IA-crowd.
The side that previously talked about all those units not being unbalanced (while avoiding the Big Five) don't like the Big Five being excluded!
You know what that tells me?
It tells me that the pro- IA crowd clearly knows which IA-units are the "better" ones, and they want to use those units.
It tells me that the not-broken units mentioned earlier are simply a smoke-screen used in an attempt to "sneak in" the Big Five.
This is, of course, just my experience in attempting to mediate between the two opposing sides in my gaming circle.
All attempts motivated by a desire to find a way to include IA that leaves everybody happy, I might add. 
8491
Post by: TwilightWalker
Steelmage99 wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:Steelmage99 wrote: -Stuff-
-Morestuff!-
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on the relative "brokenness" of the various units. That wasn't really my point either.
Relative power-level or not, the units mentioned are the ones I hear complaints about every time I bring up IA.
So my solution was simply to remove those "offending" units, in order to play with all the others. Sort of like a sacrifice for the greater good, ie the ability to freely play with IA (with the mentioned units banned).
The thing I failed to articulate properly in my previous post was the reactions I received when proposing this.
I have, in my experience, found that people who champions the use of IA usually argues that the units in IA, as a whole, are not unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up a number of units from IA that most certainly are not broken, all the while carefully avoiding the Big Five mentioned earlier.
When I talk to opponents of the use of IA, they usually argues that some units are unbalanced and then proceeds to bring up the Big Five.
Here is the kicker;
When I bring the two parties together and suggest a modification that should leave all parties involved happy (exclude the Big Five, allow everything else save Super Heavies/Flyers), I get a lot of resistance.
Not from the previously opposed to IA-crowd (they are mostly fine with IA being allowed like that), but from the pro-IA-crowd.
The side that previously talked about all those units not being unbalanced (while avoiding the Big Five) don't like the Big Five being excluded!
You know what that tells me?
It tells me that the pro- IA crowd clearly knows which IA-units are the "better" ones, and they want to use those units.
It tells me that the not-broken units mentioned earlier are simply a smoke-screen used in an attempt to "sneak in" the Big Five.
This is, of course, just my experience in attempting to mediate between the two opposing sides in my gaming circle.
All attempts motivated by a desire to find a way to include IA that leaves everybody happy, I might add.
That or they just play Space Marines! Given that four of the 'Big Five' are all SM units, it kinda makes sense on that. I particularly don't care about playing with the Big Five, I play Xenos!
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
So the text you actually responded to, you replaced with "Stuff"?!? ...
958
Post by: mikhaila
@ Steelmage99: I've experienced a bit of the same thing you have, since I run tournaments that both allow, and disallow IA. Those 5 tend to be the ones brought up all of the time, and cause the most discussion, regardless of whether someone feels they are overpowered or not.
I've told people that say they don't like playing in IA tournaments to just skip them, and the majority show up and play anyway, if they are regular tournament players to start with. They may not like playing with IA, but won't skip a tournament. And for a non IA event, the guys with FW models just play standard armies. Very few people will actually draw some line in the sand and skip playing altogether, even if they argue it to death.
At the same time, I notice the majority of the people who argue locally for the inclusion of IA units don't show up and play in the tournaments, because they haven't bought the models, or they are still in the bag they came in, sitting on a shelf.) There are even some very sad Reaver Titans that are still waiting assembly for use in apoc games.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
TwilightWalker wrote:Steelmage99 wrote:
It tells me that the pro- IA crowd clearly knows which IA-units are the "better" ones, and they want to use those units.
It tells me that the not-broken units mentioned earlier are simply a smoke-screen used in an attempt to "sneak in" the Big Five.
This is, of course, just my experience in attempting to mediate between the two opposing sides in my gaming circle.
All attempts motivated by a desire to find a way to include IA that leaves everybody happy, I might add.
That or they just play Space Marines! Given that four of the 'Big Five' are all SM units, it kinda makes sense on that. I particularly don't care about playing with the Big Five, I play Xenos!
But that is the thing... Xenos again already have a weaker codex in the regular metabase, and while they do get some new toys with inclusion of IA, whatever ork or eldar or tau unit is used is completely overshadowed by the marine units which blow it out of the water and further imbalance the meta.
The only way the xenos IA units have a balancing effect is basically if the marine units are not included int he game, so IA tau and IA eldar becomes closer in balance with core codex marine units... (still not enough in my opinion)
The Big 5 show FW has no ability to design rules which makes them a 'fun-sometimes' thing not a 'competative-allthetime' thing. If you ever show up with 3 deathwind drop pods when you hear I am playing orks, thank goodness for optional rulesets!
