This is not a shameless plug for my site, I generate no revenue from C&C as there are no ads on it. It is simply a forum for me to write and express my thoughts on gaming. That being said I will paraphrase for those who still don't wish to leave dakka to visit my blog.
FW adds too many units to a game with an average of 420 core units already. The core units rules as well as the units themselves are readily accessible while the same cannot be said of FW. FW creates an imbalance, not to the game, but with the players themselves. Monetary reasons aside reading the rules to a unit prior to the game starting does not allow enough time to process how the unit will work nor does it provide any real in game experience with the unit. I make a much stronger case on capture and control.
I know similar threads to this have started before but in the light of more tournaments beginning to allow FW I think the issue needs a serious addressing. Hopefully we can keep this from being locked by the mods. This is also not a bait thread nor am I attempting to troll so lets keep this civil
Snipped from the blog, for those that don't want to click over and still be able to follow along with the discussion:
Reecius from Frontline Gaming posted a recent blurb on Bell of Lost Souls regarding his, and his Tournament Organizing groups, views on allowing Forge World in tournaments. Here is a link to his article on BoLS. I want to start by clearly stating that Reece and I are friends and I attend many of his tournaments. If you read this blog then you know I have attended both Bay Area Opens, and I will continue to attend events he runs, I even write for Frontline Gaming's blog on occasion. So this is not a personal attack on Reece, Frontline Gaming, Team Zero Comp, the Bay Area Open, or anything having to do with anything of a personal nature. This is my opinion on why Forge World units should not be allowed in tournaments, it is a simple rebuttal to the opposite argument made by Reece and I trust he knows I am in no way laying a personal attack on him or his group. With that out of the way, on with the show after the break.
Forge World units are not Over Powered. Over powered is a term that gets bandied about too often by our sub-culture lately, the Grey Knight codex at the end of 5th is what I view as the catalyst for the abuse of the term. In particular the seemingly undying thread about how "The Grey Knight codex is the most Over Powered book GW has put out in over a Decade" in which reason, logic, and proof were set aside for a constant barrage of "zomg! GK are so OP, I hate losing!" crying that seemed to spiral way out of control. Thankfully that is now dead but the term OP continues to be used too often now. Some of the FW units are far too cost effective. Reece brought up the Sabre Weapon Platforms that were piloted to victory at Comikaze over the weekend.
They are very points efficient but on their own not OP. What makes this unit OP in my opinion is how it interacts with the new 6th ed fortifications, namely the Aegis Defense Line. If you place them behind the ADL with a CCS, or two, in close proximity you can go to ground for a 2+ cover save and then issue them the get back in the fight order so they suffer none of the negative side effects of going to ground. Now, that isn't any worse than a regular HWS behind an Aegis, except the Sabre is a twinlinked, skyfire, interceptor, las cannon platform which is considerably better than a normal HWS. Even, in this potent combination I still don't find enough justification for banning Forge World from tournaments. The real issue with Forge World isn't the incredibly potent combos that are possible; it is the rarity of playing against those combos and the FW rules and models that should keep them from being allowed in tournaments.
The average army from GW has 30 units, some more, some a few less which gives us a base of about 420 different units in the core game, not including fortifications. These units can be accessed fairly easily at most FLGS' game nights, through arranging games on local forums, or just by showing up to local tournament and even GT style events. Even if you don't have access to an Eldar opponent in your area you can still get access to the codex easily. Becoming familiar with the rules of every unit in the game, by familiar I mean knowing the rules, requires you to read the rules over more than once and requires time to digest and form an idea of how the unit will work on the table top. In order to do this you probably will need to own a copy of the rules. Owning all the codices will run you about $400. That is purchasing all the codices new, I own all the codices but I only bought the rulebooks for factions that I play new. Most FLGS' have a used section, ebay, and forums also provide a place to pick up the codices for much cheaper. Quickly going through eBay and Bartertown allowed me to tally up every codex for a little under $200. In short the core units for the game are easily accessible to play against, the rules are easily accessible, and can be found for 50% or more off if your savvy. The same does not hold true for Forge World, not even close.
My main reason I don't think FW is acceptable for use in tournaments is simple. There is not an equal access to the rules and units for all players. The core units in the game are readily accessible as are the rules. In response to this topic many TOs have said that they require a player using a FW unit to have a copy of the rules readily accessible prior to the start of the game and that they themselves will be sure to have access to said rules. That's great except players may never have seen or heard of that unit until right then and there. Becoming familiar with a unit requires multiple readings and time to process the information, something not possible with the 5-10 minutes of prep time before a match starts. Not to mention reading how a unit works and experiencing how it works in action are two entirely different things. Think about your first game against a Draigo/Coteaz/Paladin Deathstar in 6th, when it was still terribly broken via Character rules. Looks pretty mean on paper but so did the same unit in 5th; then you played against it in 6th and probably got your ass handed to you. Why? Because witnessing it in action is very different than reading about it. Allowing players to use rare FW units, yes they are rare compared to the core units it is an undeniable fact, gives those players a massive advantage over other players. The other argument I have heard is that FW is not as inaccessible as people say, that it isn't as cost prohibitive to become familiar with the rules for the units. TOs have also stated that they don't add a significantly large number of new units and becoming familiar with them on the fly shouldn't be a problem. That is flat out wrong.
Allowing Forge World units in tournaments adds at least 187 units to the game. Most of which are Space Marine of Imperial Guard the two most common factions in the game as core or allied forces. 187 units on top of the core 420 on average. It adds almost 50% more units to the game by simply allowing Forge World. If you want to check my math feel free but the only way to do it is combing the FW site, unless you've shelled out the $517 for the FW books. Sorry, that number is wrong. It isn't $507 they cost 507 pounds sterling, before shipping costs. In dollars, before shipping, they cost $838.67. Good luck finding the Forge World books at a discount online through ebay, barter town, the dakka swap shop etc; so you'll definitely be shelling out close to a grand just to fact check my numbers, which I am confident will end up higher not lower for unit count, let alone spending that much to become familiar with the units. So even buying all the codices new will cost you less than half what the FW books will cost you, not including shipping. That is also assuming the books are in stock, and if they aren't then again good luck finding one on line someplace other than the FW site.
Then we get into the fact that most players don't use Forge World models on a daily basis in their games. Gaining practical real game experience with these units is hard to come by, sure you can proxy them in pick up games to prepare but the proxy is based upon a picture so you still won't have a real idea of LoS, cover, model foot print etc. All the serious tournament players I know, my self included, practice. We practice the missions we know will be in use, if we don't know the missions ahead of time we practice core missions, we use our list against as many opponents and armies as possible on as many different board set ups as possible. If you want to win major events you have to train, that's why I haven't gotten close to winning a GT and always end up in the middle. I have yet to train enough going into a GT to make a good showing but allowing Forge World into tournaments creates an environment where you can't effectively train for an event. The rules and models are too rare.
I don't want to tell people how to play. I own Forge World models, I have two Contemptors, several marks of pre-heresy Space Marine sets, a Venerable Space Wolf Dread, and I used to have some IG stuff as well. What I don't want is to surprise my opponents at a tournament. I don't want Forge World to become a means by which people who can afford it can use inexperience of others to their advantage. I am a power gamer, I play strong lists and in a competitive environment I play hard. I am also lucky enough to have a career and several fully painted armies so if the move to FW goes on I can and will buy the most broken FW combos I can to play in tournaments. The problem with this is sour grapes. We as a community need to be careful about how many sour grapes we create through the introduction of FW into our events. Sure I can build a super combo using Allies and FW with my existing armies but that doesn't mean other players should have to be subjected to playing that list.
The Core units in the game are good. Everyone knows them, or they can if they want, and the game is comfortable with the core. Adding in FW may seem innocuous at first; upon deeper inspection and thought it becomes a potentially harmful step for the tournament scene. My hope by writing this is that we all take a closer look at just how important using Forge World really is and more importantly just how fair and viable such a step is for the competitive community.
My only true line I draw is not in RTT's or local events outside of a once in great while type thing. Why?
Local events are run by stores and generally are helpful in generating revenue as people tweak and tune lists or get excited for upcoming tournaments. Stores can't provide Forgeworld and ever dollar spent on a point from forgeworld is a dollar out of the game stores pocket. Granted not every shops at the FLGS they play at (though they should) but it's something to consider.
At GT's. I'd be leary if the local community doesn't use them as encountering FW has the potential to sour someones time. Not that it happens everytime or even most of the time but it's something to consider.
Why is it such a big issue just reading the unit profiles before the match? Not to sound aggressive or anything, but from your article, I cant help but think you seem to think everyone in tournaments knows all the rules. I know there are at least 4 armies in this game I know nothing about. The same effect is formed here, but I don't ask to read through the player's codex before the match.
Edit; I also agree with what Hulksmash said. In areas such as a GW tournament in Warhammer World which sell FW, it is less of an impact but in those tournament areas Hulk mentioned I can see his point, and agree.
I think the difference is the availability and for knowledge. You could, for a reasonable amount, learn about those 4 armies if it was remotely important to you. You couldn't, for a reasonable amount, become familiar with all the IG or SMFW items in the game. Those two are extremes but quite a few armies are spread between books at this point.
And at a tournament I do expect my opponents to know the rules. I know the rules. And if FW became the norm I'd know those rules too.
@CnC
I don't agree that the issue is for the competitive community. Most of them that I know would just do what they do with normal 40k. Get the books and study them. No real hitch. I think the issue more revolves around the moderately/non-competitive field. It's far more likely to blindside and ruin the majority of tournament goers game than it is to do that the more competitive players (in the sense of those who are relatively serious about trying to win large events).
blood lance wrote: Why is it such a big issue just reading the unit profiles before the match? Not to sound aggressive or anything, but from your article, I cant help but think you seem to think everyone in tournaments knows all the rules. I know there are at least 4 armies in this game I know nothing about. The same effect is formed here, but I don't ask to read through the player's codex before the match.
Edit; I also agree with what Hulksmash said. In areas such as a GW tournament in Warhammer World which sell FW, it is less of an impact but in those tournament areas Hulk mentioned I can see his point, and agree.
Sure, but it is your choice not to be informed on those armies. Should you choose to be completely versed in them you have the opportunity to be. That opportunity is also easy to come by, as opposed to FW which as I said is more difficult to become adequately versed in.
I also agree with Hulk that local RTs shouldn't have FW as a basic rule. Should the BAO choose to allow FW this year I will still attend, schedule allowing, but that doesn't change my overall opinion.
Thanks for cut and pasting, I wasn't sure I wanted subject people to a TLDR moment by doing that myself!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: I think the difference is the availability and for knowledge. You could, for a reasonable amount, learn about those 4 armies if it was remotely important to you. You couldn't, for a reasonable amount, become familiar with all the IG or SMFW items in the game. Those two are extremes but quite a few armies are spread between books at this point.
And at a tournament I do expect my opponents to know the rules. I know the rules. And if FW became the norm I'd know those rules too.
@CnC
I don't agree that the issue is for the competitive community. Most of them that I know would just do what they do with normal 40k. Get the books and study them. No real hitch. I think the issue more revolves around the moderately/non-competitive field. It's far more likely to blindside and ruin the majority of tournament goers game than it is to do that the more competitive players (in the sense of those who are relatively serious about trying to win large events).
Ha you me Hulk! I see your point, I probably should have spelled that out better in my OP.
Fortunately I don't have to have a strong opinion on this one for a while, and can watch how the Heresy books turn out, and GW's opinion-making on this via FAQ and releases.
The issue is that a lot of players like Overwatch invest a great deal of money and time preparing for tournaments. Asking people to expend another several hundred dollars (or asking them to pirate / commit crimes) getting up to speed on the Forgeworld units out there in order to properly build THEIR lists for the more unit-intensive meta subsequently brought into existence is a bit much in many eyes.
Currently, someone preparing for a tournament knows they may face XYZ, and to prepare their lists accordingly and in such balanced fashion if they want to be ready for all comers. Adding 50% or more units to that mix creates a challenge right off the bat. It creates a larger challenge when you consider that now 33% of the units in the game that a person may face lie outside the reach of their finances in terms of prep (and/or in terms of their own ability to even acquire and take them).
This isn't a cheap hobby either way, and the vast majority of GT attendees make very solid incomes (from my experience and survey), so it's not necessarily as big an issue ... but at the same time, the argument is a valid one.
Arguing that it's EASY to prepare for and be ready to understand the implications of so many new units is ... disingenuous. Arguing that the pros outweight that con, on the other hand, has merit. That pros/cons weighing is what festers in the mind of each TO as they try to determine what the right course of action is for their event. It's our responsibility to try our best to consider the whole, and to keep our own prefs out of it as best we can ... TO's are typically the most passionate hobbyists ... and probably are more up to speed with and in tune with Forgeworld units and their implications on the game than the average attendee is (IMO), and that should weigh into decision-making.
In the end, while it's a major discussion, it shouldn't be as big a deal as it is - pressuring TO's to permit Forgeworld is about as uncool as berating them for permitting it. Their inclusion certainly puts the onus on competitive players to invest more time and money in preparation. Their inclusion certainly impacts the results and the game (just look at Comikaze, where the winner put FW units to key use in his army - not necessarily overpowered use, mind you, but they directly and clearly contributed to his success). Whether these are acceptable or bad or good are really decisions best left to each TO as he or she sees fit, and subsequently to their constituency to agree or disagree via attendance decisions.
MVBrandt wrote: Fortunately I don't have to have a strong opinion on this one for a while, and can watch how the Heresy books turn out, and GW's opinion-making on this via FAQ and releases.
The issue is that a lot of players like Overwatch invest a great deal of money and time preparing for tournaments. Asking people to expend another several hundred dollars (or asking them to pirate / commit crimes) getting up to speed on the Forgeworld units out there in order to properly build THEIR lists for the more unit-intensive meta subsequently brought into existence is a bit much in many eyes.
Currently, someone preparing for a tournament knows they may face XYZ, and to prepare their lists accordingly and in such balanced fashion if they want to be ready for all comers. Adding 50% or more units to that mix creates a challenge right off the bat. It creates a larger challenge when you consider that now 33% of the units in the game that a person may face lie outside the reach of their finances in terms of prep (and/or in terms of their own ability to even acquire and take them).
This isn't a cheap hobby either way, and the vast majority of GT attendees make very solid incomes (from my experience and survey), so it's not necessarily as big an issue ... but at the same time, the argument is a valid one.
Arguing that it's EASY to prepare for and be ready to understand the implications of so many new units is ... disingenuous. Arguing that the pros outweight that con, on the other hand, has merit. That pros/cons weighing is what festers in the mind of each TO as they try to determine what the right course of action is for their event. It's our responsibility to try our best to consider the whole, and to keep our own prefs out of it as best we can ... TO's are typically the most passionate hobbyists ... and probably are more up to speed with and in tune with Forgeworld units and their implications on the game than the average attendee is (IMO), and that should weigh into decision-making.
In the end, while it's a major discussion, it shouldn't be as big a deal as it is - pressuring TO's to permit Forgeworld is about as uncool as berating them for permitting it. Their inclusion certainly puts the onus on competitive players to invest more time and money in preparation. Their inclusion certainly impacts the results and the game (just look at Comikaze, where the winner put FW units to key use in his army - not necessarily overpowered use, mind you, but they directly and clearly contributed to his success). Whether these are acceptable or bad or good are really decisions best left to each TO as he or she sees fit, and subsequently to their constituency to agree or disagree via attendance decisions.
I can get behind quite a bit of that. My purpose in posting this was to get as many TOs as possible to take a second hard look at what the inclusion of FW into their events really means for the hobby as a whole and the competitive, and non-competitive, players in their events. Does FW really make the event more competitive? Does it really make the event more fun? Personally I don't think so in either case.
MVBrandt wrote: Fortunately I don't have to have a strong opinion on this one for a while, and can watch how the Heresy books turn out, and GW's opinion-making on this via FAQ and releases.
The issue is that a lot of players like Overwatch invest a great deal of money and time preparing for tournaments. Asking people to expend another several hundred dollars (or asking them to pirate / commit crimes) getting up to speed on the Forgeworld units out there in order to properly build THEIR lists for the more unit-intensive meta subsequently brought into existence is a bit much in many eyes.
Currently, someone preparing for a tournament knows they may face XYZ, and to prepare their lists accordingly and in such balanced fashion if they want to be ready for all comers. Adding 50% or more units to that mix creates a challenge right off the bat. It creates a larger challenge when you consider that now 33% of the units in the game that a person may face lie outside the reach of their finances in terms of prep (and/or in terms of their own ability to even acquire and take them).
This isn't a cheap hobby either way, and the vast majority of GT attendees make very solid incomes (from my experience and survey), so it's not necessarily as big an issue ... but at the same time, the argument is a valid one.
Arguing that it's EASY to prepare for and be ready to understand the implications of so many new units is ... disingenuous. Arguing that the pros outweight that con, on the other hand, has merit. That pros/cons weighing is what festers in the mind of each TO as they try to determine what the right course of action is for their event. It's our responsibility to try our best to consider the whole, and to keep our own prefs out of it as best we can ... TO's are typically the most passionate hobbyists ... and probably are more up to speed with and in tune with Forgeworld units and their implications on the game than the average attendee is (IMO), and that should weigh into decision-making.
In the end, while it's a major discussion, it shouldn't be as big a deal as it is - pressuring TO's to permit Forgeworld is about as uncool as berating them for permitting it. Their inclusion certainly puts the onus on competitive players to invest more time and money in preparation. Their inclusion certainly impacts the results and the game (just look at Comikaze, where the winner put FW units to key use in his army - not necessarily overpowered use, mind you, but they directly and clearly contributed to his success). Whether these are acceptable or bad or good are really decisions best left to each TO as he or she sees fit, and subsequently to their constituency to agree or disagree via attendance decisions.
I can get behind quite a bit of that. My purpose in posting this was to get as many TOs as possible to take a second hard look at what the inclusion of FW into their events really means for the hobby as a whole and the competitive, and non-competitive, players in their events. Does FW really make the event more competitive? Does it really make the event more fun? Personally I don't think so in either case.
I actually agree with you - but I'm not sure it makes it LESS fun. I'm also not ENTIRELY sure it makes it less competitive at all ... possibly less evaluative? Or, it's simply evaluating different metrics, which you've touched on a little. It was a no brainer I wasn't going to make people add / adjust to forgeworld in a month along with the brand new edition for NOVA 2012. I'm TBD on NOVA '13, though it will for sure remain in the Narrative, and probably be added to Trios.
I think the Narrative and team events are perfect places to allow FW. I am not against FW use across the board, just at the main GT style events. I actually like many of the FW models and their rules but it is the rarity of them that in my mind makes them unacceptable for major GT use.
I understand that stating FW makes the game less fun and less competitive is an opinion of mine but I think the case I made was fairly solid.
The main reason FW core legal was even being discussed was based upon a rumor that FW would have a US factory and begin selling directly in the US which changes the whole debate. Realistically this is primarily a 'US INDY GT' issue.
The only thing argument I disagree with is people who don't want to see the 'meta' expanded. I agree that FW for FLGS makes no as it is out-of-store purchases. I agree it is very hard as only people with FW rules buy a 100$ book from overseas but if there was a US distribution available, I feel like a lot of the monetary and availability issues become moot for US audiences.
And honestly 'expanding the meta' isn't the end of the world as most of the stuff is simply expanding into 'more mech, more shooty stuff, more iguard, more orks' so it is not so different someone is going to be drastically confused with how those rules work.
I do feel that it has minimal impact on competitiveness since allies basically blew the doors off of balance, and only people who think they are better players than they really are are going to be taken by surprise by FW units any more than the new ally matrix. I do think it makes it more fun as it allows people to play with their toys and allows for more themes and people to bring different stuff and people like to see neat models and play with their toys.
Good players are good players usually regardless of the circumstance... I really can't see the real winners at these events crumbling because they face a land raider with a different gun. I do see angry middle-of-the-pack people who will get angry and blame FW for their loss when it probably had no impact on the game and then try to explain away their loss not on getting beat but on playing a deviant version of 40k.
I feel like both ways are valid ways to play... and I dislike when one group is trying to posture 'their' way of playing as the 'competative' or 'valid' meta game and any changes to that as a broken or noncompetitive metagame, which is basically what people who want no FW ever try to do which is fundamentally wrong. I feel like a GT format can be fun and competative regardless if it includes FW or not...
most of the forgeworld rules can be found online. I buy the forge world books. I play models out of but can read up on the rest if i want. I have no idea how most armies work in detail. I don't play those armies.
currently flyers are overpowered, FW opens up access to anti-flyer stuff to lots of armies who will have next to nothing for the next 3-5 years.
I play FW stuff because I like the models. Most gamers play for fun. Power gamers hate FW because it makes their job harder. There is a 2 day tourney in November in seattle and I am considering not showing up since forgeworld isn't allowed.
so you arguements against FW are.