Oh, and GW has said in 4th edition and 5th edition at gamesday when they were begining writing rulesets to be with the next edition in mind. I have seen no evidence that FW has that in mind especially since they have to re-do the same units rules 2-3 times per edition due to imbalance issues.
But apparently anyone who feels IA is a nice 'sometimes' thing is a drooling neckbeard afraid to lose because all they play is grey knights right?
48698
Post by: Eiluj The Farseer
I still think that the codexes that are present right now, esp. GK, Space Wolves and to some extent Blood Angels still be competitive if IA was allowed. I still do not get people complaints about broken units when you have codexes with already broken units and lists.
I know I keep bringing up Eldar, but using some of the new units i.e. Hornets, Wasps does help give Eldar some far more Viable FA that they so desperately need and are lacking.
I do not see anything the Eldar get in the IA as cheap or overpowered, but I do think this makes them more competitive
I still do not understand the argument that people can not get them or have access to them, I ordered mine from FW direct, got them in 7-10 days. I agree that the person running the tourney needs to have an idea on what they do, but I think with enough advance warning, people running the games could be shown the book or units intended to be used, furnished by the person wanting to play them. As for other players, I do not have the Codices for all of my opponents armies, I do not expect them to have mine, but I am willing to explain and show them the rules in the books upon request. I still think most of the arguments presented for NOT allowing IA and FW stuff are not valid with currently broken codexes out there like GK (this is my opinion, not saying it is right). However the one point brought up that I will concede on is....I do agree that the place running the tournement should have the right to choose, but if more places would try running them with IA, I would bet that it would not be that difficult and if became the norm, people would not complain so. Do any of you that run tournies have a lot of 'problems' arise at tournies you run with IA allowed in them? I am genuinly interested, because if it is a real pain in the arse I would fight less for it, as I have not run a tourney, only played in them, I do not have that perspective.
I do believe people who complain to have them and have not assembled or painted their models yet, that is a little sad to see, however if they were allowed regular play, I bet more would become assembled and painted. Just my thought. Thanks for all the posts and cheers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I did want to add one more thing... Someone did post that Marines get the most attention, because the most people play them... I do not agree with this statement. I think GW has since Rogue Trader, geared people towards Space Marines, making them out to be the coolest and hence, this is why they are the most popular. They also have the most Codexes, the most frequent updates, when has an edition not come out where some space marine unit was not updated or sold in the starter packs (Second Edition 40k - Space Marines and Orks, Third Edition - Space Marines and Dark Eldar, never got 4th editions sorry don't know that one, 5th Edition - Space Marines and Orks). Space Marines are the most prominantly shown in Battle Reports when shown in White Dwarf. Am I bitter about it, sure since I play a lot of Xenos armies, but my point is, I do not think the fans dictated the massive Space Marine Presence in 40k, I believe it was GW. Again this is my Hypothesis
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
nkelsch wrote:
But that is the thing... Xenos again already have a weaker codex in the regular metabase, and while they do get some new toys with inclusion of IA, whatever ork or eldar or tau unit is used is completely overshadowed by the marine units which blow it out of the water and further imbalance the meta.
Unlikely, and even if it did, it's already grossly imbalanced so what really are you losing? given the better costing and additional capabilities the FW units add to xenos armies, they likely have a much greater marginal value to such 'tier 2" armies than the available FW units add to the assumed "tier 1" armies here. Eldar with access to FW stuff gain a whole lot more in terms of competitveness than SM's with their FW stuff. Sure the SM's may be stronger because their core rules have been more recently updated, but FW likewise will add marginally less value.
Oh, and GW has said in 4th edition and 5th edition at gamesday when they were begining writing rulesets to be with the next edition in mind. I have seen no evidence that FW has that in mind especially since they have to re-do the same units rules 2-3 times per edition due to imbalance issues.
Which FW units have had their rules redone 3 times within the space of a single edition (not including "experimental" playtest rule)? A few have had them redone once, I can't think of any that had them redone twice off the top of my head except the dread drop pod.
FW can also much easier re-write their rules (and often do) in response to fairness issues and edition changes. FW units don't go up to two editions without updates the way GW codex's do.
8491
Post by: TwilightWalker
Vaktathi wrote:nkelsch wrote:
But that is the thing... Xenos again already have a weaker codex in the regular metabase, and while they do get some new toys with inclusion of IA, whatever ork or eldar or tau unit is used is completely overshadowed by the marine units which blow it out of the water and further imbalance the meta.