1. too expensive to get all the rules for you to study
2. makes your games unfun because some crazy forgeworld rule killed your finely tuned list
my arguements for.
1. cool models
2. access to airdefense to armies with non.
will you ban sisters of battle and new flyers that came out in white dwaf or the demon update? you can't buy those rules from GW. all of those white dwarf's are e-bay only now.
The issue is really up to the Tournament Organizers and should end there, barring future developments. GW in no way, shape, or form has any hand in the tournament scene, so their "standards" for that are, in essence, moot. Without GW involved, for example, you aren't technically required to even have GW models... unless the TO says you do. The decision to use or not use Forgeworld, therefore, falls into the same category of "TO discretion," like use of FAQs, use of tournament-specific missions, terrain interpretation, or allowance of counts-as, conversions, and/or fan-dexes. Even if GW someday officially "endorses" Forgeworld as canon, it would still have to be approved by individual TOs as GW essentially has cut themselves out of any tournament decision-making. People can vote with their attendance at these events if they want FW or not; it doesn't really merit a significant discussion, IMO.
Considering how much FW costs, how much effort it takes to set up, the fact that GW owns it, the fact it is licensed by it, and that for no real reason made by GW itself it isnt in tournaments, I could understand why many FW model owners would want it in tournaments. My ultimate opinion is its up to the tournament organisers. To me, no offense to the people with this opinion, the idea it makes the game unbalanced and ruins it, sounds a lot like the early complaints in sixth edition that "Flyers ruined the game".
So your issue is with there being too many units at the current time as it is?
Im sorry, but variety is allways good.
It means you wont allways see the same old lists being thrown onto tables.
Rules wise, FW do pretty good.
Nothing too OTT, and seems to be pretty balanced, if not, over costed in places.
Only rules i dont like is experimental ones they have for new units until they get a true profile in a book.
New necron Canoptek Acanthrites.
Only a few £ more expensive than a wraith, so they are nice and cheap.
However, 45 points for a T5, W3 3+ model with an AP2 melta weapon, stealth and JI profile.
Seems pretty heavy, but it can also fight in combat to a decent standard aswell.
So, multi-role, can only ID it with S10, moves quick-ish.
They are a bloody nightmare.
I played against a crons list with twin FO and ended up facing 12 of those and 12 wraiths.
The 4 units alone work to a stupidly high level.
When building a list, do you plan for every unit you are liable to face at a tournament? Does every army you build have a separate response for every enemy you are liable to face?
I rather doubt it. While you may plan in broad strokes, I think most players plan for generalities, not certain choices they may or may not face. Heavy Infantry, Light Infantry, Heavy Armor, Light Armor, Flyers, MC's, ect. If your list can deal with the general form, then you should be able to handle a specific form. Essentially, I'm trying to say that a well built take-all-comers list should not have to plan specifically for which enemy units are taken. List Tailoring should not be a requirement for success, and Forge World units do not change that.
In effect, your argument's logical conclusion is that someone taking a rarely used, but less effective choice from their codex over a commonly used choice should have a higher chance of winning solely because the opponent does not have a specific plan for engaging that unit.
blood lance wrote: Considering how much FW costs, how much effort it takes to set up, the fact that GW owns it, the fact it is licensed by it, and that for no real reason made by GW itself it isnt in tournaments, I could understand why many FW model owners would want it in tournaments. My ultimate opinion is its up to the tournament organisers. To me, no offense to the people with this opinion, the idea it makes the game unbalanced and ruins it, sounds a lot like the early complaints in sixth edition that "Flyers ruined the game".
I don't think the FW units themselves make the game unbalanced, I even said so in the OP. I feel the restricted availability of the rules and the rarity of the units in terms of availability for adequate practice against them makes it unbalanced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Irdiumstern wrote: When building a list, do you plan for every unit you are liable to face at a tournament? Does every army you build have a separate response for every enemy you are liable to face?
I rather doubt it. While you may plan in broad strokes, I think most players plan for generalities, not certain choices they may or may not face. Heavy Infantry, Light Infantry, Heavy Armor, Light Armor, Flyers, MC's, ect. If your list can deal with the general form, then you should be able to handle a specific form. Essentially, I'm trying to say that a well built take-all-comers list should not have to plan specifically for which enemy units are taken. List Tailoring should not be a requirement for success, and Forge World units do not change that.
In effect, your argument's logical conclusion is that someone taking a rarely used, but less effective choice from their codex over a commonly used choice should have a higher chance of winning solely because the opponent does not have a specific plan for engaging that unit.
FW units do change that. They increase the number of units available in the pool by almost 33%. FW units often have rules that are very different to the core and their type(s) often behave differently as well making it harder to adjust and account for. Especially when the chance to play against those units in practice is much lower than core units.
blood lance wrote: Why is it such a big issue just reading the unit profiles before the match? Not to sound aggressive or anything, but from your article, I cant help but think you seem to think everyone in tournaments knows all the rules. I know there are at least 4 armies in this game I know nothing about. The same effect is formed here, but I don't ask to read through the player's codex before the match.
Edit; I also agree with what Hulksmash said. In areas such as a GW tournament in Warhammer World which sell FW, it is less of an impact but in those tournament areas Hulk mentioned I can see his point, and agree.
Sure, but it is your choice not to be informed on those armies. Should you choose to be completely versed in them you have the opportunity to be. That opportunity is also easy to come by, as opposed to FW which as I said is more difficult to become adequately versed in.
How is FW harder to learn about? Are the big books a bit too hard for you to read? /sarcasm
In all seriousness, I don't think everyone needs to be familiar with every unit in the core game, nor should they be. In a real war, not that realism and 40k should go in the same sentence, you don't know everything your opponent'll spring on you. For this reason, FW is simply a strategic asset, if you like.
I'm for it- FW stuff's cool looking and characterful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blood lance wrote: Considering how much FW costs, how much effort it takes to set up, the fact that GW owns it, the fact it is licensed by it, and that for no real reason made by GW itself it isnt in tournaments, I could understand why many FW model owners would want it in tournaments. My ultimate opinion is its up to the tournament organisers. To me, no offense to the people with this opinion, the idea it makes the game unbalanced and ruins it, sounds a lot like the early complaints in sixth edition that "Flyers ruined the game".
Im sorry, but no one is ever going to know the rules for every unit from the top of thier head, so why do more units matter?
I could quote the entire nids / daemons codex to you with all units, points costs and upgrades (and weapons) without having to think too hard.
With guard though, i need to see a book for the odd thing here and there.
With space pups, i need that book or im lost.
Aslong as people have the book to hand with said units profile in it, i dont care.
If i see a FW model and the book, ill do the smart thing and have a quick look at what it is and what it can do before the game.
FW units do change that. They increase the number of units available in the pool by almost 33%. FW units often have rules that are very different to the core and their type(s) often behave differently as well making it harder to adjust and account for. Especially when the chance to play against those units in practice is much lower than core units.
This engages no point of my argument, and simply restates your position. To simplify, I am stating that an all comers list should be able to deal with any forge world unit, and that lack of knowledge of another race's precise abilities has never constituted more than a small disadvantage. I would say that getting one's preferred turn order (I.e. first or second) will have a greater impact than your opponent having a unit which you have only read through before the match.
Could you happen to tell me where to find the Sabre Gun Platform rules you mentioned? The only reference I found is in IA4, which doesn't hold any reference to Skyfire or Interceptor, as far as I can see.
Jackal wrote: Im sorry, but no one is ever going to know the rules for every unit from the top of thier head, so why do more units matter?
Especially when 60% of the units in the metagame are 'marine equivilant' already. A huge portion of FW is basically slight variations of marines and I-guard which have the same armor values and statlines which people are already aware of and prepared for.
I respect the fact that some players are willing to memorize most or all of the stats in the game, but I don't think Forgeworld overcomplicates 40k by clogging it with a bunch of new units. Here's why:
An earlier poster said that forgeworld increases the pool by 33% (from about 420 units to about 590). However, not every forgeworld unit is going to be tournament caliber, just as in core. So in reality the number is less than 33% and probably a lot less than 33%.
Further, most forgeworld units are both vehicles and variants off an already existing vehicle (Tau Piranha TX-42, Land Raider Achilles, etc.). Players are already familiar with the basic version of these models and the usually the alterations made by forgeworld doesn't change the unit's battlefield role--a land raider achilles serves much the same purpose as a land raider, for example. Because of this, it is not necessary to memorize every single variant.
Finally, opponents are nearly always entitled to inspect stats before a match, doubly so with Forge World models. This is enough forewarning to prevent most deployment and tactical errors.
I'd also like to add that of all the reasons to oppose something, "I don't know about it and don't want to learn about it and don't want to be penalized for not knowing about it." is about the worst reason I can think of, and that's basically the mindset proferred in this blogpost. 40k is partially about creativity and confronting new situations. Anything within reason that promotes creativity ought to be encouraged. Forgeworld models certainly promote more creativity and they certainly aren't too complicated so they should be allowed.
FW units do change that. They increase the number of units available in the pool by almost 33%. FW units often have rules that are very different to the core and their type(s) often behave differently as well making it harder to adjust and account for. Especially when the chance to play against those units in practice is much lower than core units.
This engages no point of my argument, and simply restates your position. To simplify, I am stating that an all comers list should be able to deal with any forge world unit, and that lack of knowledge of another race's precise abilities has never constituted more than a small disadvantage. I would say that getting one's preferred turn order (I.e. first or second) will have a greater impact than your opponent having a unit which you have only read through before the match.
Could you happen to tell me where to find the Sabre Gun Platform rules you mentioned? The only reference I found is in IA4, which doesn't hold any reference to Skyfire or Interceptor, as far as I can see.
My position itself is a counter to your argument. In an environment that allows FW the basis of an all comers list is forced to change by the inclusion of a large number of new units. Being able to create a new all comers list with the meta shift that FW creates requires access to the rules and units to practice against. Something that is hard to accomplish given the availability, or lack there of, of FW in local metas.
Your second statement only further reinforces my primary argument about the potential confusion of including FW. The Sabre Gun Platform is given Skyfire and Interceptor by the FW 6th ed FAQsiirc.
We generally allow FW at the store I play at. Up until 6th Edition though, we generally did not allow FW units in tournaments though. This is now changing mostly due to the anti aircraft units FW allows players to field. It reduces the issues with armies like IG air cav and Night Scythe spam and gives a lot of flavor to the armies fielded at the tournaments.
The Meta game is shifting right now. What better time to include even more possibilities?
How many unique units does FW offer to marines and IG?
How many unique units does FW offer to Tyranids?
My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)
FAQ's have been applied, which probably accounts for the sabre platforms having interceptor and skyfire.
Most players plan for generalities, and popular specifics. I.E., it is unwise not to consider if your list can tackle a fortuned harlie star now that they have a 2+ cover save almost always. It is unwise not to consider if your list can tackle an all flyer list a la Necrons. There are many examples, and they differ from "plan to handle tough units" and "plan to handle flyers." The existence of specific differences to certain combos (hit and run for harlies, ALL flyer for Necrons) overrides the basic generalities of being able to handle deathstars and flyers, and mandates that someone's army must be able to at least compete against a deathstar that is re-rollable 2+ saved and can break combat with tarpits, or an army with overwhelming flyer quantities.
There are SOME things in the FW arsenal of 40k-stamped units that have similar impact on the game, not necessarily to as dramatic a degree, but enough that a well-rounded list needs to make sure it has capabilities beyond the "standard for type" to tackle them.
I am not of the opinion that they UNBALANCE the game - I think they probably make things even more painful for Tyranids and a couple of other pigeonholed codices, especially in the AA department, but I don't think they cause the game to suddenly only have one or two power builds and thus be crappy.
They DO force changes on what a balanced army constitutes ... some peoples' balanced armies become more balanced by their inclusion, and some peoples' balanced armies become less balanced by no longer being as well prepared as they otherwise were.
Evaluating whether this is ideal - a change from the non-FW 6th edition to the FW 6th edition - is up to each TO, and is firmly an opinion. Some of us have an opinion on it (i.e. Reece), some of us don't or don't yet (i.e. Me).
Also, someone made a comment about FW rules being readily available online ... it's not a TO's right to consider illegal downloads when trying to evaluate the impact of their decisions on their attendees. So that's sorta pointless.
Long story short ... allowing FW for your tournament does a couple of things irrevocably -
1) Changes the meta (no comment here on "to what degree")
2) Adds some quantity of power units to the existing pool of power units (no comment on how many or how powerful)
3) Places a requirement on players who try to prepare to tackle any build to prepare further
4) Allows people to take a greater variety of units
5) Adds Forgeworld models that can actually be played with their rules and not just counts-as
6) Generates annoying forum threads
How these things all interact are what muddle through a TO's head when they make decisions. Again, another reason why it's best not to pressure or berate them for it ... we're not doing it to try and make friends or enemies, just trying to run good events.
Final note on 2) above - the # of power units that are added is a far more meaningful metric than the # of units in total. If there are around 200 units added by legalizing FW, who cares? Many of them are largley just a different version of the same old - combat units, shooty units, etc. The big change comes in the form of power units that people obviously want to take, and that can have meaningful impacts on the game through their combination of spammability and/or power for points. Also, some of them buck peoples' lists in ways that are hard to counter ... i.e., if a player was relying on melta to tackle heavy armor (a completely reasonable thing to do within the standard game), they could get "boned" by an Achilles or something. So, people will have to have in their minds and lists a better answer for heavy armor.
These little things can change the game dramatically ... but for me at least, I'm not yet sold on whether it's a good or bad change.
My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)
Im sorry, but have you been playing any 40k games?
Look at the space marine line, now look at any alien race.
See my point?
Marine units out number any alien army 5:1 with options.
FW is simply doing the same.
OverwatchCNC wrote: Something that is hard to accomplish given the availability, or lack there of, of FW in local metas.
Can we ban Tyranids then? I haven't seen someone play them in 4 years. They are always drastically under-represented in almost all formats... If the availability to practice and become a big-shot good player against a unit is what deems a unit meta-worthy of existing, then NIDS should be banned from every tourney int he US it seems (or at least until they get a new codex).
How are we even to know the lack of availability until units are available to use and then not used? I don't think I now anyone who plays this game and collects thousands of dollars of models who doesn't own FW units.
The thing is... people who practice are not going to be impacted by this. People who don't practice will get spanked by eldrad ally combos and new 6th edition META. It really does boil down to 'I dislike learning new things and I like being on top of the current meta and don't want to change.'
hyv3mynd wrote: How many unique units does FW offer to marines and IG?
How many unique units does FW offer to Tyranids?
My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)
As best I could tell, and this is a low ball assessment.
IG (Army and Navy) get 67 Units
Space Marines (incl BA and SW) 33
Tyranids 5
edit* No Super heavy or Gargantuan Creatures included in the numbers.
hyv3mynd wrote: How many unique units does FW offer to marines and IG?
How many unique units does FW offer to Tyranids?
My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)
As best I could tell, and this is a low ball assessment.
IG (Army and Navy) get 67 Units
Space Marines (incl BA and SW) 33
Tyranids 5
edit* No Super heavy or Gargantuan Creatures included in the numbers.
So what happens when you add a new model range to the tournament scene that offers 90+ units to loyalist and their battle brother allies while xenos players get 5-10 options?
Pretty soon all you'll see in tournaments is SM+IG vs IG+SM. There will be little to no incentive to playing xenos. 40k will cease to be a galaxy at war and it will become Imperial Civil War 40k.
Xenos in general got screwed out of battle brother allies compared to the cherished MEQ.Tyranids can't take allies or use fortification weapons. Why would you want to introduce changes to the tournament scene that create further imbalances and further shift the player base away from xenos?
Good blog post man. It's getting harder and harder to not feel like you "buy your wins" in competitive 40k. I think FW stuff just widens that gap between players. The new edition and all the FW stuff keeps reminding me of this picture I saw right when I got back into the hobby with my wife about 10 years ago:
I guess it's always been that way, you just only notice when you are short on cash...
EDIT: If players feel priced out of a tournament by FW units that are at least perceived as better will attendance go down?
I'm for FW models personally. I think for one, they are much better made and more interesting to look at. Compare a FW broadside to a gw one, there is no comparison.
I think the rules for FW models are sometimes imbalanced. This I think is a direct result of them not often being used in tournaments, so not getting a lot of feedback for the same. This doesnt matter though, because there are much MORE imbalanced things in the normal codexes. I'm going to stand on my normal soapbox here and just shout the phrase "REROLLABLE 2 UP INVULNERABLES SUCKS!" ad nauseum. I would much rather face an army of those guard drills and sabre mounts than an archon that has a not insignificant chance of taking every shot you can throw at him for the whole game and ignoring all of them. likely? no, but way more likely than I want. Hell I've had vect take 30 shots before going down without it being rerollable!
Arguments against it for it being too complicated to get the rules can be answered in one easy move. Just allow the 40k OK units that they have in the FAQ's! That cuts down on the number of overpowered units, and makes a globally accessible set of rules that are just as easy to get as going up and looking up erratas.
I do not feel that the argument about it overcomplicating the game is valid. This is not an easy game, and those of us that play it religiously dont want it to be, furthermore I do not feel adding more units to it somehow makes it impossible for good players to adapt. of all the arguments against I think this is just a reactionary "I fear what i dont understand right now" argument, which will never work for me. Variety is great, and my argument for is just simply the opposite. "people dont understand how to work with the models right now and that's bad" changes to "people dont understand how to work with the models right now and that's good"
As to the money concerns, well hell.. I dont think this game is cheap enough when you buy it from any company, its plastic toys that cost a hundred dollars sometimes, and thats just silly. I don't think the forgeworld stuff is any more Silly, just a different brand of silly. take the broadside for example, I think I pay 40 bucks for a GW broadside, and 45 for a FW broadside that just looks so much better I wish i had bought all of them that way. The same argument could be made against allowing flyers into armies, after all they're new and nobody had them already and they cost a lot of money and not everyone knows how they work, but I know a certain OP who runs an airforce of the things.
Put me on the side of let them in, I'll adapt and maybe we'll eventually say those guard drills are way too OP... but I'm going to insist archons stop rerolling 2 ups first, and then I'm going to go down reecius' list of op things and agree with most of those before I start knocking on FW models too.
At least they look interesting while they kill you unlike 3/4's of those ugly looking flyers.
So what happens when you add a new model range to the tournament scene that offers 90+ units to loyalist and their battle brother allies while xenos players get 5-10 options?
Pretty soon all you'll see in tournaments is SM+IG vs IG+SM. There will be little to no incentive to playing xenos. 40k will cease to be a galaxy at war and it will become Imperial Civil War 40k.
Xenos in general got screwed out of battle brother allies compared to the cherished MEQ.Tyranids can't take allies or use fortification weapons. Why would you want to introduce changes to the tournament scene that create further imbalances and further shift the player base away from xenos?
I think the opposite is true.
How much more can SM+IG actually need with their entirely robust and redundant unit choices in their actual codex? Sure, 90 more units, but they already aren't using most of the their individual codicies since they already have their most economical units. Forge World Imperial units would have to be completely absurd to change that (and they aren't).
On the other hand, for example, Codex Eldar is complete trash. Many FW Eldar units actually fill holes in the existing army (though usually with the 25% points increase Eldar tax, but at least it's something). Eldar can actually compete with the mid-tier armies with FW units/armies.
This again?
AdeptiCon has allowed FW units (with restrictions) for the better part of 8+ years. I think that speaks for itself.
While I understand the argument against allowing Forgeworld models. I think a case can be made that the nature of 6th edition has significantly addressed or reduced it.
So I respectfully disagree and think the advantages/benefits of allowing Forgeworld at our hobby events outweigh the negative.
Most everyone knows I am not a fan of Forge World and I wrote in my blog why.
I do know that Skipper is an exception to the rule where the people who do not like FW will stay home from a tournement that allows it, but those who like FW will still go to a tournament that does not have it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
muwhe wrote: This again?
AdeptiCon has allowed FW units (with restrictions) for the better part of 8+ years. I think that speaks for itself.
While I understand the argument against allowing Forgeworld models. I think a case can be made that the nature of 6th edition has significantly addressed or reduced it.
So I respectfully disagree and think the advantages/benefits of allowing Forgeworld at our hobby events outweigh the negative.
Well you do not have it at your Adepticon Championships, but it is in the team tournament with limitations, and the Gladiator has always had full FW (and trial rules and anything else you can dig up, heck, one year I played against a player that brought 2 warhound titans!) but the Gladiator has always been more of a mini-apocalypse tournament than a 40k tournament.
Chicago always had more acceptance of Forge World than other parts of the country and I believe in part due to the GW Bunker selling forge world up until a few years ago.
.
Opening the floodgates to all units and all armies seems like DKOK will further unbalance the meta. Giving armies access to fliers or AA that don't currently have access would actually help balance the meta
Units that would probably help the game include
Eldar Nightwings
Eldar Firestorm
Tau Barracuda
Tau Remora
It would also give access to fliers for SW, BT, and DA.