Unlikely, and even if it did, it's already grossly imbalanced so what really are you losing? given the better costing and additional capabilities the FW units add to xenos armies, they likely have a much greater marginal value to such 'tier 2" armies than the available FW units add to the assumed "tier 1" armies here. Eldar with access to FW stuff gain a whole lot more in terms of competitveness than SM's with their FW stuff. Sure the SM's may be stronger because their core rules have been more recently updated, but FW likewise will add marginally less value.
Oh, and GW has said in 4th edition and 5th edition at gamesday when they were begining writing rulesets to be with the next edition in mind. I have seen no evidence that FW has that in mind especially since they have to re-do the same units rules 2-3 times per edition due to imbalance issues.
Which FW units have had their rules redone 3 times within the space of a single edition (not including "experimental" playtest rule)? A few have had them redone once, I can't think of any that had them redone twice off the top of my head except the dread drop pod.
FW can also much easier re-write their rules (and often do) in response to fairness issues and edition changes. FW units don't go up to two editions without updates the way GW codex's do.
The only consistent 'rewriting' I see is the following:
1) Experimental rules.
2) Version updates.
Which makes damn good sense to me. Forgeworld puts out the Experimental rules to give potential buyers a taste of the new shinies they're putting out while playtesting and prep for manufacture is still ongoing. But once that's done and the book comes out, so do the newer, more balanced rules. And the recent updates, like to the Tau, D-99 and such, are the first I can recall since the stuff's come out. Certainly not the "2-3 times per edition due to imbalance" that nkelsh talks of.
40357
Post by: XV8-Ownage!
I think most FW units should be used, as long as there are no Apocalypse units.
Although, I think that Remora Drones with their flyer rules should be allowed because they are not that hard to kill...
46931
Post by: Panzerboy26
Personally I think that if someone wants to shell out the money to field IA stuff, then more power to them. On average FW stuff is no worse than normal 40k stuff, especially normal 40k stuff when tricked out to be hyper-competitive.
The Lucius Drop Pod is a very decent buy, but it's not quiet in that 'utterly stupid' range. Will it mess up a gun line's 'Flawless Victory' by allowing an SM player to get a Dreadnought deep struck and into assault without having it shot at first? Yes. Will it stop that Dreadnought from getting melta-ed to death once it's done munching on that first squad it assaults? No.
The Land Raider Achilles is a frighteningly hard to kill vehicle... but it's a 300pt+ gun tank. It's only got a 6 transport capacity, and it's not an assault vehicle. You pay through the nose for it's survivability, and while it's firepower is nice, I wouldn't call it 300pt+ nice.
48698
Post by: Eiluj The Farseer
I would love to see feedback from people playing in other countires, howoften they see forgeworld. I would imagine in Great Brittain it is quite common a long with Europe I would guess. I have talked to a few Dakkanuts from other countries and most of them were kind of surprised by the issue that it is here in the states... Cheers and thanks for all the posts.
27782
Post by: Mr.Church13
I really dont get the hate. Anything that gives more variety in the game and makes the Xenos codexes viable to a degree is fine by me. Went to a tournament recently and out of the 20 players 12 of them were GKs and 5 were marine variants. Me and two others were playing Ork, DE, and CE. I would have given anything to feel like I wasnt just scraping the bottom of the barrel for a tie. I believe that things from the corsairs and IA books would've made a big difference in my overall experience.
And anyone who believes that FW doesn't have access to the current rules being developed is a fool. The IA second ed rules will function perfectly well in 6th.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Eiluj The Farseer wrote:I would love to see feedback from people playing in other countires, howoften they see forgeworld. I would imagine in Great Brittain it is quite common a long with Europe I would guess. I have talked to a few Dakkanuts from other countries and most of them were kind of surprised by the issue that it is here in the states... Cheers and thanks for all the posts.
As most tournaments in Sweden are run using our local version of the INAT, we almost always have the option of running IA stuff at tournaments. The greatest offenders are usually banned, however. I haven't seen any IA units yet, although me and my mates are gearing up to get some (Dreadclaw, Wraithseer and Contemptor Dreadnought, respectively).
2757
Post by: austinitor
Reading this, I think it is interesting that the "no flyers" canard isn't really being trotted out (as I've seen it in some older discussions on the topic). Like so many IG units, inclusion in the codex has "mainstreamed" some of these, and I can only hope that there will be other incidents of this going forward (e.g. Hornets and Wasps in a forthcoming CE codex, inclusion of more Tau units originally featured in IA into their codex).