Other chapter approved units are like nothing in a regular codex. Example blight drones are now 12/11/10 BS2 HP2 fliers with a hover mode with a main gun that is 8/3 large pie. In a heavy MEQ meta the introduction of fliers flinging 8/3 pies will defiantly stir up the meta.
And some forge world armies can get really crazy. DKOK is the poster child. 9 earth shaker cannons with 72 wounds at T7 and 9 heavy mortars (6/4 large pie Twin linked) with 48 wounds at T7 behind an aegis is 1125 points. That's also single force org 3 HS 3 elites.
My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)
Im sorry, but have you been playing any 40k games?
Look at the space marine line, now look at any alien race.
See my point?
Marine units out number any alien army 5:1 with options.
FW is simply doing the same.
The GK codex has 37 unique units.
The Tyranid Codex has 32 unique units.
Hardly the same ratio of loyalist:xenos offerings from FW.
We all know GW doesn't claim to be balanced for the competitive scene. That's why TO's design their own missions; to help balance the strengths and weaknesses or certain armies and builds. That's why the NOVA made flyers non-scoring towards table quarters. That's why the BAO format includes multiple scoring methods. So when you face 9 flyers or a vp denial list like draigowing, you have options to avoid the auto-loss.
It's the same reason some tournaments use comp. Whatever the TO says, it's balance related. Encouraging diversity by reducing spam attempts to create balance by forbidding people from bringing 3/6 of the same best choice.
Tournaments strive to crown a winner based on skill and many tournaments have their own format/missions/comp to attempt to equalize the field. 6th ed made this a much more difficult task by allowing nearly every loyalist army to ally with other loyalists, while xenos armies have 1-2 ally options at best. Loyalists can also bring 3 HQ's, 4 elites, and 4 heavies with the new ally matrix while they decided one xenos codex could never ally and is stuck with 2/3/3 of the same options.
Does a SW+IG player with 70 combined unit selection options who beats a tyranid player with 32 codex options have more skill or more options? Add FW to that mix and the SW+IG player can choose from 100+ unique units to tyranids 37 codex+FW.
So what happens when you add a new model range to the tournament scene that offers 90+ units to loyalist and their battle brother allies while xenos players get 5-10 options?
Pretty soon all you'll see in tournaments is SM+IG vs IG+SM. There will be little to no incentive to playing xenos. 40k will cease to be a galaxy at war and it will become Imperial Civil War 40k.
Xenos in general got screwed out of battle brother allies compared to the cherished MEQ.Tyranids can't take allies or use fortification weapons. Why would you want to introduce changes to the tournament scene that create further imbalances and further shift the player base away from xenos?
I think the opposite is true.
How much more can SM+IG actually need with their entirely robust and redundant unit choices in their actual codex? Sure, 90 more units, but they already aren't using most of the their individual codicies since they already have their most economical units. Forge World Imperial units would have to be completely absurd to change that (and they aren't).
On the other hand, for example, Codex Eldar is complete trash. Many FW Eldar units actually fill holes in the existing army (though usually with the 25% points increase Eldar tax, but at least it's something). Eldar can actually compete with the mid-tier armies with FW units/armies.
There's a lot of people who would disagree with that statement. I'm looking at you Reece. Also, #1 Best General at the 2011 ATC (70 players inlcuding USA's entire 2011 ETC team) was an Eldar player.
They already did when they made allies part of the core game and made a fluff-based ally matrix which neglected most xenos. They blew the doors off the balance barn with allies to the point that the FW addition actually means very little as quantity of 'options' doesn't equate to 'quality' and most imperial codexes already equipped to plug any and every hole with allies isn't getting anything out of the 70+ FW units where a codex with no allies or no battle brothers is actually getting something out of those 5-10 FW units.
I'm for FW in tournaments for the sole reason that while every point you bring up is correct, allies and 6th edition randomness in general screwed up more things then FW units ever could. I know several people that own them and would like to use them, so i think at this point they should be allowed. Yes, this is basically throwing my arms up in the air and say well it can't make things worse. However I think the look, character, and style FW units bring to the table outweigh the potential balance issues.
That being said, my biggest fear is GW will be GW. "Oh you Americans deem FW legal now? Well how bout we put more uber points effective models out there since we know you'll pay for them to be competitive"
We've been using FW for years and to us it is honestly a silly argument at this point.
I understand the counter arguments but I find they are all based on fear of the unknown.
Here's my response on C&C's blog as I don't want to rehash it all:
I enjoyed reading your counter point.
My issue though is that money isn't a good basis for arguing against FW. A good IG army in 5th cost FAR, FAR more than any other army. A good Grey Knight army was crazy cheap. Should we ban the one because it is cost prohibitive or the other because it is too cheap and like to flood the field? Of course not.
Secondly, I have never, ever seen a player bring every codex to a tournament. Not once. No one has a complete, encyclopedic knowledge of the game either, and as such, don't carry complete understanding of every army with them. Also, I would be willing to bet that 99% of gamers don't own every codex. Most own only those they play.
And do you need to have every FW book? No, only the IA books that summarize the majority of units. Those are very reasonably priced. Also, there are always PDFs. I don't condone theft of IP, but let's be real, people download these things left and right. They are easily found on the net.
Saying people don't know the rules and therefore these shouldn't be allowed is an argument that perpetuates the problem. The only way to get used to this stuff is to play against it. The only way to do that is to allow it into the game.
And yes, they do bring a LOT of new units to the game. AWESOME! When you play in as many tournaments as we do, you get sick of seeing the same lists over and over. Marines and IG are by far the most common armies, give them more variety and it won't be so repetitive playing them.
It also brings a lot of power increases to Xenos races that really need it.
I understand the counter arguments, I just think they are rooted in fear and a lack of knowledge. When people get used to FW, they won't want to go back, I will put money on that.
Thanks for the input though, I appreciate your point of view and there are no hard feelings at all.
I've been watching the FW issue closely. While the final word remains to be seen, but for now, in my events it's going to stay out.
It boils down to two things.
1. 6th doesn't need it. Including FW seems a bit like a knee-jerk intended to 'fix' things. I have not yet seen anything that tells me the game needs any kind of help. Sure, Cron Air is rough, but I've seen it lose plenty (without Sabres), and it's no different than GK dominating for a while at the end of fifth, or during leafblower's fifteen minutes, or Space Wolves Long Fang spam, or <insert thing that was really good for a while here>. We weren't calling for the inclusion of FW at those times and rationalizing it, in part, with claims that it fixed the balance of power in those cases, why now? I run the game pretty much out of the book at my events, and I haven't had a hitch yet with attendance close to 80 over three events in twelve weeks.
and, potentially more important:
2. Attendance. I think those who have come to my events would mostly agree that I run a pretty good show, and while opinions differ on things like mission organization and such, I've had some great success, despite the general gnashing of teeth out there. And as far as I'm concerned, a bigger event equals more fun, for everyone involved. I get to see more different, cool looking armies, and players get a variety of interesting challenges throughout the day. I'm leery of anything that is going to reduce the number of players who might come to my event. No matter how cool FW is, or how 'no big deal' it really is as far as gameplay and balance is concerned, the fact remains that there are a lot of guys who are going to be reluctant to commit their increasingly precious and limited hobby time to an event they have reservations about, unfounded or no. I'm in Blackmoor's camp here: Guys are not very likely to skip an event solely because FW is disallowed, while there is a very real possibility that at least some will skip an event where it is allowed. It won't matter how many times they read on the internet that FW is ok / not an issue / dissolves easily into the meta / no big deal / whatever, they're going to be reluctant to commit to an event because of it.
We'll be doing another one of our events at Game Empire on October 13, if anyone wants to come try it out! Probably 1750 points this time though.
Reecius, characterizing the counter argument as "rooted in fear and lack of knowledge" is belittling to TOs such as MVBrandt who disagree with you.
I'm ALL FOR limited FW at events, a la Adepticon and Nova.
I am against blanket "have at it" in a normal championship tourney. If you want to do an Adepticon Gladiator type, that's fine. But putting unlimited FW in the normal championship is a bad idea, for all the reasons eloquently expressed- Not "rooted in fear and lack of knowledge".
Again, MVBrandt, Blackmoor, etc all show that characterization is simply wrong, no other way to put it.
Instead of hyperbole, how about a compromise like the Adepticon model- a great event that has it both ways? Limited FW in some events, an all-out FW event in the Gladiator, and championship without FW. Even limited FW in championship may be OK. There is a compromise to be had here- why can't you see it?
Dok wrote: Tyranids obviously don't need any help. That's why they don't have any allies.
LOL!! Nids are the Wood Elves of the 40k universe...
Also, I am not afraid of FW units nor do I lack a knowledge of them. I simply do not think they necessarily have a place in regular 40k games.Also, I hardly see how monetary or availability issues are rooted in fear and lack of knowledge.
Primarily, I would love to use a Wraith Seer and various other Eldar FW units but I can't afford them and even if I could, I would not necessarily be able to use them with the impunity that I can as with my codex units. If they were in my codex and official units, I would feel better about using them.
Indeed, something that makes FW seem "not right" is that it is not actually GW official. That kind of makes me feel like its not real 40k if we have FW but more of an off shoot of it. The whole argument of "we are playing with allies and extra force org charts BECAUSE it is in the rulebook" should also be "we are not using FW because they are not in the main rulebook or 40k official."
If you want to make a 40k tournament, stick to the 40k rulebook and official 40k units IMO.
Ok, so let's accept the premise that adding FW makes things too complicated. It's unfair to expect people to buy more rules (even though the vast majority of players already pirate most of the codices they don't play), it's unfair to expect people to spend more time learning about and playtesting against all those new units, etc. Now where do you draw the line?
Should tournaments ban all pre-5th edition armies because few people play them and it's probably hard to find a Tau player to do thorough playtesting against?
Should tournaments ban the entire SoB army because you can't buy the rules from GW anymore?
Should tournaments ban all models over $50?
Should tournaments ban everything except C:SM? After all, it's not fair to expect people to buy all those other codices to learn about them when you can just limit things to a single shared codex that everyone has access to.
Why not even go all the way, and make everyone play the same space marine list? You could even require that it be the one from the current starter set just to make things even more cheap and accessible.
If you don't like these things, how do you justify drawing the line at one GW product (FW) but not others? Why does it suddenly become an unfair burden when FW units are allowed but not when non-C:SM units are allowed? And why is it unfair to non-FW players when FW players bring units the non-FW player can't afford, but not unfair to force FW players to buy an entire second army if they want to play in tournaments? And let's not ignore the importance of that last part, I absolutely refuse to attend any tournament which does not allow ALL GW products, including FW, WD rules, etc.
hyv3mynd wrote: So what happens when you add a new model range to the tournament scene that offers 90+ units to loyalist and their battle brother allies while xenos players get 5-10 options?
Very little actually. What you have to consider is that many of those 90+ units simply aren't top-tier units compared to what's already available from the codex lists. For example, giving IG the ability to take Trojans or Sentinel powerlifters (two fluff-focused units which are garbage in anything but a special scenario game) changes nothing because no IG player is ever going to take them. Even giving IG stuff like the Thunderbolt isn't going to make much impact because, while it's a decent unit, it's still probably worse than just bringing more Vendettas. End result: of that 90+ units only some of them can even attempt to compete with the existing strong and well-rounded codex choices, and only a very small fraction are going to have any meaningful impact on competitive lists.
The xenos options, while fewer in total numbers, tend to have a much higher impact on the game. Whether or not it's because xenos books are out of date, the simple fact is that FW's xenos stuff tends to have a similar number of "I'd take one of those" units compared to the Imperial stuff, they just don't get all the weak fluff units to go with their top-tier options. So while an Eldar or Tau player might not have the "option" to take 90+ units, they do have the option to take 5-10 things that can make a difference in their army.
On the other hand, for example, Codex Eldar is complete trash. Many FW Eldar units actually fill holes in the existing army (though usually with the 25% points increase Eldar tax, but at least it's something). Eldar can actually compete with the mid-tier armies with FW units/armies.
You know I came in 2nd at Comikazi Con with Eldar right? (No Forge World). I am an eldar player I am against FW. I can use the units that I have in the codex, allies, and tactics to plug that gaps that you think they need FW for.
I also find it funny that so far the 2 best units out there seem to be the Hades Breaching Drill and Sabre Defense Platforms...both IG!!!
So if you are battle brothers with IG you are in great shape...Xenos, you are screwed.
Blackmoor wrote: I also find it funny that so far the 2 best units out there seem to be the Hades Breaching Drill
TBH I'm kind of tired of hearing this. I play IG and I regularly use 1-3 drills, and they're not overpowered at all. It's very easy to look at the best-case scenario where it arrives and kills a bunch of stuff, but people always seem to forget the many times where it scatters and does nothing but keep a 100+ point veteran squad off the table for 2-3 turns and then drop them in a suicidal position where they die to bolter fire next turn. Or the times where they're able to block the hole and keep that 100+ point unit off the table forever. Or even the times where you pay 50 points to kill about 50 points worth of infantry when it arrives.
I also think that with the new chaos codex coming in at close to $50, we can finally stop using the expense of forgeworld as an excuse for its exclusion. In many cases now, its actually cheaper to buy the FW equivalents than the regular GW models.
And I also don't get how including FW all of a sudden makes the tournament "not 40k". I don't think there are any tournaments that can claim to actually be "40k". They're all heavily FAQ'd using INAT or NOVA, they introduce wonky missions, they exclude parts of the core rules (last editions KPs), etc. all in the name of "balance". They end up being the TOs version of how the TO thinks 40k should be, with a smattering of 'seeking community input' to keep it kosher.
And I also don't get how including FW all of a sudden makes the tournament "not 40k". I don't think there are any tournaments that can claim to actually be "40k". They're all heavily FAQ'd using INAT or NOVA, they introduce wonky missions, they exclude parts of the core rules (last editions KPs), etc. all in the name of "balance". They end up being the TOs version of how the TO thinks 40k should be, with a smattering of 'seeking community input' to keep it kosher.
The fact that the forgeworld units are officially unofficial means that they are not regular 40k...Using FAQs to address confusing issues that are unclear in the actual rulebook is not even comparable. its one thing to try and clarify how the game is supposed to be played according to the rulebook and quite another to suggest that players should use units that are not in their official codex nor are sanctioned by the creating company for official 40k games.
Another valid point that others brought up was how the amount of units available for imperial armies is disproportionately larger than that for the xenos armies.
lastly, it is an assumption that no tournaments are "40k" as they are heavily FAQd. I frequent several tournaments where the only rules are the 40k rulebook and official GWfaqs... it doesn't get any more 40k than that =/.
The simple truth of this argument is this: We aren't going to do something that will make our events a financial liability. If we do, we go under and can't run any more events.
We asked our attendees and this year had a 90% positive response to Forgeworld.
Last year it was only 50/50.
So we went forward with it. At Comikaze the vast majority of people we talked to were happy to have it there.
So we continue to go forward with it.
If you do not like FW in events, that is fine. If you choose not to come because of that, that is your choice as a gamer, but it is a bit of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
If you think you can run a better, more enjoyable event without Forgeworld, then go for it.
Me saying that opposition to FW is based in fear and a lack of knowledge is neither hyperbole or intended as an insult, it is my honest opinion. Those who play with FW on a regular basis that I have spoken to and aren't just speculating on what it is like, almost universally think it is no big deal. Not everyone who is against FW lacks knowledge of it, but they do fear it or vice versa. They fear it will upset the game, lower their attendance figures, etc. It is a decision based in fear. Fear of what may happen. Like I said, not an insult, just my opinion.
Could we run multiple events at our tournaments with FW and without? Yeah, but that is dramatically increasing our workload, and splitting our player base. We'd rather just have one event, with everyone playing in it and having fun. No reason to create more work for no reason and further perpetuate this division.
So there you have it. I have a ton of emails form people excited to buy FW goodies and bring them to our events. A lot of people are for it or neutral. We are excited for how much this opens up the game and to see what cool things come as a result!
If anyone else wants to run their events in a different way, by all means, go for it! Variety is the spice of life after all, and we understand that not everyone enjoys the game the same way.
We at Frtonline honestly don't even see this is a big deal. From our perspective it feels like making a mountain out of a molehill, but we also understand that is just our perspective and not everyone sees it that way.
mortetvie wrote: The fact that the forgeworld units are officially unofficial means that they are not regular 40k...
Except they aren't. All of the recent FW books clearly state that, other than the specifically marked Apocalypse stuff (superheavies, etc), all of their units are 100% official and intended for use in standard games of 40k. There's a token note about informing your opponent about your FW units before the game (mostly as a way of saying "some people irrationally hate FW, so you should identify them early and not play against them"), but that's covered by the fact that a tournament's rules would clearly state that FW rules are allowed.
and quite another to suggest that players should use units that are not in their official codex nor are sanctioned by the creating company for official 40k games.
Which is why tournaments should not include third-party rules like fan codices. However, since FW is part of GW and produces official GW products (complete with clearly given sanction as official) this is not a problem.
Another valid point that others brought up was how the amount of units available for imperial armies is disproportionately larger than that for the xenos armies.
A point which has been brought up and addressed. Imperial armies get more units in total, but many of them are either fluff-focused units that you'd only use in a special scenario (for example, a Sentinel with no gun) and many of the rest are clearly lower-tier units that won't have much of an impact on competitive tournaments. The xenos armies, on the other hand, tend to get fewer units but a higher proportion of them are things you'd actually use in a competitive list. The end result is that the gap in options, if it exists at all, is much narrower than the raw unit numbers suggest.
Not everyone who is against FW lacks knowledge of it, but they do fear it or vice versa. They fear it will upset the game, lower their attendance figures, etc. It is a decision based in fear. Fear of what may happen. Like I said, not an insult, just my opinion.
It is one thing to say something is your opinion and quite another to assert something as a fact-like when you make the above assertion. Its not ONLY because of a lack of knowledge or fear or combination of those.
I am familiar with a lot of FW and I am not afraid of anything FW. I think that FW units can easily be played around. To me, it is a personal preference thing as if something is not an official addition to a codex or officially in a codex I don't feel right using it. That is maybe my OCD but it definitely isn't fear or lack of knowledge. Maybe it's because I am studying law and like things to be neat and tidy and official, I dunno. =)
Sabre platforms combined with heavy artillery, IMO, breaks the game. I don't know of an army that can withstand 6 S9 AP3 ordinance barrage large blasts AND 30 TL S7 AP4 skyfire interceptor shots easily. That's basically sticking 6 basilisks and 6 dreads on the table in terms of fire power (BS3 vs BS4 makes the difference for those wondering why 6). Using normal codex rules, such fire power would cost 1500 points and consequently neuter your list as you've got no points for troops/HQ. With FW rules, it would cost 1050, which is exactly 70% of the cost. On top of that, it's all T7 compared to AV12. T7 cannot be killed in one shot. It doesn't care about your AP1 or your melta - it just sits there and shoots you. So, you end up with 15 T7 W2 3+ scoring units, for a total of 30 T7 3+ scoring wounds (already more than any other army can muster) and THEN you get 42 wounds worth of artillery to crack. That's 72 T7 wounds, more heavy fire power than any other army and it's just over half a list. 72 wounds is more than most armies have, let alone at T7. So, shooting them with traditional weapons is an exercise in futility - a group of sabre platforms needs to be shot with 11 lascannons/13 missiles to die on average if they have no cover (with cover it's more like 20) and they have 5 platforms. So, we need to either have poison/sniper weapons with low AP (none exist in large enough quantities) or we need to assault them. To reliably get into assault (read: not get shot to death by 15 autocannons and 6 large blasts), we need a way to protect them. Outflanking and Deep Striking are totally out - 15 interceptor autocannons will shred all but the toughest units, plus as you can't assault off either, expect to take those pie plates to the face as well. So, what do you do? Even assuming you can get there, the crew is only IG. Essentially, you'll kill one unit in assault, then the rest kill you next turn as you're not locked in combat as IG is so frail. On top of that, the IG player could easily bubble wrap their stuff, which, in the case of the cannons will be hidden behind LOS blocking terrain. Flyers die, thanks to skyfire. Ground units explode, thanks to ordinance barrage. Everything else needs to push against the hordes of men that fill up the rest of the army.
It's just stupid. Before FWs new updates, I'd say go for it. Now? They've just released an unplayable mess of a book and horribly broken heavy artillery. I have no confidence in their ability to write rules any more. The worst bit is I think all stuff not in Aeronautica/with experimental rules is fine. I mean, I used to play against it in 5th all the time, it wasn't a huge problem. Having played against the army I just described, it's totally demoralised me. The rest of his army was just normal foot guard essentially, nothing fancy. Hell, you could make it worse again with Eldar allies as you could shut down all psychic powers AND gain access to their new 2+ cover flyer/the Warp Hunter. I'll change my opinion if someone posts a way to beat a list with this as its foundation. Until then, I never want to see that stuff at tournaments, which is a shame as it really buffs Tau/Orks.
Reecius wrote: We at Frtonline honestly don't even see this is a big deal. From our perspective it feels like making a mountain out of a molehill, but we also understand that is just our perspective and not everyone sees it that way.
I appreciate your saying that. Variety is indeed good, and it's great that you're having success with this.
However, you often state this as if it's black and white, not accounting for the fact that in your meta, maybe it truly is no big deal.
But to continue to insinuate (or rather, openly state) that you think anyone who disagrees with you does so out of lack of experience or fear is extremely disappointing language to use. Blackmoor placed highly at the very event you reference running, and is against it.
Janthkin, a mod on this site, is against it and helped run the Gladiator at Adepticon this past year.
Your premise on that count is simply wrong, and your case would be much stronger without it. Saying "FW works great with full inclusion in the events that we run" is fine. Saying anyone who disagrees with you is either inexperienced or afraid is simply not, and detracts from what would otherwise be a very persuasive position.
I would love to try out more FW in events, on a limited basis. Being pressured to do so because someone, even with experience, vouches "It's no big deal / it's a non-issue", turns me off to it, however. I'd much rather hear specifically why it was good for you guys- than the fact that you think anyone who doesn't think it's good is afraid or inexperienced. I'm harping on that language because you stood by it in your last post, ignoring the fact that posters who are very experienced, playing against and running events allowing FW, disagree with you about the full, no restrictions, inclusion in regular tournaments.
I underline this last part because I think it is the key issue. Imo, by overstating your case you weaken it. Lots of us would like to see more FW. However, MANY of us are not ready to fully swallow that full FW inclusion will cause no problems. Baby steps, right? If you want this to advance, again I think you'd do better highlighting specifically (not generally) why it has worked well for you (not simply, "It's just a non-issue", but why) and not belittle or pressure those who disagree with you by making assumptions that are simply incorrect.
As I said before- there IS ground for compromise here, and tons of events are doing it. It's not nearly as black and white an issue as you are making it. With your writing off the opposing argument, you're drawing a line in the sand that doesn't need to be there. Honestly addressing the concerns people have about FW would go a lot further to easing people's minds about it, and helping it gain more widespread acceptance, since that's clearly something you would like to see.
I think the 'people don't know the rules' or 'its too expensive or unreasonable' defences are very weak.
Primarily, there are many units in the game that people don't have a chance to play against ever, because they are either rare or dysfunctional. I've never seen a Tau player field Vespids or an IG player field a Deathstrike. I've never played against Black Templars. I've never seen a Sisters of Battle player. In fact, it is probably easier to get hold of the forge world rules than to get the Sisters of Battle rules now.
Given the huge amount of variety in this game, it is easy to come up with *lists* that people have never seen before, even from the common codices. Is that a reason to ban those lists or codices, just because they're uncommon?
As for a shift in the meta, that is a dubious claim IMHO. To have such a shift, the units on offer need to be significantly different and more powerful than what is on offer in their codex already. For example, you say that IG get potentially +60 more units on top of their ~40 already. But half of those 40 they have are uncompetitive, a quarter of the FW 60 are just alternative turrets or whatever for Russ' and another quarter are fluff units like Lifter sentinels or fuel trailers or what have you. With the units you have let that are actually game-worthy, most are outclassed by their codex equivalents or similar enough that most people won't notice the difference. They still follow the rules for normal units and as such a 'take-all-comers' list should have the ability to deal with those threats.
Finally, in terms of a meta shift: Allies have already done this far worse than addition of any FW stuff could. FW stuff at least tends to follow the theme and existing rules for the army. Forge World eldar tanks are still eldar tanks. But throw allies into the mix and suddenly you have close-combat-heavy tau or accurate highly shooty orcs. That, in my opinion, is far more difficult for people to work out how to deal with than adding another Leman Russ variant.
One thing that I don't see mentioned is the fact that this is probably a temporary issue. Those heavy artillery guns used to be immobile. As in, you can't move them, and you can't even pivot them to aim at new targets. With the extremely narrow firing arc the model offers (maybe 15* of pivot) you pretty much had to put them down aimed at a single point on the table and hope your opponent didn't just move out of that spot. The problem is that GW screwed up the artillery rules and made them just ordinary infantry, allowing the big guns to ignore that firing arc restriction and shoot in a 360* arc. Hopefully FW will correct this problem eventually and they'll go back to being a niche unit that most lists don't want to take.
In short: the heavy artillery update is frustrating, but it's not really representative of FW as a whole, and it probably won't last forever.
mortetvie wrote: To me, it is a personal preference thing as if something is not an official addition to a codex or officially in a codex I don't feel right using it. That is maybe my OCD but it definitely isn't fear or lack of knowledge. Maybe it's because I am studying law and like things to be neat and tidy and official, I dunno. =)
It is lack of knowledge, because everything FW publishes is 100% official and they've clearly stated that all of their non-Apocalypse rules are intended for use in standard games of 40k. A FW unit that says "X is a Y FOC choice in army Z" is just as much of an official codex addition as a WD unit that says the same thing.
mortetvie wrote: To me, it is a personal preference thing as if something is not an official addition to a codex or officially in a codex I don't feel right using it. That is maybe my OCD but it definitely isn't fear or lack of knowledge. Maybe it's because I am studying law and like things to be neat and tidy and official, I dunno. =)
It is lack of knowledge, because everything FW publishes is 100% official and they've clearly stated that all of their non-Apocalypse rules are intended for use in standard games of 40k. A FW unit that says "X is a Y FOC choice in army Z" is just as much of an official codex addition as a WD unit that says the same thing.
Doesn't a lack of knowledge need just that... a lack of knowledge? I KNOW what FW units do, I know about them, that is not a lack of knowledge. It is a matter of preference.
The units are NOT officially sanctioned for 40k play as you suggest in the same way codex or WD amendments like the Night Spinner. Otherwise, nobody could have a basis for objecting to the use of forge world.
Cruentus wrote: I also think that with the new chaos codex coming in at close to $50, we can finally stop using the expense of forgeworld as an excuse for its exclusion. In many cases now, its actually cheaper to buy the FW equivalents than the regular GW models.
And I also don't get how including FW all of a sudden makes the tournament "not 40k". I don't think there are any tournaments that can claim to actually be "40k". They're all heavily FAQ'd using INAT or NOVA, they introduce wonky missions, they exclude parts of the core rules (last editions KPs), etc. all in the name of "balance". They end up being the TOs version of how the TO thinks 40k should be, with a smattering of 'seeking community input' to keep it kosher.
I have this nice banquet hall that I use to run my larger tournaments.
I know much time, effort, and logistics to run a large event so no one can pull the rug over my eyes. I've been there. I done it. And it was successful.
I used this hall for many years. Had access to a full bar and dinner menu. There was a time that you could have fun and still be as competitive in a tournament style format. But over the years people that were into the "GT" scene started to change. I got completely disgusted on just how "far" people will do for the sake of winning. In my eyes, The "Spirit of the Game" went by the wayside and was replaced by "To Win at All Cost mentality. This is a big world and I know that there are excellent players that don't have that attitude, but in my case the large venue Tournament scene has soured me to the point of not running larger events anymore. I only run smaller venues now because of the friendliness of the game and the people who are in it.
This line of thought of FW models, Rules sets and other aspects of thought continues as we argue on what is good or what is not for a tournament. It is a polarized position that I see that there will be no end in site.
To me the fact is that the hobby in general is dying. And one of the Key contributors is cost.
If people are being turned away from the hobby because of the increased cost to play in general, why should they bother going to a tournament? This goes for newer players trying to get more into the hobby. Why should they be penalized if they do not have the financial resources to have the information to compete with an army that uses FW models or get FW models of their own in order to compete?
These are key issues why I do not allow FW models in my past tournaments and every year I re-evaluate this position if it as viable option or not
Every tournament will be ran according to the Meta of their sphere of their influence. If FW works in your area then that is just as important as some other tournament that does not allow FW Models. They are both Right as it fits their meta in their sphere of influence.
But don't try to dictate to others on how they should or should not allow things in any tournament scene.
mortetvie wrote: Doesn't a lack of knowledge need just that... a lack of knowledge? I KNOW what FW units do, I know about them, that is not a lack of knowledge. It is a matter of preference.
It is lack of knowledge because you apparently don't know that GW has stated multiple times that FW units are 100% official and intended for use in standard 40k.
The units are NOT officially sanctioned for 40k play as you suggest in the same way codex or WD amendments like the Night Spinner. Otherwise, nobody could have a basis for objecting to the use of forge world.
They are sanctioned in the exact same way, people either don't know (and just repeat "FW is unofficial" because that's what they've heard) or don't like it.
And since when did people need a "legal" reason for objecting to the use of something? Does the trend of "1999+1" tournaments mean that GW didn't officially sanction the use of two FOCs in games of 2000 points or more?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adam LongWalker wrote: Why should they be penalized if they do not have the financial resources to have the information to compete with an army that uses FW models or get FW models of their own in order to compete?
Why should I be penalized if I don't have the financial resources to buy a Vendetta or 99999 Necron flyers? Why should I be penalized if I don't have the resources to buy any codex except my own? Should we limit tournaments to the starter set models and rules because that's the cheapest way to play the game? If not, why should we allow some expensive elements of the game but not others?
And what about the players who bought armies that use FW units? Why should they be penalized and kept out of tournaments because they don't have the financial resources (or time and interest in building/painting) to build an entire second tournament army?
mortetvie wrote: To me, it is a personal preference thing as if something is not an official addition to a codex or officially in a codex I don't feel right using it. That is maybe my OCD but it definitely isn't fear or lack of knowledge. Maybe it's because I am studying law and like things to be neat and tidy and official, I dunno. =)
It is lack of knowledge, because everything FW publishes is 100% official and they've clearly stated that all of their non-Apocalypse rules are intended for use in standard games of 40k. A FW unit that says "X is a Y FOC choice in army Z" is just as much of an official codex addition as a WD unit that says the same thing.
So who makes warhammer 40k? (It’s a rhetorical question) The answer is Games Workshop, not Forge World. So why have they never said that it is official just like all the rumors that said that they were a few months ago?
Again, it is not official until the Games Workshop part of Games Workshop makes it so.
Blackmoor wrote: I also find it funny that so far the 2 best units out there seem to be the Hades Breaching Drill
TBH I'm kind of tired of hearing this. I play IG and I regularly use 1-3 drills, and they're not overpowered at all. It's very easy to look at the best-case scenario where it arrives and kills a bunch of stuff, but people always seem to forget the many times where it scatters and does nothing but keep a 100+ point veteran squad off the table for 2-3 turns and then drop them in a suicidal position where they die to bolter fire next turn. Or the times where they're able to block the hole and keep that 100+ point unit off the table forever. Or even the times where you pay 50 points to kill about 50 points worth of infantry when it arrives.
They are so bad that you always take 1-3 of them? If they are as bad as you are claiming do you always take 1-3 bad units? Do you take1-3 Ogryns? How about Rough Riders? I could go on but you get the point. If they were bad you would not always be taking them. Yes sometimes they do nothing, just like every unit in 40k. but that does not mean that they are a bad unit.
Blackmoor wrote: So who makes warhammer 40k? (It’s a rhetorical question) The answer is Games Workshop, not Forge World. So why have they never said that it is official just like all the rumors that said that they were a few months ago?
Again, it is not official until the Games Workshop part of Games Workshop makes it so.
Forge World IS Games Workshop, it's just a set of Games Workshop products published under a specific brand name just like all of your paints and models are sold under the Citadel brand name, and you'll find the rules for your Sisters of Battle army in White Dwarf magazine.
They are so bad that you always take 1-3 of them? If they are as bad as you are claiming do you always take 1-3 bad units? Do you take1-3 Ogryns? How about Rough Riders? I could go on but you get the point. If they were bad you would not always be taking them. Yes sometimes they do nothing, just like every unit in 40k. but that does not mean that they are a bad unit.
There are a lot more reasons to take something than just "it wins games". I take them because it's an awesome concept, a bunch of angry guys with plasma guns smashing out of the ground with heavy construction equipment and feeding enemy tanks (or special characters) into the wood chipper. My army started with the DKoK engineers (the first drill was a gift from my girlfriend, based entirely on how cool the model looked), and they've been a major part of it as long as I've been playing IG. And yes, I'd play Rough Riders when I finally get around to building and painting them, but Ogryn just aren't interesting to me.
Also, I never said drills were a bad unit, I said they weren't overpowered. They're good, but they don't break the game, just like Chimeras are good but don't break the game (and I see a lot of IG players taking Chimeras every game).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mortetvie wrote: So like those FW entries that say "opponent's permission" now don't need opponent's permission anymore?
That hasn't existed in years. "Opponent's permission" is long gone, and now just a myth repeated by people who haven't bothered to learn the actual rules.
Peregrine wrote: They're good, but they don't break the game, just like Chimeras are good but don't break the game (and I see a lot of IG players taking Chimeras every game).
Could that have something to do with one being an option in the IG Codex that every IG player should have and the other not?
As a TO for an upcoming event I feel I have some things to say. The biggest issue in my opinion is people do not know about Forge World compared to how they know about core GW products. I don't post on the forums that much but I figured this was a good thread to join. Below are some of my points.
1 - Definition of tournament and what you expect. --- Most tournaments out there classify themselves as a "Grand Tournament", "Championship", "Gladiator" or use some other kind of moniker to explain what they think their event is about. For most events GT doesn't even apply to what GW made their events to be in the first place. TO's and players expect to express their desires of what they run or attend - for a competitive event, a hobby event or something else altogether. Some events make their own rules changes/faq's, some use comp systems and some just allow you to play games with your miniatures. Most events are very different and you need to choose what you want your event to be or what type of event you will attend or comment on forums about. Diversity is good here, since there will be something for everyone.
2 - Price and availability. ---You have to own the codex for the army you are playing when you show up at almost every tournament (bring your army and codex - almost the only Universal Rule for ALL tournaments), this includes the Forge World Rules for the units you are playing.
---You may want to buy the other army books to learn your opponent's possible armies (at $33 to $41.25 USD for a print version for a GW codex or $32.46 to $89.28 for a Forge World print version - totaling up to a $561 order from GW and an $839.05 order from Forge World if you want ALL the books. Yes, it is expensive either way and now with allies you could be required to have 2 GW books and 2 FW books!
--- Most stores out there are not top level retailers. Do you claim that players cannot have Metal or Finecast miniatures in a tournament because your FLGS is too small?
--- Should Sisters of Battle be banned from tournaments since only those who got a copy of White Dwarf have access?
--- Due to the facts above, I say price and availability really isn't an issue
3 - Rules Updates --- 5th edition was great for Forge World's rules teams. They were very good at putting FAQ's out for almost every single unit in all of their books. Most of the older stuff was put into FREE PDFs ON THEIR SITE, including complete army lists and unit entries. It is not stealing if the most current rules are THERE FOR FREE, LEGALLY!!! Sure there are pirated scans of the print books out there but so are the main 40K books and codexes. Just do not allow pirated materials of ANY kind.
--- 6th edition has already seen the reclassification of most units to bring them in line with 6th and they have said there are expanding the FAQs for previous content as well as rewriting the older rules, Imperial Armour 1 for example.
4 - Balanced or Unbalanced --- Don't really have to comment on this too much. There is little argument to be made for "balanced" lists due to the fact that codex books have been over 2 editions old and only updated by a couple pages of FAQs that usually delete old wargear. This is not a polished, balanced or competitive tournament game and no matter how much you claim your event is able to find the top player it doesn't mean anything unless you have everyone show up with the same codex and army list
--- Look how hard people try to rules lawyer little details or the crazy combinations that are completely legal in 6th edition due to allies. There are only a couple Forge World units that have a reputation for being nasty and none can compete with what 6th brings to the table. Most of the nastier units were toned down A LOT in recent updates.
--- Most Forge World collectors I know are not doing it for the rules gimmick, they are doing it for the models - so stop shutting them out of events!
5 - Official or Not? --- Forge World has starting classifying which units are 40K legal, basically anything not a Gargantuan Creature or Superheavy should be 40K legal.
6 - But the other armies have more than mine... --- Once again, we are dealing with a Miniatures company. Do we say you can't play with a model in the rules that has no model yet? Hello, Ork Battlewagon for about a decade or even the trusty Land Raider... Put together what you like, play what you like and since it is a cooperative hobby - play against someone else who has done the same. If you picked an army that has fewer choices (sorry Tyranids) then than is what you have to deal with.
7 - Blogs and Forums as your soapbox --- Yes, you can reach many people and get input from others but this is not a complete audience for tournament organizers or attendees. Please remember that we are a small minority expressing our views here.
--- Many events out there now have vocal opponents who trash each other's systems, drag their name through the mud and try to make themselves smell sweet to boost their own agendas and purses. This has driven loads of gamers away and you are losing out on a ton of great opponents, modelers and painters, and comrades. It is fine that there is diversity in the players and the events. It is good that some events will Allow FW and some will Not Allow FW. Chill out, have a beer (or whatever beverage you prefer ) and play with your models however you like with who you want at what event you choose!
I think people are reading into what I am saying more deeply than I intended. Either that or we aren't understanding each other.
I am not saying fear or a lack of understanding as an insult.
For example, Blackmoor was criticizing the Saber Platforms being used in Comikaze but in the same post stated he didn't know what they did.
That is showing both a fear of the unknown and a lack of knowledge.
I don't think that is a put-down on him, it is natural to fear what you don't know. And there is nothing to be ashamed of in fearing something.
I openly and ardently feared 6th ed because on my first read through I thought it sucked. It took quite a bit of playing with it and now I love it! I was afraid of what I didn't know.
That is what I am saying is going on here. It's not a put down.
I am not trying to persuade anyone, either. We made a decision to run our events a certain way based on player feedback and in our first trial run, it went fine. Everyone who actually played against FW units didn't have an issue with it at all. The only opposition came from those who were speculating on what it was like.
So, sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't mean to. I do honestly feel that the vast majority of people opposed to FW are opposed to it based on the reasons I listed, but you guys are right, I would be remiss to say EVERYONE was. That is silly as of course there will be people that feel opposed to FW for different reasons.
Tironum wrote: ---You may want to buy the other army books to learn your opponent's possible armies (at $33 to $41.25 USD for a print version for a GW codex or $32.46 to $89.28 for a Forge World print version - totaling up to a $561 order from GW and an $839.05 order from Forge World if you want ALL the books. Yes, it is expensive either way and now with allies you could be required to have 2 GW books and 2 FW books!
To clarify a bit: almost all FW rules are in one of three books: IA:Apocalypse (second edition), IA:Apocalypse or IA:Aeronautica. The alternate army lists aren't, but other than that the vast majority of FW rules are either in one of those three books or available as a pdf update (once they finish moving them all to 6th and put them back in the download section) for a few units from the oldest books that haven't been reprinted in something newer. There might be one or two that slipped through the process, but I doubt you'd ever see them in a competitive tournament.
So, total cost of this: about $150 to get all relevant FW rules, including shipping.
(And of course that's assuming you buy rulebooks just to be familiar with units you aren't going to use. It's obviously illegal, but let's be honest, most people just pirate the books for all the armies, making the total cost for "know your enemy" $0 for both.)
2. Attendance. I think those who have come to my events would mostly agree that I run a pretty good show, and while opinions differ on things like mission organization and such, I've had some great success, despite the general gnashing of teeth out there. And as far as I'm concerned, a bigger event equals more fun, for everyone involved. I get to see more different, cool looking armies, and players get a variety of interesting challenges throughout the day. I'm leery of anything that is going to reduce the number of players who might come to my event. No matter how cool FW is, or how 'no big deal' it really is as far as gameplay and balance is concerned, the fact remains that there are a lot of guys who are going to be reluctant to commit their increasingly precious and limited hobby time to an event they have reservations about, unfounded or no. I'm in Blackmoor's camp here: Guys are not very likely to skip an event solely because FW is disallowed, while there is a very real possibility that at least some will skip an event where it is allowed. It won't matter how many times they read on the internet that FW is ok / not an issue / dissolves easily into the meta / no big deal / whatever, they're going to be reluctant to commit to an event because of it.
Okay, you've convinced me!
I hereby will not attend any tournament that doesn't allow Imperial Armor!
Reecius- You honestly think you can characterize everyone who disagrees with you as either fearful, or inexperienced / underinformed, without it sounding condescending?
You don't think, rather, that there might be some merit to their points, a legitimate reason to be concerned about allowing full on FW in events, that isn't covered by either of those characterizations?
That's disappointing man . After all I've typed trying to show examples of people you should respect / should mean something to you as a well-known TO and tourney player... that just really sucks. It's super condescending, and if you can't realize that... I guess you're not going to be able to get anything out of these discussions.