52215
Post by: spectreoneone
Personally, I don't see a problem with allowing FW units with IA rules into tournaments. I mean, aside from monetary limitations (which, come on, this is NOT a cheap hobby), there's nothing that really makes it unfeasable. FW untils and IA rules give some great fixes to some broken armies (I don't know how many times my Hazard suits pulled me out of a jam), but I do tend to agree that they are somewhat over-priced points wise. Aside from the inherent fear of anything "new and different" many players have, I haven't really seen many valid points why they shouldn't be allowed. I think it's a lot of apprehension that SOMETHING might bring some balance to the game and cause the beloved winning tournament build to be challenged.
48698
Post by: Eiluj The Farseer
spectreoneone wrote:Personally, I don't see a problem with allowing FW units with IA rules into tournaments. I mean, aside from monetary limitations (which, come on, this is NOT a cheap hobby), there's nothing that really makes it unfeasable. FW untils and IA rules give some great fixes to some broken armies (I don't know how many times my Hazard suits pulled me out of a jam), but I do tend to agree that they are somewhat over-priced points wise. Aside from the inherent fear of anything "new and different" many players have, I haven't really seen many valid points why they shouldn't be allowed. I think it's a lot of apprehension that SOMETHING might bring some balance to the game and cause the beloved winning tournament build to be challenged.
I agree I imagine that a lot of the hate comes from people fearing new things and people who have overpowered units like GK, Wolves and do not want to see a level playing field.
It is sad as I do truely love this game, however I do think some of the other gaming systems do a much better job of balancing the armies and updating on a timely manner. I wish they would combine forces (meld FW into GW) and have a team that works on Just Fantasy, just 40k and one person takes responsibility for 1-2 codices, if they all communicated, I think they could do things in a timely manner, keep the game more fair, and still make a proffit. May be they could make Matt Ward their mascot or put him in a corner to play with some new GK models and not give him any real responsibilities, that way he won't screw up the fluff and not make any more GK codices.... 
11
Post by: ph34r
The day I am ok with FW in tournaments is the day FW releases a BALANCED book of only 40k-applicable entries, rather than having them scattered across multiple books with certain units being totally broken.
5111
Post by: MikeMcSomething
ph34r wrote:The day I am ok with FW in tournaments is the day FW releases a BALANCED book of only 40k-applicable entries, rather than having them scattered across multiple books with certain units being totally broken.
Because that totally doesn't describe the current 15ish army books at all!
Way to fail to understand 4 pages!
27782
Post by: Mr.Church13
ph34r wrote:The day I am ok with FW in tournaments is the day FW releases a BALANCED book of only 40k-applicable entries, rather than having them scattered across multiple books with certain units being totally broken.
Check Imperial Armour 2nd edition all currently legal stuff is in there with nothing more unbalanced than IG or GK. In fact it makes some armies more able to compete with them.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Eiluj The Farseer wrote:
I agree I imagine that a lot of the hate comes from people fearing new things and people who have overpowered units like GK, Wolves and do not want to see a level playing field.
Your imagination would be totally wrong because the codexes with overpowered units get access to even more overpowered units with the inclusion of FW rules. And you imagine everyone who disagrees with you into sweeping stereotypes so you can dismiss them even though most of us who seem to be disagreeing don't actually play SW or GK or any of these codexes you claim we do.
I guess I could also imagine all FW proponents are crybaby xenos players who just want their personal army to get buffed right? And then I can throw in the term neckbeard a few times and then I would be correct right?
The issue is it isn't as black and white as you make it. There are very real issues with how FW units as a whole impact the already imbalanced METABASE. And for every one person who buys a neat-o looking tau battlesuit for his awesome tau army painted in neat camo for fun, there are 5 people who are itching at the chance to run the 'Big 5' by proxying non- FW models and crushing opponents utterly.
Trying to force FW all the time is just as bard as allowing it none of the time. Having it be a 'sometimes' thing with TOs determining the impact on the local gaming community is the correct way to handle FW rules. If you don;t monitor the playerbase and the impact on the local META, you risk being crushed under it. I think the TOs who actually experience this issue have put in some very good descriptions of WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING with these rules and they are being dismissed for strawmans who wants power eldar and someone else who is calling everyone a GK player who is defending their codex superiority. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mr.Church13 wrote:ph34r wrote:The day I am ok with FW in tournaments is the day FW releases a BALANCED book of only 40k-applicable entries, rather than having them scattered across multiple books with certain units being totally broken.
Check Imperial Armour 2nd edition all currently legal stuff is in there with nothing more unbalanced than IG or GK. In fact it makes some armies more able to compete with them.