I actually have an open mind about this issue, and that's why I've taken on your language here (and yakface's the previous time this issue came up). I feel like this language is getting in the way of discussion. And it's very disappointing to me that, despite my trying really hard to point out to you why this is... you continue to use it
I don't really care. I played against the Dark Eldar/ Eldar deathstar combo in a doubles tourney recently (before the v1.1 FAQs) and the Eldar guy had the Wasp Assault Walkers and a Warp Hunter. My partner and I completely tabled them. FW is not a game breaker and the Warp Hunter is a little ridiculous for 115-125 pts IIRC.
The funny thing too is that the guy that won Comikaze was an IG player, which is coincidentally the only army that has a real counter to the 'dominant' Necron Air Force that everyone is so butthurt about. Nothing like 9 TL Lascannon shots coming at your face! Not to mention Hydras either. I mention this because he had the AA Lascannon platforms.
I don't see FW as a game breaker, as long as there are still strictly apoc units that can't be fielded in normal games of 40k.
It's not about whether you tabled someone who used FW, or they tabled you.
It's about the legitimate discussion of what it does to the game, both good, bad, or unknown... and unfortunately that is getting lost in the "We use it, it's not a problem- if you have a problem with it you're either inexperienced or afraid" kind of language . The other side will simply turn that around and call someone who wants to use it WAAC or whatever other broad, ill-fitting label they want to use. And then the valuable discussion, that we could be having on this issue, is lost because everyone gets their backs up due to the language being used, and nobody can find middle ground.
2. Attendance. I think those who have come to my events would mostly agree that I run a pretty good show, and while opinions differ on things like mission organization and such, I've had some great success, despite the general gnashing of teeth out there. And as far as I'm concerned, a bigger event equals more fun, for everyone involved. I get to see more different, cool looking armies, and players get a variety of interesting challenges throughout the day. I'm leery of anything that is going to reduce the number of players who might come to my event. No matter how cool FW is, or how 'no big deal' it really is as far as gameplay and balance is concerned, the fact remains that there are a lot of guys who are going to be reluctant to commit their increasingly precious and limited hobby time to an event they have reservations about, unfounded or no. I'm in Blackmoor's camp here: Guys are not very likely to skip an event solely because FW is disallowed, while there is a very real possibility that at least some will skip an event where it is allowed. It won't matter how many times they read on the internet that FW is ok / not an issue / dissolves easily into the meta / no big deal / whatever, they're going to be reluctant to commit to an event because of it.
Okay, you've convinced me!
I hereby will not attend any tournament that doesn't allow Imperial Armor!
I guess I have to be the first to take a stand!
I am with Yak but the Gregs sparks 5 will beat him in 2013 at adepticon.
I disagree with the OP on one issue: I think the balance of FW units can be very, very mixed.
I see no issue with TO's picking and choosing.
Compare the Hades Breaching Drill to the Salamander Scout, for example. I own the latter, and was able to get away with playing it in my local gaming scene with no issue.
Why? For it's points, it's absolute garbage, compared to a closed-topped FW Chimera with an autocannon for 5 points more (not to mention, not taking up a FA slot.) If anything, it's on the side of unbalanced by a few points too many.
I absolute do agree that while FW can be used to create unique lists, many 'power gamers' look for the simple advantage of numbers; and occasionally the application of unique tactics. It's always a shame when a game becomes an issue of balance instead of a competition of minds.
RiTides wrote: Reecius- You honestly think you can characterize everyone who disagrees with you as either fearful, or inexperienced / underinformed, without it sounding condescending?
You don't think, rather, that there might be some merit to their points, a legitimate reason to be concerned about allowing full on FW in events, that isn't covered by either of those characterizations?
That's disappointing man . After all I've typed trying to show examples of people you should respect / should mean something to you as a well-known TO and tourney player... that just really sucks. It's super condescending, and if you can't realize that... I guess you're not going to be able to get anything out of these discussions.
I actually have an open mind about this issue, and that's why I've taken on your language here (and yakface's the previous time this issue came up). I feel like this language is getting in the way of discussion. And it's very disappointing to me that, despite my trying really hard to point out to you why this is... you continue to use it
I tried to explain my point. I do not mean to come across as condescending at all.
I have acknowledged that there are valid points to both sides of the arguments multiple times. I do think that the counter arguments though, (Over-powering units, too expensive, being able to "buy your wins," unfamiliarity with the rules) are arguments based in negative emotions. To me it's pretty apparent, sorry if that disappoints you. I am just being honest, as I said, not trying to be mean.
I think you saying you have an open mind is good, I do too. We tried to have FW in our events last year and there was enough resistance to it that we didn't do it. This year our attendees are for it and so we proceed. It's quite simple in our opinions.
If someone else doesn't want it in there events then by all means, go for it! We won't tell them they're wrong for it.
I also think that part of it is that we've had this discussion so many times. Yakface, who is normally so eloquent and patient, is now resorting to jokes! Haha, funny jokes, but hey, that's what it's come to. I think I have just accepted that some folks will like it and some won't, so I don't put as much effort into trying to argue my point. It's just kind of a, "this is how we're doing things" attitude at this point.
So again, not trying to be mean or to condescend. Just being frank.
I guess I haven't burned out on this topic. I feel like 6th was so new, that when it first came up we couldn't adequately understand the issue.
With a few major GTs down now, I felt like it might be a good time to have the discussion again.
But I can understand your being burned out talking about it, I know you dived in really strong on this issue when 6th was hitting. However, I just feel like with that approach you'll miss out on what will be an evolving level of FW acceptance, with a bit of a "take it or leave it" approach.
Either way, I appreciate the frank response (particularly that it is devoid of the language used earlier) and look forward to seeing FW in events, albiet not sure whether I want to eat the whole burrito in one go yet (i.e. unrestricted FW events ) or take it a bite or two at a time
Big issue with Forge World is availability and familiarity with the rules. You have to buy additional books to get these rules so most people aren't very familiar with what Forge World stuff does and have no practice playing against it.
Forge World models themselves are also limited availability.
Its like going to a Magic tournament and your opponent plays with these cards that are limited availability that you never seen before that you can't look up on any website like Starcity Games for free. Not very fair is it?
Other issue is that Imperium gets much better with wide access to even more units via allies while Xenos get the short end of the stick.
Avariel wrote: Big issue with Forge World is availability and familiarity with the rules. You have to buy additional books to get these rules so most people aren't very familiar with what Forge World stuff does and have no practice playing against it.
And you don't have to buy the codices to be familiar with them? It costs a lot more to buy every codex than to buy all of the necessary FW books, but we don't seriously propose dropping everything but C:SM from tournaments. Nor do we consider dropping less popular codex armies just because someone might not have a player in their area to test against.
Plus it's kind of amusing to hear this argument when most of the people making it probably have an illegal pdf of all the FW rulebooks on their computer, right next to all the illegal pdfs of the GW rulebooks.
Forge World models themselves are also limited availability.
No they aren't. Everything is in stock and ready to ship as soon as you order it.
Its like going to a Magic tournament and your opponent plays with these cards that are limited availability that you never seen before that you can't look up on any website like Starcity Games for free. Not very fair is it?
You're right, which is why tournaments should only allow the marine army from the starter set, so nobody ever has to play against rules that they haven't paid to see.
Other issue is that Imperium gets much better with wide access to even more units via allies while Xenos get the short end of the stick.
This has already been covered multiple times in this thread alone. Imperial armies get more units, but most of them aren't useful in competitive games. Xenos armies get fewer total units, but a higher percentage of them are useful in competitive games. End result: if there is a gap in useful options, it's much smaller than many people think.
@Peregrine
Big difference is you can flip through the GW codexs at your local game store or a friend is likely to have them. Forge world books are not carried by local game stores and not many people have them. Some people are strictly legit so your suggestion wouldn't work for them.
I've had delays in my Forgeworld orders a few times and you need to wait to get it from the UK. Standard Games Workshop stuff you can have today from the local store. So there is limited availability.
Xenos do get the short end of the stick in Forgeworld.
Good example is anti air which is pretty important right now with things like Cron Air being popular.
Imperial Guard get the Sabre Twin Linked Las cannon Platform Skyfire interceptor with 2 wounds each toughness 7 and you get 3 of them for the cost of a basic Leman Russ with no upgrades. The icing on the cake is you can buy ablative wounds for the cost of a grot.
Eldar have to rely on the Firestorm which also has skyfire and interceptor but is armed with strength 6 scatter laser which is laughable vs av 12 fliers. Its an av12/12/10 grav tank with 3 hull points and costs 30 points more then the above Sabre platforms.
Avariel wrote: Big difference is you can flip through the GW codexs at your local game store or a friend is likely to have them. Forge world books are not carried by local game stores and not many people have them. Some people are strictly legit so your suggestion wouldn't work for them.
Sure, but "nobody I know has them" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once FW becomes more common in tournaments more people will buy the books, and then more people will be able to just flip through them.
And I'm not suggesting that anyone pirate the books (which would be against forum rules), I'm just stating the obvious fact that most people (including, I'm sure, many of the people saying "FW is too expensive") pirate rulebooks. Cost would be a much more compelling argument if everyone only had the books they legally bought, but in the real world the number of people who don't have FW rules available is much smaller than the "too expensive" side claims.
I've had delays in my Forgeworld orders a few times and you need to wait to get it from the UK. Standard Games Workshop stuff you can have today from the local store. So there is limited availability.
Longer shipping time is not the same thing as limited availability. There's no shortage of FW models, you just have to make sure you order far enough in advance of the tournament to get everything finished. While it must be a bit annoying for the few players who wait until the last minute to build their armies, there is no realistic obstacle for most people in getting FW models.
Also, I don't know where you shop, but no store in my area has a complete stock of every GW item. There's a huge list of stuff that you'll have to special order and wait a week to get (or buy online just like you buy online from FW).
Eldar have to rely on the Firestorm which also has skyfire and interceptor but is armed with strength 6 scatter laser which is laughable vs av 12 fliers. Its an av12/12/10 grav tank with 3 hull points and costs 30 points more then the above Sabre platforms.
Don't forget that it's also a transport, it's a mobile unit compared to the static Sabre platforms, it's AV 12 so bolters and other light weapons can't even shoot at it, and Eldar also gain (very good) flyers from FW to supplement the Firestorm in the AA role. And they also gain the awesome Hornet, Wasp walkers and Warp Hunter, all of which are very good units that many Eldar players love. You can't just look at two units, conclude that A is better than B, and assume that this means that xenos armies get nothing.
And there's also the fact that IG already have access to good AA units (Hydras, Vendettas, FW flyers, etc), so adding one more AA unit, even a very good one, could arguably have less impact on the IG army than finally giving Eldar and Tau fast attack options that don't suck.
As a 10+ year tournament orginizer I will say that allowing Forgeworld never broken the tournaments.
As a player I am more likely to spend my time going to events that allow the use of forgeworld rules(Just played in a GT in Az with Elysians 13 hour drive)than those that don't.
As a consumer I now live in an area where there are no stores so I have to order everything and it is all avalabial in the 21st century. You just have to plan for things.
I used to carry every book (Forgeworld included) to all events and games but now that a game is at least a 3.5 hour drive I don't carry them, however I have PDF of everything on my iPad so I always have all rules with me. That is my choice and not a requirement for the game. You will find that probably 75-80 percent of everyone who plays in events is only fimiliar with their own rules. (At least in my over 15 years of playing and running events)
hyv3mynd wrote: How many unique units does FW offer to marines and IG?
How many unique units does FW offer to Tyranids?
My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)
hyv3mynd wrote: How many unique units does FW offer to marines and IG?
How many unique units does FW offer to Tyranids?
My problem is opening up a new range that blatantly favors some armies and fully neglects others. (Assuming tournament context is non-super heavy, non-gargantuan FW units)
But doesn't GW already favor marines themselves?
More importantly, is an imbalance in available units a valid reason for curtailing the use of FW? If codex A has ten units, and codex B has twenty units, is that fact alone a good enough reason to ban codex B?
I've seen some tournaments ban the use of newly released codexes if the release coincided very closely with the tournament. Ostensibly because the new rules would not be known by everyone in time for the tournament. And no time to practice etc..
The meta changes every time something new is released, be it a new codex, a WD supplement, etc..
Should they be banned as well? I mean if you suddenly need to plonk down a lot of cash to buy squadrons of new unit X to be competitive it's obviously the same as having to shell out cash for a FW unit. The people who can't afford to shift with the meta every time can't in either case.
Yet I don't think anyone was opposed to using the new WD-released flyers in tournaments when they were just released.
Shandara wrote: I've seen some tournaments ban the use of newly released codexes if the release coincided very closely with the tournament. Ostensibly because the new rules would not be known by everyone in time for the tournament. And no time to practice etc..
More likely because army lists were due either near or before the release date.
As someone said earlier in this thread regarding not knowing all the GW codex's, its your choice not to know them, same with FW units, a quick google search and you can have all the info you need on a particular unit that is being used and in the age of the smart phone roaming ipad etc, there simply is no excuse not to know or look for a FW unit.
Not knowing what a unit does again is no excuse, otherwise ban all new codex's for at least a year in tourny's, just so people can learn what they do right?
Now for my actual opinion on the matter, yes allow them, saying no to a FW unit that is game legal is the same as saying "that paladin unit.. i dont know what it does, so you cant use it". FW is GW and FW says there units are 40k legal.. so they are.
For me, FW units add to 40K. God forbid armies shouldn't confirm to internet wisdom about "tiers" and what is and isn't OP. A lot of the arguments I hear against FW sound like nothing more than 'I fear change'.
If you don't know what a unit does, you will after you play it. Adapt or die, dudes.
I am against adding Forgeworld models to the tournament scene....for now.
Right now, FW is a barrier to some players (not all of them) either because they've never had it/seen it/could afford it. Because of either of those three reasons and perhaps more in a tournament setting-
Relatively casual players and those who do not allocate sufficient income into the Hobby are at a disadvantage- ultimately this causes frustration and confusion if they have to play against several units that are explained to them as coming from limited run releases, higher priced models from exclusive distributors, or any other reason that may make the event completely joyless for them. Having to learn new rules on the fly could be difficult in a very fluid situation, and depending on performance of such models or simply their appearance on the table, could alter the way that player plays against an army with Forgeworld in it and perhaps change their opinion.
The worst case scenario is that they leave thinking that using FW is creating a serious advantage for others and the more common scenario of the disaffected is probably leaving a tournament slightly unsettled and uncomfortable that FW was allowed in the first place.
It should be the challenge of those who want to add FW to Tournaments to convince those who do not allow it to allow it and for those who do not accept FW into tournaments to show that FW is possible to include.
Until then, you will not get the dream realized. Simply bull-rushing FW into the meta without building support for it will cause problems and more than likely alienate enough people to continue having it precluded from tournament play.
Posting with a bit of a cooler head today... my point last night was simply trying to say that you can't brush off people's concerns.
It's great that Reecius' tournament attendees voted in favor of FW, and enjoyed using it. But many folks would not do so (is there a poll in the poll section on this?). Thus, if a tourney is trying to cater to what players want to see, it makes sense for them to be cautious about full, no restrictions FW-inclusion.
It just makes sense. It doesn't mean all the concerns are not going to change, but the fact that a LOT of people have them means (imo) that there's something to them- at least from the TO's point of view, who is trying to put together an event that the greatest number of people will enjoy.
Obviously, TOs have to make some tough calls, and how much FW to allow is one of them. I think it's great that folks run events in different ways, and as MVBrandt posted quite eloquently on the first page, it's just as bad to pressure all TOs to exclude FW as it is to pressure them to allow it.
Cheers to Reecius and company for "pushing the envelope" a bit on this. However, I'm glad that most events I'm thinking of attending are taking a more measured approach, as I don't think most communities are ready for full FW inclusion with no strings attached (and may never be- depending on the direction GW takes with the Horus Heresy items, as MVBrandt also said).
It's also worth noting (also described on page 1!) that the reason this argument came up so strongly a few months ago was the rumor of FW being sold in stores and being made legal / etc. When that didn't happen... it makes sense that the discussion took a step back, since we're all going off of what GW indicates here, and they didn't change their status quo of making FW "by opponent's permission only" or make it more widely available. They could easily address all the issues here, and they haven't... and that's why we're still having this discussion.
I don't think I will spend all the money to attend a big event that has Forgeworld and there are lots of events to choose from now. Forgeworld mostly helps armies that don't really need any like IG and SM in my opinion. If this is what is needed to deal with flyers then that just sounds like a bad excuse to justify it to me.
Posting with a bit of a cooler head today... my point last night was simply trying to say that you can't brush off people's concerns.
It's great that Reecius' tournament attendees voted in favor of FW, and enjoyed using it. But many folks would not do so (is there a poll in the poll section on this?). Thus, if a tourney is trying to cater to what players want to see, it makes sense for them to be cautious about full, no restrictions FW-inclusion.
It just makes sense. It doesn't mean all the concerns are not going to change, but the fact that a LOT of people have them means (imo) that there's something to them- at least from the TO's point of view, who is trying to put together an event that the greatest number of people will enjoy.
Obviously, TOs have to make some tough calls, and how much FW to allow is one of them. I think it's great that folks run events in different ways, and as MVBrandt posted quite eloquently on the first page, it's just as bad to pressure all TOs to exclude FW as it is to pressure them to allow it.
Cheers to Reecius and company for "pushing the envelope" a bit on this. However, I'm glad that most events I'm thinking of attending are taking a more measured approach, as I don't think most communities are ready for full FW inclusion with no strings attached (and may never be- depending on the direction GW takes with the Horus Heresy items, as MVBrandt also said).
It's also worth noting (also described on page 1!) that the reason this argument came up so strongly a few months ago was the rumor of FW being sold in stores and being made legal / etc. When that didn't happen... it makes sense that the discussion took a step back, since we're all going off of what GW indicates here, and they didn't change their status quo of making FW "by opponent's permission only" or make it more widely available. They could easily address all the issues here, and they haven't... and that's why we're still having this discussion.
FW isnt "by opponent's permission only", it game legal as stated in many many FW books, it merly states its polite to inform your oponent what you are useing and to let him look at the rules should he need to, I say again, not allowing FW is the same as not allowing certain units from certain dex's you dont like.
Tourny's on the other hand, well thats down to the organisor
It is still opponent's permission, just events who allow it, the TO has basically given permission for people to play, and agreeing to show up and play means you accept.
This is all a moot point until the US distribution rumor ever comes true or not. As long as the only way to get these models is a credit card which can be used internationaly, it is exlusionary. If any of the US distribution becomes reality, then it becomes a pissing match over META games.
So for right now, I like that there is both and neither is the one true 'correct' 40k.
one company makes the rules all the rules (GW) of which FW is part of said company (GW) and its been stated by the company that the units with the "40k" sticker are useable in normal games, so you tell me how its not the same as refusing to allow someone the use of a unit from a codex and the use of a unit from... there codex, becuase thats what FW does (not all the time admitedly), it adds unts to the codex, case in point, Ork junka, slap a shokk attack gun to it and take it as a transport for your big mek, or select it as an elite choice, you denying me one of my legitimate elite choices is the same as me saying you cannot use a ... doom sythe or something.
But as I said before, FW and tourny's is totally diferent (across all areas) as it all comes down the the organisor.
Formosa, it's not the same in practice because people have this weird stigma against Forge World. However that is the true intent of Games Workshop. Forge World models are supposed to be allowed in every game with no questions asked to their validity, only to their function. The community just decides to say "screw you guys who make the rules, we're not going to allow it" most of the time.
nkelsch wrote: It is still opponent's permission, just events who allow it, the TO has basically given permission for people to play, and agreeing to show up and play means you accept.
This is all a moot point until the US distribution rumor ever comes true or not. As long as the only way to get these models is a credit card which can be used internationaly, it is exlusionary. If any of the US distribution becomes reality, then it becomes a pissing match over META games.
So for right now, I like that there is both and neither is the one true 'correct' 40k.
I think I agree with this 100%. I know my entire OP was about why FW shouldn't be allowed at all; however if US distribution ever comes to light my opinion will almost certainly change over night. I would hope local RTTTOs would ease into it in that case but I wouldn't be opposed to almost every major GT allowing it. I would still like to see some events run Core tournaments because I feel the game is more pure, best word I could think of, when played in that form.
I am personally fine with Forgeworld being used, though I do feel a couple of units are hideously underpriced for what they do. That said, I really think that FW creates balance issues in the game and does not really solve any, contrary to the peanut gallery contention. My thoughts on some of the basic issues:
1) Availability- While the models and rules are certainly available online, realistically you need to invest almost half a grand just to have access to the books with the units most likely to be seen. Furthermore, even if you are living in a major metropolitan area, getting a FW model is a lengthy pain in the ass compared to just walking into a GW and picking out a couple stock models off the shelf.
2) Balance across Books- Look, the game has been severely slanted towards Imperial armies for a decade now and its gotten steadily worse, barring the occasional anomoly (Crons). FW does amplify this issue a lot, however, with the ludicrous amount of Skyfire/Interceptor and super special enhanced/undercosted vehicles that seem to pop up in what are already the strongest of armies. Tau got a ton of units, but really nothing that jumps out at a player like Sabres, Cestus, or the Dread Pods. As a dedicated Xenos player, I struggle to even come up with anything worth playing in most of the Xenos FW units. Again, not that the problem is unique to FW, it just gets amplified a lot, similar to how the allies chart made the already stronger armies even better off.
3) Fear of Flyers- Here is where I think the core issue is with Reece. I consider Reece a friend and respect him a lot, but I think he is overly paranoid about flyers in the game. I will even take it a step further and say that the BAO scenario inadvertantly favors flyers more than the standard book scenarios and that were he running scenarios more closely aligned to the book his playtest results would not be scaring the hell out of him in regards to the Cylon Death Fleet army list. I think its pretty telling that with or without FW, no one has won an event since 6th began with a flyer heavy list of any kind, despite all the irrational fear placed on them.
I feel that the game designers want flyers to be strong (they frankly should be, from a realism standpoint) but not game busting. Any army (except the poor nids) can ally the best parts of guard air defense on the cheap and most armies can spam multishot S6-7ish weapons on the cheap, as well. People just want an easy way out and FW gives them that with cheap twin linked Skyfire/Interceptor artilery and hydra guns with the interceptor rule added. Frankly, its frustrating because if I want to take just a couple flyers, some skimmers, or god forbid some jetbikes I am basically handicapping myself in formats that allow forgeworld. In essence, with this much flyer hate you HAVE to spam them to get use out of them. This leaves entire army builds out in the cold, just to punish one or two builds that have not actually won anything yet.
---anyhow,
All that said, I am for embracing FW into the game because nothing is going to slow the tide of IGSW love that the designers (and most organizers) have, so rather than fight the inevitable people should just be glad to see something other than minor tweaks of Kopachs list at every top table for the next couple years. For my part, I will just go back to playing a crappy nid list when I am screwing around and busting out the space monkeys when I am semi-serious.
Davylove21 wrote: For me, FW units add to 40K. God forbid armies shouldn't confirm to internet wisdom about "tiers" and what is and isn't OP. A lot of the arguments I hear against FW sound like nothing more than 'I fear change'.
If you don't know what a unit does, you will after you play it. Adapt or die, dudes.
#1, Army tiers is a 5th edition concept.
#2. I paid $90 to play at Comilazi Con ($60 for the event, and $15 a day for parking) and I do not want to pay that kind of money to "know what a unit does...after you play it.".
Avariel wrote:Big issue with Forge World is availability and familiarity with the rules. You have to buy additional books to get these rules so most people aren't very familiar with what Forge World stuff does and have no practice playing against it.
There are no necron players in my regular gaming group. We have no practice playing against them, therefore, they should not be allowed.
Forge World models themselves are also limited availability.
Have you not heard of the internet. It's this series of tubes that connect people's computers together. Sometimes, it lets you buy things from remote far away places, like Nottingham. Here, Click Me, find out for yourself.
Its like going to a Magic tournament and your opponent plays with these cards that are limited availability that you never seen before that you can't look up on any website like Starcity Games for free. Not very fair is it?
I've played magic since 1993 and have never heard of a card with limited availability. Unless you mean Mana Crypt, where you had to buy some crappy paperback to get it. I'm not at all sure what the point of this comparison is.
Other issue is that Imperium gets much better with wide access to even more units via allies while Xenos get the short end of the stick.
You really haven't seen the FW stuff have you. I mean, Orks get mid-weight armour in big trakks, instead of having to pick between AV10 trukks an AV14 battlewagons. They get some solid gun options too. Eldar actually get flyers, usable viper things, wraithseers, tau get a flyer and tetras. I'm sure anyone playing those races would be more than happy to let the imperials have whatever in order to get them. Chaos get a drop pod equivalent, a handful of cool characters. Slaanesh can actually field a dreadnought with sonic weapons.
Blackmoor wrote:#2. I paid $90 to play at Comilazi Con ($60 for the event, and $15 a day for parking) and I do not want to pay that kind of money to "know what a unit does, you will after you play it.".
I don't buy that. Well, I buy that you paid to play at Comikazi, but I doubt someone as experienced you were ever told "you will after you play it." - I've not seen an event where they don't require you to have the rules for whatever you bring on-hand. How many years have you been playing? You can't ask your opponent to read what it does and get on with your plans?
I know I can. I've played plenty of stuff from GW codexes that I hadn't played before. What's a Njals? What's a Triarch stalker? Really, that's difficult? How to address anything: "What's it's toughness/AV, what's it's save, how does it move?" Now it dies like anything else.
This isn't a complicated game. Really, it's not. I've yet to see anything from ForgeWorld that's as broken, for its cost, as a unit of Long Fangs. I hate the paranoia that goes along with these debates. OMG, someone might use a unit I haven't seen. (happens to me all the time with codex units). Someone might win a game because of it. (Someone might win a game without it too). Someone might not access to it. (Join the 21st century). My game store can't sell them (They can't sell direct order models from GW either. I can't count how many times I've gone into a GW store only to be told that what I wanted is now Direct Sale only). It's like a bunch of old womens worried about all the bad things that might happen in the world. My wife's grandmother is worried that it might rain when we ride a motorcycle... I remember when Special Characters weren't allowed at events too, for all of these same reasons.
You can keep making up paranoid excuses to keep FW stuff out of events all day. Or just man up and allow them for the only reason that matters - they're cool.
2) Balance across Books- Look, the game has been severely slanted towards Imperial armies for a decade now and its gotten steadily worse, barring the occasional anomoly (Crons). FW does amplify this issue a lot, however, with the ludicrous amount of Skyfire/Interceptor and super special enhanced/undercosted vehicles that seem to pop up in what are already the strongest of armies. Tau got a ton of units, but really nothing that jumps out at a player like Sabres, Cestus, or the Dread Pods. As a dedicated Xenos player, I struggle to even come up with anything worth playing in most of the Xenos FW units. Again, not that the problem is unique to FW, it just gets amplified a lot, similar to how the allies chart made the already stronger armies even better off.
What?
Trifalcon skimmer spam certainly wasn't an Imperial army, neither was Fish of Fury, Nobbikers or Lash-spam.
Do you have any examples of these "undercosted/super special enhanced" vehicles?
Of the Space Marine Codices with access to the Dreadnought Drop Pod, the only one with a dedicated CC Dreadnought is the Vanilla Codex, with it's Ironclad Dreadnought. Big whoop. The Cestus is a very expensive flyer. It has less weapons than a Storm Raven but is harder to shoot down. Why is that so OP?
As for "struggling to come up with anything worth playing", look better. Both Eldar and Tau get quite a bit of worthwhile additions, with Orks getting a few as well. The shafted factions are Dark Eldar and Necrons, and the Necron units aren't actually bad. Meanwhile, Sisters of Battle get absolutely nothing, but I guess they don't count since they're an Imperial army, eh?
one company makes the rules all the rules (GW) of which FW is part of said company (GW) and its been stated by the company that the units with the "40k" sticker are useable in normal games, so you tell me how its not the same as refusing to allow someone the use of a unit from a codex and the use of a unit from... there codex, becuase thats what FW does (not all the time admitedly), it adds unts to the codex, case in point, Ork junka, slap a shokk attack gun to it and take it as a transport for your big mek, or select it as an elite choice, you denying me one of my legitimate elite choices is the same as me saying you cannot use a ... doom sythe or something.
But as I said before, FW and tourny's is totally diferent (across all areas) as it all comes down the the organisor.
That is all very well good - just make sure to mention that to the TO.
Well you do not have it at your AdeptiCon Championships,
Sort of, we do not have it in the AdeptiCon Championship format as it existed last year. Up until a few years ago we did allowed it in the Championship.
We had the Circuit Championship in 2009 which did not allow Forgeworld and the regular Championship event did allow Forgeworld. In 2010 the GT Tourney Circuit went away and we combined both the invitational and championship events. At that time we decided given the 40kTT and Gladiator allowed FW, we would keep the restriction in place for the combined Championship. I still remember that debate, discussion, and compromise.
So more years than not we have allowed FW at AdeptiCon in a variety of events, with a variety of restrictions. I think, after much arm twisting and teeth gnashing we have settled into now counting each Forgeworld unit as “unique” for army selection. Which in my opinion mitigates the main problem for Codex or Forgeworld units …. spamming hyper-efficient units.
Chicago always had more acceptance of Forge World than other parts of the country and I believe in part due to the GW Bunker selling forge world.
I’m sure that is part of it. However, I think it had more to do with the fact that the key folks involved with organizing events in Chicago and Downstate in the early 2000’s were Forgeworld fans and the demand/feedback from our attendees over the years. We supported FW prior to the bunker selling it for instance if I recall correctly. Additionally, you had the folks that organized the Siegeworld event in Saint Louis. So we had a lot of acceptance in the region. We had the same discussions then, I’ve had this same discussion countless times over the past 10+ years, and it never changes.
I have had Forgeworld and Games Workshop employees ask me what I thought now that the Forgeworld models are “official” for use in 6th edition 40k. It is a hard job to break it to them that they are not official and it comes as quite the surprise. : ) Because, you know Forgeworld, that company that is tackling and evidently trusted to write what amounts to the holy grail of GW IP the Horus Hersey, but evidently yet is not capable of being sanctioned by Games Workshop for normal games of 40k. Really?? Have you guys read any Alan Bligh’s stuff? IA9 and IA10 are hands down the best 40k material written since the Rogue Trader days. For anyone that has yet to read it your 40K universe is just a little bit sadder. Turn that frown upside down and immerse yourself into what Forgeworld is doing… you will be a happy hobbyist for it… trust me.
But I think we are getting to part of the issue. There is a segment of the 40k community that wants to account for all possibilities. They like the known and the predictable. It’s the same folks that have issues with all the random and unpredictable changes in the new edition. I’m going to show up with my lean and mean hyper-efficient army build. I know to expect these additional hyper efficient army builds at this event. I’ve thought about and play tested against these top lists. I see that these dozen players are going to be in attendance and I have an understanding of what these guys are toting around these days to events. I will have downloaded the painting and other soft score matrix so I understand what my army and play should score. I have downloaded the FAQ or even better asked questions directly to the TO to confirm in black and white some shady area of grey my army list plans to incorporate. Pile on the trend for events now to publish the missions in advance so I can tailor my list and play testing to account for the missions formats posted. Plus last but not least. I also know what to expect from terrain as I have done my homework on what this event has done for a terrain setup and have accounted for that in my army list creation so I don’t get taken by surprise and lose 2 games. In short I have attempted to control ALL possible variables I have at my disposal prior to round 1, rolling dice, and beating face. I get it, I’ve done it. It’s ok and there is nothing wrong with it. . But there is so much more to this hobby and events then the above.
Adding Forgeworld to the mix creates at a minimum uncertainty to this mindset or at most creates a lot more front end work for these individuals. What I got to know X times more units and spend X more dollars just to account for it?? If I don’t I might face a unit I don’t know or maybe I will get caught by surprise then the unthinkable may happen … I might lose. Forgeworld increases the complexity of what is possible no doubt and favors a player that maybe "plans" less but is quick on their feet. The sort that can adapt and process new information, and is capable of quickly identifying threats for themselves. Players that can audible a battle plan verse running a set of scripted “tactics.” You do not have the time when I hand you my rules for unit X to search the internet and have it tell you what to do or the time to ask controversial 40k blog personalities their expert opinion on how to handle it. You need to be able to read the rules, and in short order assess the impact of that unit on the game and your game plan for yourself. Warfare isn’t always predictable neither should Wargaming. Forgeworld creates model and army diversity. That is a good thing in my mind given the sterile environment 5th edition had become.
A quick note on Forgeworld rules. At least Forgeworld will take rule feedback and support their models with rule updates in many cases for free. Why they don’t always get it right they certainly more often then not make the needed adjustments in future updates. As for Heavy Artillery .. really isn’t the issue that 6th edition changes the classification for artillery to infantry for LOS? This is exactly a Forgeworld problem how? But I am sure they will address it given IA1 is getting redone and they will get an opportunity to revise all the Imperial units so hopefully they tackle the Hades, Hvy Artillery, etc..
The short of it is this will never be solved to the satisfaction of everyone. I am certain that AdeptiCon will continue to support event formats that account for both and I am sure this topic will come up again in a few months and we will discuss it all over again.
@Walrus- All three of those xenos builds happened nearly a decade ago. Nob Bikers is the only one that won more than a couple major events and that was during a very narrow window of time. That ended decisively five years ago about the same time guard stopped sucking.
As for cheap or OP alternatives in FW form, you can't be serious. Show me anything that lets a seige dred have a 83% chance to assault untouched anywhere on the table. Show me another AV13 flyer in the game aside from the Cestus, let alone with an invulnerable save. Sabres would be a bargain even if they cost double what a standard Heavy Weapons team cost (they cost marginally more). Show me another 4 HP flier in the game, let alone with the firepower and transport capacity of a Storm Eagle. Where is there a xenos entry like the FW Hydras or Chimeras that just add Interceptor or Autocannon turret options for a pitance of points? There is a ton of junk in the imperial entries, too, but don't sit there and claim nothing is undercosted and expect me to take you seriously. Even Sisters got the Avenger, which would be amazing in any xenos list, but is merely meh in an army that can ally IG as battle brothers and take Vendettas.
Meanwhile, Xenos get a couple of overpriced/under powered flyers, trucks with death rollas, and a million crisis suit varients that no one really cares about. Oh, I guess my eldar also got the psychic Wraithlord. Again, not saying that FW changes the IGSW dominance dynamic, but it (like allies rules) does greatly reinforce it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Muhwe re Artilery-
The real issue is that artilery only exists in abundance in the FW book and is mostly confined to one or two armies. It also has a tendancy in the FW books to supplant main rulebook units in both power and cost effectiveness. Finally, the cost of additional crewmen does not really reflect the new reality that you are essentially adding T7 wounds to units that can gain all of the defensive bennefits of standard infantry. The Sabre is just the most egregious example, but there are other artilery pieces that do the same thing, like the Hydra Platforms that come with Interceptor and are actually harder to eliminate than a normal Hydra, while costing less. If Sabres followed the same rules for normal heavy weapons teams (ie 2w T3 infantry models), they would probably be less contentious at their cost.
Am I mistaken or don't codex Orcs and Eldar have access to alot of artillery? We just never saw many codex artillery units in 5th edition because they well sucked in comparsion to other more efficient choices?
My point was all those FW models existed prior to 6th edition and the changes to the artillery rules which have made all artillery significantly better.
Forgeworld is left having to adapt the models they have to the current rules. I am sure they will be adjusted with IA1 redux around the corner. So I wouldn't be going out and be buying tons and tons of Forgeworld Hvy Artillery thinking it's going to be the end all be all for years to come. : )
I am not inherently opposed to Forgeworld in tournaments, but the rules need to be seriously cleaned up and organized. In the current state, you have rules scattered across a dozen books and FAQs, with some printing replacing earlier versions. There is serious ambiguity, especially when updating for 6th.
Forgeworld really needs to put up a tournament PDF that clearly lists all tournament legal models, references the books and page number in which they appear and centralizes any applicable FAQ updates.
Oh I agree. My point is simply that FW just aggravates existing trends, but does not really change them. As far as Artilery, the guard only ever had weapon teams really. Eldar had a couple units, but all were limited in range and vastly inferior to the other heavy options in the book (and still are). The Orc ones were hit and miss, being used occasionally in Green tide lists as durable transport poppers. Eldar got the skyfire piece with S6 shots, which is descent at dropping AV10-11 flyers (ie other xenos) but does nothing against the far more effective AV12 imperial flyers out there, at least not at the cost in points and HS slot. Honestly, guided Warp Spiders and War Walkers are the most efficient anti air from my observations, and that is a sad state of affairs. If the Pheonix was cheaper or had a little more firepower I could see it being a solid choice, but it just gets punked by Hydras too easily because so much of its defense is tied into its jink save.
With IG, they got Interceptor in a troop slot on an artilery piece in an army that can abuse orders and the ADL to make them immortal. This in an army that already had the edge in air defense before FW ever entered the equation is why people have taken exception to the Saber, among other units.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: As for "struggling to come up with anything worth playing", look better. Both Eldar and Tau get quite a bit of worthwhile additions, with Orks getting a few as well. The shafted factions are Dark Eldar and Necrons, and the Necron units aren't actually bad. Meanwhile, Sisters of Battle get absolutely nothing, but I guess they don't count since they're an Imperial army, eh?
It's painfully telling that people don't even remember to include Tyranids on the list of shafted factions.
muwhe wrote: Adding Forgeworld to the mix creates at a minimum uncertainty to this mindset or at most creates a lot more front end work for these individuals. What I got to know X times more units and spend X more dollars just to account for it?? If I don’t I might face a unit I don’t know or maybe I will get caught by surprise then the unthinkable may happen … I might lose. Forgeworld increases the complexity of what is possible no doubt and favors a player that maybe "plans" less but is quick on their feet. The sort that can adapt and process new information, and is capable of quickly identifying threats for themselves. Players that can audible a battle plan verse running a set of scripted “tactics.” You do not have the time when I hand you my rules for unit X to search the internet and have it tell you what to do or the time to ask controversial 40k blog personalities their expert opinion on how to handle it. You need to be able to read the rules, and in short order assess the impact of that unit on the game and your game plan for yourself. Warfare isn’t always predictable neither should Wargaming. Forgeworld creates model and army diversity. That is a good thing in my mind given the sterile environment 5th edition had become.
A quick note on Forgeworld rules. At least Forgeworld will take rule feedback and support their models with rule updates in many cases for free. Why they don’t always get it right they certainly more often then not make the needed adjustments in future updates. As for Heavy Artillery .. really isn’t the issue that 6th edition changes the classification for artillery to infantry for LOS? This is exactly a Forgeworld problem how? But I am sure they will address it given IA1 is getting redone and they will get an opportunity to revise all the Imperial units so hopefully they tackle the Hades, Hvy Artillery, etc..
It's interesting that you stick the "heavy artillery" disclaimer in immediately after that discussion on uncertainty.
I do like to know what I'm likely to encounter. The reason is more a question of fun, rather than never losing. Playing against a list, such as that previously described in the thread, that brings 40+ T7 wounds has the potential to be incredibly unfun, unless you've accounted for it beforehand. And it's a FW problem because they make the heavy artillery available; without FW units, you're looking at what - grots w/big gunz, and Eldar Support platforms? They already had the option of reclassifying (we've got an FAQ for those books already where they added skyfire & interceptor), and haven't done so. Yes, they are perhaps more likely to do so than GW is with a broken codex unit.
I'd like to see all FW-allowing events adopt the "sideboard" concept; I wouldn't mind if non-FW tournaments shifted in that direction, too. Let people swap out some small (fixed) part of their army after seeing the core of their opponent's force, while their opponent is doing the same.
You have never had any issues adapting on the fly over the years. If you could play Como and his counts as "my pretty pony" list .. you should be well prepared for anything FW throws at you .. : )
You have never had any issues adapting on the fly over the years. If you could play Como and his counts as "my pretty pony" list .. you should be well prepared for anything FW throws at you .. : )
Dose Como use FW units. if not there no different then playing a "non-pretty pony" army of the same codex. Not the same as FW units that have different rules then the codex, and likey never seen.
You have never had any issues adapting on the fly over the years. If you could play Como and his counts as "my pretty pony" list .. you should be well prepared for anything FW throws at you .. : )
Well, yes. But it's kind of like the old Armored Company lists - if you didn't KNOW that an all-AV 14 "Troops" list with battlecannons was possible, you might have just a bit less fun when you ran into it.
It's some inside humor as I used to game with Janthkin before he relocated to the West Coast.
He might have had some FW units in that army ..hard to tell.. and the point being it was pretty hard to determine what anything was .. so you constantly got caught off guard or surprised. But it was Como .. so it was all good he wasn't going to win anyway. : )
Davylove21 wrote: For me, FW units add to 40K. God forbid armies shouldn't confirm to internet wisdom about "tiers" and what is and isn't OP. A lot of the arguments I hear against FW sound like nothing more than 'I fear change'.
If you don't know what a unit does, you will after you play it. Adapt or die, dudes.
#1, Army tiers is a 5th edition concept.
#2. I paid $90 to play at Comilazi Con ($60 for the event, and $15 a day for parking) and I do not want to pay that kind of money to "know what a unit does...after you play it.".
Why not just go buy a trophy if you want a reward or a prostitute if you want some fun. Both can be found cheaper.