Disagree. IA2nd edition has some obscenly broken stuff, almost all of those broken units are for imperial armies. It solves nothing and wasn't designed to be balancing.
11
Post by: ph34r
Mr.Church13 wrote:ph34r wrote:The day I am ok with FW in tournaments is the day FW releases a BALANCED book of only 40k-applicable entries, rather than having them scattered across multiple books with certain units being totally broken.
Check Imperial Armour 2nd edition all currently legal stuff is in there with nothing more unbalanced than IG or GK. In fact it makes some armies more able to compete with them.
I am all too familiar with IA:A2e's Land Raider Achilles, Caestus Assault Ram, Lucius pod, etc. In addition, IA:A2e contains tons of Apocalypse only rules, which are useless to one who plays only normal 40k and jacks up the book's price for those that would need it just to play their 40k legal models.
Also totally agreed with nkelsch. Most people who look at IA:A2e think of the ways that it will help them finally be able to compete with "those damn GK/ SM/ SW/ DE/ IG" players. Unfortunately this is not the case; marines get many of the best units and armies that were hurting before get nothing useful.
52872
Post by: captain collius
look i don't have much forgeworld stuff (yet) but i have seen it in our local GW (our manager is really coll and loves the flavour they can bring to the battle. Yes some forgeworld units seem a bit broken but they seem to be well spread out (with the exceptions of DE and crons). Other than that i've not had a problem with them
27782
Post by: Mr.Church13
So xenos armies are supposed to sit in the dark and suffer because you're afraid of some game competition.
I say suck it up and play the game, neckbeard, IA and all. The ONLY reason you don't want it allowed is because it threatens the already under costed Imperial codexes.
See, I have an Imperial army so yeah I might be a little hypocritical, but I main Xenos armies and quite frankly I'd love to see some tourneys go no Imperial at all. But that's never gonna happen so I still suck it up and play through.
Also, how do you know that it wasn't designed with the thought of bringing a couple codexes in line with the current creep?Sure, there are some broken Imperial units, but then again when aren't Imperials overpowered or under costed? I mean that's exactly what it does for Tau and Eldar it gives them some units that make them overall more viable and to take that away just because you don't like the method of delivery is cowardly and selfish.
958
Post by: mikhaila
Maybe tone things down a bit?
The whole "why the hate" and "neckbeards afraid of yadda yadda" isn't really helping the discussion at all.
You can't make people play with IA. You can't make TO's run events that allow IA. More and more events are being run that allow the rules and models, but trying to insist that it be used all the time is a lost cause, because each group/area/ club/TO/store will do what they want anyway.
11
Post by: ph34r
Mr.Church13 wrote:So xenos armies are supposed to sit in the dark and suffer because you're afraid of some game competition.
I say suck it up and play the game, neckbeard, IA and all. The ONLY reason you don't want it allowed is because it threatens the already under costed Imperial codexes.
See, I have an Imperial army so yeah I might be a little hypocritical, but I main Xenos armies and quite frankly I'd love to see some tourneys go no Imperial at all. But that's never gonna happen so I still suck it up and play through.
Also, how do you know that it wasn't designed with the thought of bringing a couple codexes in line with the current creep?Sure, there are some broken Imperial units, but then again when aren't Imperials overpowered or under costed? I mean that's exactly what it does for Tau and Eldar it gives them some units that make them overall more viable and to take that away just because you don't like the method of delivery is cowardly and selfish.
Your post... it's all fallacies and assumptions.
Nice assumption: "You want xenos armies to suffer"
Assumptions for everyone: "You are afraid of competition"
More assumptions! "The ONLY reason you don't want it allowed is because it threatens the already under costed Imperial codexes"
Assuming IA:A2e is some master stroke of rules design and not to sell models: "Also, how do you know that it wasn't designed with the thought of bringing a couple codexes in line with the current creep?"
This sentence shows us how you assume Imperial armies are OP, and you even follow through by having no problem with making those armies even better. "Sure, there are some broken Imperial units, but then again when aren't Imperials overpowered or under costed?"
Yeah, and everyone is totally complaining about the Tau and Eldar units: "I mean that's exactly what it does for Tau and Eldar it gives them some units that make them overall more viable"
And now if you don't like IA's rules balance, you are a selfish coward! "and to take that away just because you don't like the method of delivery is cowardly and selfish"
I thought "frankly I'd love to see some tourneys go no Imperial at all" was a gem too.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
<thread terminated; I assume that we're done, as we've degenerated into shouting AT each other, instead of talking TO each other>
|
|