I haven't paid a penny to become familiar enough with FW that I'm not surprised by it and I'm adult enough to not be offended when I get beaten, regardless of what units my opponent fields.
one company makes the rules all the rules (GW) of which FW is part of said company (GW) and its been stated by the company that the units with the "40k" sticker are useable in normal games, so you tell me how its not the same as refusing to allow someone the use of a unit from a codex and the use of a unit from... there codex, becuase thats what FW does (not all the time admitedly), it adds unts to the codex, case in point, Ork junka, slap a shokk attack gun to it and take it as a transport for your big mek, or select it as an elite choice, you denying me one of my legitimate elite choices is the same as me saying you cannot use a ... doom sythe or something.
But as I said before, FW and tourny's is totally diferent (across all areas) as it all comes down the the organisor.
That is all very well good - just make sure to mention that to the TO.
Not sure if serious, you did read the last line I wrote right?
The line about TO's basically doing whatever they like as its there event?
So there would be no "just make sure to mention that to the TO" as I preped before the event and know what to bring.
Also as I said before, not knowing FW rules is down to the player, the internet exists and its down to you not to use it.
Phazael wrote: @Walrus- All three of those xenos builds happened nearly a decade ago. Nob Bikers is the only one that won more than a couple major events and that was during a very narrow window of time. That ended decisively five years ago about the same time guard stopped sucking.
First of all, the now oldest Codex in the game is Codex: Black Templars. Codex: Black Templars is 7 years old. Codex: Eldar is 6 years old and Codex: Chaos Space Marines is 5 years old. 6 and 5 years respectively is nowhere near "a decade ago".
Secondly, the Imperial Guard Codex is 3 years old, which means that, unless Guard suddenly stopped sucking halfway through the life-span of the previous Codex (and Codex: Catachan) you're, once again, exaggerating.
As for cheap or OP alternatives in FW form, you can't be serious. Show me anything that lets a seige dred have a 83% chance to assault untouched anywhere on the table.
Block it off. It's not exactly hard to make sure that it doesn't reach stuff it really mustn't reach. There's also Interceptor units that can shoot it down.
Phazael wrote: Show me another AV13 flyer in the game aside from the Cestus, let alone with an invulnerable save.
It's 270-ish points for a flyer with one weapon. Sure, it's a fast, durable transport. Guess the Stormraven is OP, it has more firepower and is cheaper. And for the record, Dark Eldar fliers have invulnerable saves too.
Phazael wrote: Show me another 4 HP flier in the game, let alone with the firepower and transport capacity of a Storm Eagle.
What are you going to transport in there that you can't transport in something else? A 20-man Black Templars Crusader Squad? And a Stormraven easily puts out as much firepower, as do Night- and Doomscythes for their points.
Phazael wrote: Where is there a xenos entry like the FW Hydras or Chimeras that just add Interceptor or Autocannon turret options for a pitance of points?
For that matter, where's the rules giving a Hydra Interceptor (is it in Aeronautica? Haven't had time to read through that one yet)? I'll give you right on the Autocannons, but add: where's that option for anyone but Imperial Guard?
Meanwhile, Xenos get a couple of overpriced/under powered flyers, trucks with death rollas, and a million crisis suit varients that no one really cares about. Oh, I guess my eldar also got the psychic Wraithlord. Again, not saying that FW changes the IGSW dominance dynamic, but it (like allies rules) does greatly reinforce it.
Yeah, Hornets and Wasps are completely pointless and no one cares about them, just as no one cares about the Pirahna. Except no. Those actually matter. Orks get the hilariously powerful Lifta Wagon and Grot Battle-Tank mobs.
And how do IG and SW get so much better from the units you listed anyway? Nothing in that lists tops Vendettas, Manticores, Long Fangs or the humble Grey Hunter. I can see the Autocannon Chimeras buffing Chimeras (obiously, duh ), but other than that, what?
Phazael wrote: @Walrus- All three of those xenos builds happened nearly a decade ago. Nob Bikers is the only one that won more than a couple major events and that was during a very narrow window of time. That ended decisively five years ago about the same time guard stopped sucking.
First of all, the now oldest Codex in the game is Codex: Black Templars. Codex: Black Templars is 7 years old. Codex: Eldar is 6 years old and Codex: Chaos Space Marines is 5 years old. 6 and 5 years respectively is nowhere near "a decade ago".
Secondly, the Imperial Guard Codex is 3 years old, which means that, unless Guard suddenly stopped sucking halfway through the life-span of the previous Codex (and Codex: Catachan) you're, once again, exaggerating.
As for cheap or OP alternatives in FW form, you can't be serious. Show me anything that lets a seige dred have a 83% chance to assault untouched anywhere on the table.
Block it off. It's not exactly hard to make sure that it doesn't reach stuff it really mustn't reach. There's also Interceptor units that can shoot it down.
Phazael wrote: Show me another AV13 flyer in the game aside from the Cestus, let alone with an invulnerable save.
It's 270-ish points for a flyer with one weapon. Sure, it's a fast, durable transport. Guess the Stormraven is OP, it has more firepower and is cheaper. And for the record, Dark Eldar fliers have invulnerable saves too.
Phazael wrote: Show me another 4 HP flier in the game, let alone with the firepower and transport capacity of a Storm Eagle.
What are you going to transport in there that you can't transport in something else? A 20-man Black Templars Crusader Squad? And a Stormraven easily puts out as much firepower, as do Night- and Doomscythes for their points.
Phazael wrote: Where is there a xenos entry like the FW Hydras or Chimeras that just add Interceptor or Autocannon turret options for a pitance of points?
For that matter, where's the rules giving a Hydra Interceptor (is it in Aeronautica? Haven't had time to read through that one yet)? I'll give you right on the Autocannons, but add: where's that option for anyone but Imperial Guard?
Meanwhile, Xenos get a couple of overpriced/under powered flyers, trucks with death rollas, and a million crisis suit varients that no one really cares about. Oh, I guess my eldar also got the psychic Wraithlord. Again, not saying that FW changes the IGSW dominance dynamic, but it (like allies rules) does greatly reinforce it.
Yeah, Hornets and Wasps are completely pointless and no one cares about them, just as no one cares about the Pirahna. Except no. Those actually matter. Orks get the hilariously powerful Lifta Wagon and Grot Battle-Tank mobs.
And how do IG and SW get so much better from the units you listed anyway? Nothing in that lists tops Vendettas, Manticores, Long Fangs or the humble Grey Hunter. I can see the Autocannon Chimeras buffing Chimeras (obiously, duh ), but other than that, what?
The Allies system and the fact that IG can ally with almost everyone makes that point moot.
Phazael wrote: 1) Availability- While the models and rules are certainly available online, realistically you need to invest almost half a grand just to have access to the books with the units most likely to be seen. Furthermore, even if you are living in a major metropolitan area, getting a FW model is a lengthy pain in the ass compared to just walking into a GW and picking out a couple stock models off the shelf.
Not true. It will cost you about $150 (including shipping) to get the three books which contain the vast majority of FW units.
And it's hardly a "length pain in the ass" to get a FW model, it's exactly as easy as ordering a book from amazon, special-ordering that finecast character you can't buy in stores from GW's website, etc. In 2012 there's really no excuse for calling online shopping difficult.
nkelsch wrote: This is all a moot point until the US distribution rumor ever comes true or not. As long as the only way to get these models is a credit card which can be used internationaly, it is exlusionary. If any of the US distribution becomes reality, then it becomes a pissing match over META games.
Wait, you mean some people have credit cards that can't be used internationally? I've never even heard of this problem, but if you're one of those unfortunate people just get a debit card and free checking account from a bank that allows you to do it. I made the account for the card I use for FW orders (Bank of America) online in under 15 minutes and then all it takes is one trip to the ATM to put some cash in the account.
Phazael wrote: Show me anything that lets a seige dred have a 83% chance to assault untouched anywhere on the table.
Show me anything that cares. Was anyone taking (non-BA) assault dreads in the first place? I don't think so, because they're horribly overcosted for the few attacks you get and getting to eat a meatshield unit on turn 1 (at the risk of immobilizing and losing the dread) doesn't really change this. So what this really means is you can drop your rifleman dreads into close combat right away, were they don't want to be.
Show me another AV13 flyer in the game aside from the Cestus, let alone with an invulnerable save.
Did you see the price tag on that Caestus? You're starting at almost 300 points, then you have to pay to add a decent unit to transport. End result: even if you kill a unit every other turn once you arrive (don't forget that it's not exactly agile) you're still overpaying for it compared to anti-vehicle tools like drop pod Sternguard. And of course if you ever want to deploy the passengers to do anything you've got to hover, at which point your 300 point flyer becomes a 300 point crater.
Show me another 4 HP flier in the game, let alone with the firepower and transport capacity of a Storm Eagle.
So what? What exactly are you trying to kill that needs that transport capacity? It isn't superheavy so you can't fill that 20 model capacity with two squads, so either you waste half of it (and it's no better than a 10-man transport) or you're carrying a full squad of terminators which is massive (and expensive) overkill against 95% of the things you could use them against. And then when it gets shot down (hello overpowered allied IG with Sabre guns) you just lost a 400+ point terminator squad.
Even Sisters got the Avenger, which would be amazing in any xenos list, but is merely meh in an army that can ally IG as battle brothers and take Vendettas.
That's exactly the point. Imperial armies already have awesome codex stuff so even good FW units get a "meh" reaction because they aren't better than the Vendetta you already have. Adding FW doesn't have all that much of an impact if you play a competitive Imperial army already. On the other hand if you're a xenos player you WILL use your FW options, so you gain a lot more than the IG player who gets 9999999 more Leman Russ variants they'll never use.
Janthkin wrote: Well, yes. But it's kind of like the old Armored Company lists - if you didn't KNOW that an all-AV 14 "Troops" list with battlecannons was possible, you might have just a bit less fun when you ran into it.
Except once you see a tournament's rules and it says "FW allowed" then you know those lists are possible. It's now your job to prepare adequately for the tournament and be familiar with what is possible, just like it's your job to prepare for all the potential codex lists you could encounter. If you're surprised by something it's entirely your fault.
WarOne wrote: FW is a barrier to some players (not all of them) either because they've never had it/seen it/could afford it.
Absolutely true.
But this is no different at all to regular codex units.
If someone wants to buy and memorise every codex, then they can buy and memorise every IA book as well.
If they don't, then there is no difference between a codex unit they don't know about, and an IA unit they don't know about.
In either case, there is no reason to disallow Imperial Armour units.
RiTides wrote: It's about the legitimate discussion of what it does to the game, both good, bad, or unknown
That's not what the discussion should be about though. The discussion should be about whether or not Imperial Armour units do things to the game that the regular codex units do not.
Are they harder to find out about, and memorise the rules for? No.
Are they more imbalanced than units found in codexes? No.
Do they more of an advantage to certain factions than the codexes? No.
So what reason could you use to ban them that wouldn't also result in the banning of certain codexes, or units from codexes?
Davylove21 wrote: For me, FW units add to 40K. God forbid armies shouldn't confirm to internet wisdom about "tiers" and what is and isn't OP. A lot of the arguments I hear against FW sound like nothing more than 'I fear change'.
If you don't know what a unit does, you will after you play it. Adapt or die, dudes.
#1, Army tiers is a 5th edition concept.
#2. I paid $90 to play at Comilazi Con ($60 for the event, and $15 a day for parking) and I do not want to pay that kind of money to "know what a unit does...after you play it.".
So do the same thing you do with the codex units: get a copy of the rules, and read them!
I find it somewhat ironic the guy who won the la gt spammed a cheap uber powerful broken unit. That is what will happen... Just like anything else. FW does not solve anything - it just creates more problems. I think it only works for highly specialized tournaments run by gaming vets.
Dozer Blades wrote: I find it somewhat ironic the guy who won the la gt spammed a cheap uber powerful broken unit. That is what will happen... Just like anything else. FW does not solve anything - it just creates more problems. I think it only works for highly specialized tournaments run by gaming vets.
So how is that different from all of the other tournaments where FW was banned and the tournament was won by some guy who spammed a cheap uber powerful broken unit?
That's not what the discussion should be about though. The discussion should be about whether or not Imperial Armour units do things to the game that the regular codex units do not.
Are they harder to find out about, and memorise the rules for? No.
Are they more imbalanced than units found in codexes? No.
Do they more of an advantage to certain factions than the codexes? No.
So what reason could you use to ban them that wouldn't also result in the banning of certain codexes, or units from codexes?
Now, before I take this apart, I want to say that I agree accessibility is not an acceptable excuse. This is an expensive hobby with obscure units. Almost everyone in my area plays with Forge World and you get to know most of the rules quickly, as with any other unit in the game. This isn't an issue and if we hadn't been so against FW in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
These have been the main rules for two months. In those 2 months, we have had several large tournaments - a particularly notable one considering FW would be the NOVA open. Had they allowed FW, anyone could have played with these things. At 75 points, they're cheap enough to be cover, let alone putting out their terrifying large blasts. If you allied with IG, you could take 3 as your heavy support choice for 225 points. Imagine Tony Kopachs NOVA list replacing Long Fangs with these. It's ridiculous. An argument that goes "oh, these rules are only temporary" is absurd - events happen all through the year, this sort of unit could pop up in any tournament. It's not even a particularly hard unit to exactly convert either - it's literally the gun from a Basilisk on wheels. So, how do you deal with such a unit?
For the record, I've both emailed Forge World and questioned them on Facebook about these rules. Their response was very dismissive: "It brings them into line with the Artillery unit type rules in the 40k rulebook". They will not be updating these rules for months guys, I would bet this is their stopgap until IA:12 with DKoK in. It's not acceptable rules design that one army can randomly gain an almost impossible to silence set of incredibly cheap artillery. As much as we moan about normal codexes being broken, it's just not the case that the same codex with the same list is sweeping the 40k scene. With FW rules giving IG the best flyers, large blasts and AA, what do you think will happen to the game? How many lists do you think won't at least run IG allies?
Eyjio wrote:These have been the main rules for two months. In those 2 months, we have had several large tournaments - a particularly notable one considering FW would be the NOVA open. Had they allowed FW, anyone could have played with these things. At 75 points, they're cheap enough to be cover, let alone putting out their terrifying large blasts. If you allied with IG, you could take 3 as your heavy support choice for 225 points. Imagine Tony Kopachs NOVA list replacing Long Fangs with these. It's ridiculous. An argument that goes "oh, these rules are only temporary" is absurd - events happen all through the year, this sort of unit could pop up in any tournament. It's not even a particularly hard unit to exactly convert either - it's literally the gun from a Basilisk on wheels. So, how do you deal with such a unit?
For the record, I've both emailed Forge World and questioned them on Facebook about these rules. Their response was very dismissive: "It brings them into line with the Artillery unit type rules in the 40k rulebook". They will not be updating these rules for months guys, I would bet this is their stopgap until IA:12 with DKoK in. It's not acceptable rules design that one army can randomly gain an almost impossible to silence set of incredibly cheap artillery. As much as we moan about normal codices being broken, it's just not the case that the same codex with the same list is sweeping the 40k scene. With FW rules giving IG the best flyers, large blasts and AA, what do you think will happen to the game? How many lists do you think won't at least run IG allies?
Agreed- this would have caused a huge issue at the Nova Open.
The lag in updating their rules simply illustrates how FW books ≠ GW codexes.
I'd like to again qualify this statement by saying that I am not against FW's inclusion in some events, particularly in a limited fashion (such as muwhe mentioned Adepticon has used- making each FW model unique, and not spammable). But the arguments for including it as if there will be no additional issues to deal with whatsoever, are as bad or worse than the arguments against including it ever.
That unit is in no way more broken than the codex units. Are you suggesting we ban all books which contain under costed units?
I'm not saying FW units aren't broken. I take exception to the idea that FW units are more broken than codex units, and that by disallowing FW units we are maintaining some standard of balance.
It's just not true.
We don't ban Necrons because they can take an airforce army, nor do we ban Grey Knights because they can take a Purifier army. And we shouldn't ban FW because of an artillery train or breaching drill.
Just like if you open the IG codex to the page with the Vendetta you'll find a demonstrably broken unit. It was amazing in 5th and severely undercosted, and 6th edition gave it flyer rules for free. And yet I don't see anyone arguing that we should ban the entire IG codex because it contains a broken unit, and I don't even see anyone seriously arguing that we should ban the Vendetta.
The point is not that everything FW produces is balanced perfectly, it's that their balance problems are no worse than the balance problems that exist in every codex already. I have yet to see anyone explain why winning a tournament by spamming the most overpowered codex units is ok, but the mere possibility that someone might* win a tournament by spamming the most overpowered FW units completely ruins the game for everyone.
*We can't know for sure, since they've never been tested in a competitive tournament environment. It could turn out to be a case where the huge vulnerability in assault makes up for the cheap point cost and nobody really uses them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: The lag in updating their rules simply illustrates how FW books ≠ GW codexes.
You mean the same GW codices that can go without updates for years (and even for multiple new editions of the core rules), or receive random nonsense FAQs that go against any sensible interpretation of the rules? The same GW codices where older books get fluff-based wargear updates without adjusting points to match, years after the book was published and for no good reason?
Just like if you open the IG codex to the page with the Vendetta you'll find a demonstrably broken unit. It was amazing in 5th and severely undercosted, and 6th edition gave it flyer rules for free. And yet I don't see anyone arguing that we should ban the entire IG codex because it contains a broken unit, and I don't even see anyone seriously arguing that we should ban the Vendetta.
The point is not that everything FW produces is balanced perfectly, it's that their balance problems are no worse than the balance problems that exist in every codex already. I have yet to see anyone explain why winning a tournament by spamming the most overpowered codex units is ok, but the mere possibility that someone might* win a tournament by spamming the most overpowered FW units completely ruins the game for everyone.
*We can't know for sure, since they've never been tested in a competitive tournament environment. It could turn out to be a case where the huge vulnerability in assault makes up for the cheap point cost and nobody really uses them.
You actually had me on the OP argument, which by the way is not my original argument it is what has developed over the 5 pages, until that last bit. You can't claim a units weakness in a phase of the game that has been demonstrably nerfed is an actual weakness. The assault phase is mere shadow of what it once was. Which I wholeheartedly approve of since this is a Sci Fi game based in a future with amazing guns. Otherwise yes, I agree the OP nature of some FW units is no worse than the OP nature of some codex units like the Vendetta, Stormraven, and Nightscythe; then again I was never making that argument so...
OverwatchCNC wrote: You actually had me on the OP argument, which by the way is not my original argument it is what has developed over the 5 pages, until that last bit. You can't claim a units weakness in a phase of the game that has been demonstrably nerfed is an actual weakness. The assault phase is mere shadow of what it once was. Which I wholeheartedly approve of since this is a Sci Fi game based in a future with amazing guns. Otherwise yes, I agree the OP nature of some FW units is no worse than the OP nature of some codex units like the Vendetta, Stormraven, and Nightscythe; then again I was never making that argument so...
I'm not saying that it's necessarily a weakness, just that the unit has (AFAIK) never really been tested in a competitive environment, so it's not really fair to just assume that IG players will take a ton of them and dominate while their opponents can't do anything to stop it. It could turn out to be that bad, or it could be that it's not as good of a unit as the first impression suggests, so we shouldn't say with absolute confidence that allowing it will destroy a tournament.
OverwatchCNC wrote: You actually had me on the OP argument, which by the way is not my original argument it is what has developed over the 5 pages, until that last bit. You can't claim a units weakness in a phase of the game that has been demonstrably nerfed is an actual weakness. The assault phase is mere shadow of what it once was. Which I wholeheartedly approve of since this is a Sci Fi game based in a future with amazing guns. Otherwise yes, I agree the OP nature of some FW units is no worse than the OP nature of some codex units like the Vendetta, Stormraven, and Nightscythe; then again I was never making that argument so...
I'm not saying that it's necessarily a weakness, just that the unit has (AFAIK) never really been tested in a competitive environment, so it's not really fair to just assume that IG players will take a ton of them and dominate while their opponents can't do anything to stop it. It could turn out to be that bad, or it could be that it's not as good of a unit as the first impression suggests, so we shouldn't say with absolute confidence that allowing it will destroy a tournament.
I am completely on board with the units themselves are not going to break the game. I have always had that opinion, so I suppose that means we are in agreement on that? I can't even tell anymore
My point about forgeworld rules being problematic is illustrated with the following issues I found with quick glance. I'd shudder to think what kind of stuff TFG would pull if he did an in-depth look.
Hyperios has no leadership score for taking split fire tests
Flakk Trakk doesn't actually have the AA gun despite name and model.
Big Squiggoths rules not covering all sorts of situations with regards to its passengers.
Bottom line, I wouldn't allow forgeworld at tournaments unless problematic models were either banned or had pre-issued rulings. While its not like 6th doesn't have rule problems, at least GW had a zero day FAQ followed by quick update to deal with the worst problems. Forgeworld currently has a grand total of 1 fix (the supersonic transport issue) in their FAQ months after the release. I like a bunch of the models and wouldn't mind seeing them in tournaments, but the rules really need to be whipped into shape.
OverwatchCNC wrote:
FW adds too many units to a game with an average of 420 core units already. The core units rules as well as the units themselves are readily accessible while the same cannot be said of FW. FW creates an imbalance, not to the game, but with the players themselves. Monetary reasons aside reading the rules to a unit prior to the game starting does not allow enough time to process how the unit will work nor does it provide any real in game experience with the unit. I make a much stronger case on capture and control.
So, are Sisters of Battle out as well? Because their rules are even less accessible than Forgeworld's rules are, and a relative minority of players are familiar with everyone else's units and rules anyway.
If we're applying this standard to Forgeworld, then one must exclude Sisters of Battle armies as well. Also the new Daemon units for anyone who didn't get the White Dwarf, similarly Eldar Nightspinners and many of the new flyer kits as I don't think they've reprinted them elsewhere if you didn't get the White Dwarf with them in it.
With regards to the often brought up monetary issue, the gap in FW prices and GW standard prices is closing fast, and unless something radical changes, they'll converge within the next decade at absolute most, most likely within the lifespan of this edition. The next Codex book coming out is going to be $50, 5 years ago they were $20, a 150% increase. Many model kits have experienced similar cost increases. All across the board GW's prices have been rising at a rate double or triple that of inflation for the last 6 years. This trend is not true of Forgeworld, and thus if continued they'll likely converge in the next 4-6 years.
Even without that, many armies inherently cost vastly different sums to build, paint and play both in time and $$$. A fully kitted 5E mech IG army was likely $900-1200, as Grey Knights army of similar power and identical points could be had for 33-50% the same cost, to say nothing of the time invested building and painting such armies. That FW costs a little more for expanded options, none of which are "must have's or you're screwed", is irrelevant in such a light.
EDIT: to those complaining about the IG heavy artillery, really? immobile guns with no save and an Ld7 crew that are easier to engage and destroy than their tracked counterparts and practically auto-killed in CC are that broken? Yeah, they might be an issue with Allies, they're not the only things and it certainly isn't restricted to FW given that nothing in the current game was designed, intended, or tested to be used in conjunction with other armies.
Really, at it's core, 6E is not a competitive ruleset. The design studio came out and said as much at their Open Day event. Playing competitive tournaments with or without FW is going to run into largely the same issues regardless given that the rules aren't intended or designed for that type of play. However, if you're going to do it, why not let people use all of their Warhammer 40,000 Citadel models?
scimitar wrote: Hyperios has no leadership score for taking split fire tests
Flakk Trakk doesn't actually have the AA gun despite name and model.
Big Squiggoths rules not covering all sorts of situations with regards to its passengers.
Vindicator Demolisher canons printed as ordnance 1, missing the blast rule. How long did that one take to get fixed?
Half the Tau codex having broken rules (how exactly do I take a target priority test in 5th?) for years.
FW may desperately need an editor and a couple WAAC players to review their rules before anything is published, but let's not pretend that GW has a very good record of consistent and immediate errata/FAQ releases.
You guys are also straw manning me. The point is not how fair or unfair certain units are, but rather that the better units are all going to the stronger (read IG/MEQ) armies an most non xenos armies are allies of those lists. Yes the eldar get hornets and wasps, but they already had vyper and war walkers. The minor power jump is negligable, especially compared along side the IG artillery options or the SM fliers, particlarly the ones with intercptor or the ability to poop out a large unit of terminators into your lap. In case no one has noticed, the vast bulk of xenos (even crons) got shafted on the power axe craze that the impies get to cash in on and a giant term unit that arrives untouched from a 4hp assault flyer really puts the hurt on most xenos. Thats one example of many.
And seeriously LOL about bubble wrapping against the lucious pod. Show me the xenos army with cheap enough bodies to bubble wrap their entire arm from[one dread, let alone two. Hell, plasma grenades cant even hurt a killa kan, let alone a marine dread. Not everyone gets to have fists and krak in theie entire army.
Phazael wrote: You guys are also straw manning me. The point is not how fair or unfair certain units are, but rather that the better units are all going to the stronger (read IG/MEQ) armies an most non xenos armies are allies of those lists. Yes the eldar get hornets and wasps, but they already had vyper and war walkers.
Hornets add a huge capability, and Vypers are awful.
The minor power jump is negligable, especially compared along side the IG artillery options or the SM fliers, particlarly the ones with intercptor or the ability to poop out a large unit of terminators into your lap. In case no one has noticed, the vast bulk of xenos (even crons) got shafted on the power axe craze that the impies get to cash in on and a giant term unit that arrives untouched from a 4hp assault flyer really puts the hurt on most xenos. Thats one example of many.
I've got the latest Imperial Armor book here and the Eldar get two *very* capable flyers that can take advantage of 3+ and 2+ jink saves with respectable firepower and the ability to field them in two different FoC slots (thus meaning up to 6 available flyers) and included rules for their own AA unit. That would balance out a whole lot of equations. The Tau likewise get two respectively capable aircraft to address some current balance issues, one of which can be taken in squadrons of up to 5.
I'm seeing a whole lot of positives for xenos with Imperial Armour giving them capabilities they don't currently have to match those of the Imperial armies that do.
And seeriously LOL about bubble wrapping against the lucious pod. Show me the xenos army with cheap enough bodies to bubble wrap their entire arm from[one dread, let alone two. Hell, plasma grenades cant even hurt a killa kan, let alone a marine dread. Not everyone gets to have fists and krak in theie entire army.
Orks, Tau, Tyranids Not xenos army is an expensive Eldar army.
And seeriously LOL about bubble wrapping against the lucious pod. Show me the xenos army with cheap enough bodies to bubble wrap their entire arm from[one dread, let alone two. Hell, plasma grenades cant even hurt a killa kan, let alone a marine dread. Not everyone gets to have fists and krak in theie entire army.
Orks, Tau, Tyranids Not xenos army is an expensive Eldar army.
Nonsense. I run a fairly high-bodycount Tyranid army, and I'm crippled if I have to bubblewrap. A single dread can take out an entire Gargoyle screen (which I need for rapid advancing), screw up the movement of the rest of the army (can't walk through the pod/combat, after all), and is safe from counter-assault by TMCs while doing it (as it will be buried in Gargoyles for quite a while). And if there's a second pod coming down next turn, it gets uglier.
And with 6E vehicle/HP rules, without such a pod it's literally never going to do anything to that Tyranid army, the little units will avoid it and the MC's will tear it to pieces before it does anything more than put a wound or two on them, or it'll get shot down before it makes to to anyone's lines. Most tyranid lists can manage a bubble wrap if they need to, at least around critical units for a turn or two.
I used to be a vicious opponent of the Lucius drop pods, thought it was the dumbest thing FW made. Now that it takes an FA slot, has a chance to hurt the walker, and the fact that combat walkers are hilariously worthless with the way vehicle damage works (and typically being requiring half the resources or less to destroy than they previously did), they're pretty much the only way anyone is going to get any use out of combat walkers and they're paying 65pt premium to do it with a large chance to whiff off in an awkward direction.
Phazael wrote: In case no one has noticed, the vast bulk of xenos (even crons) got shafted on the power axe craze that the impies get to cash in on and a giant term unit that arrives untouched from a 4hp assault flyer really puts the hurt on most xenos.
Except you're overlooking the fact that a Stormraven can already deliver enough terminators to get the job done. There really aren't many things that you can do with 10 terminators that you can't do with 5, so you end up spending 700+ points on your death star and killing a couple 100-point meatshield units. You can do it for 200+ points less already, so I really don't see how another overpriced death star changes much.
And this is exactly the problem with the FW debate: people look at the worst case scenario (OMG 10000000 TERMINATORS) of a single aspect of the unit without really considering how it fits into the context of a complete army and how much of an impact on game balance it is likely to have in that context.
In all honesty, considering the amount of money sunk into a FW unit or tank, and the points sinks that the are, I have amused myself when one goes up in a huge cloud as the rolls of the dice went against the person who brought such thing. many could be easily replaced by cheaper and more plentiful units or vehicles, and they happen to be cool models, and if the TO makes sure that any player using FW makes photo-copies for their opponent to look at so they are familarized enough for the battle, then why worry? And they have made the rules more balanced, my 325 point Valdor Tank hunbter is as much a danger to itself as any leman russ out there.(If I do no damage to the russ after hitting it, Say I roll under the armor value, I take a d-3 glancing hits due to power feedback.) So with things like that I tend to not really care. Many of the supposedly "balanced" squads and such in codex are far nastier for the points when matched to a "similar" valued unit in an older or other codex.
Peregrine, as Phazael said, you're arguing against a strawman.
My point was that there's a lag between FW units getting updated and GWFAQs being released. We all know there are old codexes, but they get FAQ'ed at the same time as every other codex. FW books are on their own schedule.
scimitar wrote: My point about forgeworld rules being problematic is illustrated with the following issues I found with quick glance. I'd shudder to think what kind of stuff TFG would pull if he did an in-depth look.
Hyperios has no leadership score for taking split fire tests
Flakk Trakk doesn't actually have the AA gun despite name and model.
Big Squiggoths rules not covering all sorts of situations with regards to its passengers.
Bottom line, I wouldn't allow forgeworld at tournaments unless problematic models were either banned or had pre-issued rulings. While its not like 6th doesn't have rule problems, at least GW had a zero day FAQ followed by quick update to deal with the worst problems. Forgeworld currently has a grand total of 1 fix (the supersonic transport issue) in their FAQ months after the release. I like a bunch of the models and wouldn't mind seeing them in tournaments, but the rules really need to be whipped into shape.
Exactly... again, Peregrine, you mention FW getting an editor to read through things to make all their units suitable for tournament play (rules and stats-wise). That is a hypothetical.
The premise of this thread was the pressure some people had been putting on ALL tournaments to start allowing FW. Clearly, it could/would cause a lot of problems. That's a valid point.
It doesn't mean that some events can't allow it fully, with in-house FAQs to deal with these things, or other events start allowing it in a more limited fashion. But there ARE unique problems to adding FW into an event, that are NOT identical to allowing all codex books. Several of you keep making the argument that they are identical... they simply aren't, it's a different can of worms that has to be treated differently.
I'm not saying we shouldn't treat it, but let's not belittle the issues or pretend they aren't there. FW brings a unique set of challenges for a TO to deal with, and I applaud those that are tackling it. But it'd be much better to honestly discuss how to tackle those issues, than to gloss over them as an attempt to gain wider acceptance (imo, this will completely backfire).
If you were to run a tournament next week, with full FW allowance, do you see yourself as having to make any special provisions... or do you anticipate it being identical to allowing all codex armies to be used? I am curious if you really perceive there to be no additional challenges, or if you are perceiving those challenges, what steps you would take to deal with them.
So the core argument against is that FW rules have holes in them that make them not functional and require extensive FAQs to make them fully work in regular gameplay.
While I can agree to that, that is also why events have extensive FAQs. And it seems like most of the time GW relies on the community and tourneys to write the FAQ and hand it to GW on a silver platter.
If the concern is non functional rules opposed to simply overpowered rules then why don't people attempt to FAQ them and submit the fixes to GW and FW?
If you were to run a tournament next week, with full FW allowance, do you see yourself as having to make any special provisions... or do you anticipate it being identical to allowing all codex armies to be used? I am curious if you really perceive there to be no additional challenges, or if you are perceiving those challenges, what steps you would take to deal with them.
I've done this. There are no extra challenges, there is no extra complexity, it is all in your heads. Reality is that FW units are just different units. Every single argument that has been made against Forgeworld in this thread is about perception, not reality.
The reality is that GW doesn't update its codexes well, or often, and does stupid stuff like disable target locks for two months. Whatever faults FW writers and editors suffer from - and I'm certainly not claiming they're perfect, or even competent - GW writers suffer from the same faults.
Trying to sum it all up:
- I can't get FW stuff - You're on dakka, learn to use the internet for buying things. - I can't be expected to memorize all the possible FW units - You'll get over it. The quiz scores from Adepticon show that you weren't actually very good at memorizing all the stats of the codex stuff either. - I can't find the rules - You'll figure it out. And your opponent will be required to bring them to use them. - FW is so much more powerful - Because we're suddenly forgetting about Long Fangs and Doom Scythes and Lash and Nob Bikers. - FW stuff lets you do things that you couldn't do with just the codex - Every new codex lets you do stuff you couldn't do with the older codex too, big deal. - FW rules have holes - So do GW codexes. So does the GW main rulebook. - FWFAQs aren't updated regularly - FW had their 6th ed updates ready sooner than GW. - FW doesn't update on the same schedule as GW - GW's update schedule is ridiculous anyway. I've got a great idea, let's make a game where you can have flyers, and no army can have weapons that shoot at them until we figure that out later. - FW stuff favours Imperials - I'm not going to go through the examples of xenos stuff that makes those armies better yet another time. Instead, let's just remember, ALL GW stuff favours Imperials. Have you seen the Ally Chart? FW stuff is expensive - Have you seen the costs for GW stuff? Finecast models? You're not playing this game if you're on wellfare, and I don't see the minimal extra cost to buy the FW items breaking anyone. Besides, all the "broken" stuff is the little stuff. It's the apocalypse-only items that aren't part of this discussion that command the big bucks. Given the number of people I see at GTs (and RTTs) who have FW doors on their Rhinos, an upgrade that provides no extra in-game effectiveness, I'm simply not buying the cost argument.
Am I missing any? It's all just a matter of perception. You stick the FW sign on it and all of a sudden you're complaining about the exact same stuff that the rest of GW does. This is a piss-poor game system that's designed to push model sales. It's not balanced competitively, and so adding more stuff doesn't actually hurt. It just lets more people use different toys, and construct armies with different themes or approaches. Variety is good, otherwise all we'll ever see is more of those Long Fangs (Have I mentioned how much I hate them, they're probably FW infiltrators...)
I played a game against a friend last night, I used a FW wraithseer, he used the new necron codex. His annihilation barges were far more effective than my FW toy. I had, essentially, an expensive D-Cannon, that he largely ignored while killing other things. Big deal.
The argument of "GW is broken, too" doesn't make FW less broken.
Adding more problematic rules, without FAQs, and units to the mix does indeed add problems.
And while my question was directed at Peregrine, I'd welcome experienced folks to answer. As nkelsch said, perhaps a FAQ (like the INAT) aimed at addressing issues with FW would help.
But it's an additional problem as that does not currently exist. Just because it's analogous (not equivalent) to problems GW proper has doesn't mean it's nonexistent or adds no extra complexity, as it clearly does.
I'm trying to imagine another company like PP approaching rules this way- offering them as direct only books full of unit rules that are optional and not updated at the same time as their main books, with way more offerings for some armies than others. It's crazy, and it's left to the tourney community to try to fix it if they want to use it.
But like any problem, the first step is to acknowledge there is one . Given the above paragraph, it's hard to believe someone could say there isn't one (not directed at anyone in particular, just a general comment).
RiTides wrote: The argument of "GW is broken, too" doesn't make FW less broken.
Nope, no one said it did. It just makes the argument that FW shouldn't be allowed because it is broken moot. If we disallow all broken things, we're not playing a GW game.
Adding more problematic rules, without FAQs, and units to the mix does indeed add problems.
No, it doesn't. I've run tournaments with FW allowed. There are no more problems. It's no more complicated. As Yoda said, ""No! No different. Only different in your mind." Get past the mindset issue, and it's just 40k with a different unit. The first time you do it, it's no different than the first tournament you'll run after a new codex has been released. After that, it's no different than any other.
Issues may come up - they come up with normal rules too. You evaluate them, FAQ them for later. I've seen less arguments over anything to do with FW than I've seen about whether someone gets a cover save.
schadenfreude wrote: DKOK is the poster child. 9 earth shaker cannons with 72 wounds at T7 and 9 heavy mortars (6/4 large pie Twin linked) with 48 wounds at T7 behind an aegis is 1125 points. That's also single force org 3 HS 3 elites.
And? IG can already field 9 artillery guns in 3 HS slots, and if you wanted to, you could fit up to 21 heavy weapons (mortars, missile launchers, lascannons, autocannons) in a single troop choice. It honestly isn't that broken considering that the guns are organized into groups of 3, and 3 earthshaker cannon shots at one unit is generally overkill.
Edit: If you want to talk broken, lets talk Death Korps engineers, or Elysian Special Weapon Squads (3 deepstriking demo charges in one squad).
If you were to run a tournament next week, with full FW allowance, do you see yourself as having to make any special provisions... or do you anticipate it being identical to allowing all codex armies to be used? I am curious if you really perceive there to be no additional challenges, or if you are perceiving those challenges, what steps you would take to deal with them.
I've done this. There are no extra challenges, there is no extra complexity, it is all in your heads. Reality is that FW units are just different units. Every single argument that has been made against Forgeworld in this thread is about perception, not reality.
The reality is that GW doesn't update its codexes well, or often, and does stupid stuff like disable target locks for two months. Whatever faults FW writers and editors suffer from - and I'm certainly not claiming they're perfect, or even competent - GW writers suffer from the same faults.
Trying to sum it all up:
- I can't get FW stuff - You're on dakka, learn to use the internet for buying things.
- I can't be expected to memorize all the possible FW units - You'll get over it. The quiz scores from Adepticon show that you weren't actually very good at memorizing all the stats of the codex stuff either.
- I can't find the rules - You'll figure it out. And your opponent will be required to bring them to use them.
- FW is so much more powerful - Because we're suddenly forgetting about Long Fangs and Doom Scythes and Lash and Nob Bikers.
- FW stuff lets you do things that you couldn't do with just the codex - Every new codex lets you do stuff you couldn't do with the older codex too, big deal.
- FW rules have holes - So do GW codexes. So does the GW main rulebook.
- FWFAQs aren't updated regularly - FW had their 6th ed updates ready sooner than GW.
- FW doesn't update on the same schedule as GW - GW's update schedule is ridiculous anyway. I've got a great idea, let's make a game where you can have flyers, and no army can have weapons that shoot at them until we figure that out later.
- FW stuff favours Imperials - I'm not going to go through the examples of xenos stuff that makes those armies better yet another time. Instead, let's just remember, ALL GW stuff favours Imperials. Have you seen the Ally Chart?
FW stuff is expensive - Have you seen the costs for GW stuff? Finecast models? You're not playing this game if you're on wellfare, and I don't see the minimal extra cost to buy the FW items breaking anyone. Besides, all the "broken" stuff is the little stuff. It's the apocalypse-only items that aren't part of this discussion that command the big bucks. Given the number of people I see at GTs (and RTTs) who have FW doors on their Rhinos, an upgrade that provides no extra in-game effectiveness, I'm simply not buying the cost argument.
Am I missing any? It's all just a matter of perception. You stick the FW sign on it and all of a sudden you're complaining about the exact same stuff that the rest of GW does. This is a piss-poor game system that's designed to push model sales. It's not balanced competitively, and so adding more stuff doesn't actually hurt. It just lets more people use different toys, and construct armies with different themes or approaches. Variety is good, otherwise all we'll ever see is more of those Long Fangs (Have I mentioned how much I hate them, they're probably FW infiltrators...)
I played a game against a friend last night, I used a FW wraithseer, he used the new necron codex. His annihilation barges were far more effective than my FW toy. I had, essentially, an expensive D-Cannon, that he largely ignored while killing other things. Big deal.
So this is basically a laundry list of excuses why it is okay to use FW... like I said it is not fixing anything in the game... just creating more issues. When GW gives it the official green light I will be fully behind it but not until then. This crops up every time a new edition begins.
I think it also warrants being pointed out, that it is widely accepted that it is also the responsibility of the TO to address potential conflicts prior to the event and that it is the participant's responsibility to be aware of those conclusions/rulings prior to the event. Even in those instances the TO might make a ruling that is contradicted by GW or FW within days or even a few weeks. That doesn't make the TO ruling wrong for the record, because at that time there were no false pretenses under how the rules worked.
As someone who has participated in and hosted my fair share of tournaments I think we're also forgetting that even with the FAQs and rules clearly spelled out that doesn't prevent human error, such as judge rulings or players misinterpreting the rules.
The one thing I think is interesting here, is that in 40k and even Fantasy or other systems like MTG, the power curve and meta change with each release. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how it's always been so this is not a new or unique situation. Vampire Hexmage is released and suddenly you have a Dark Depths combo, capable of winning on Turn 2. Codex Chaos Space Marines was released and the Lash lists came out and in fact, that year's Baltimore GT winner was a Chaos player. Vampire Counts came out in 7th and immediately took over the power curve. In each of these systems, rules releases, new formats, FAQs, players and tournament organizers all came up with solutions.
My point after all of this is, and this is directed to the general discussion, I don't happen to see how this is any different from anything the hobby had previously experienced, so should this be an issue?
If you were to run a tournament next week, with full FW allowance, do you see yourself as having to make any special provisions... or do you anticipate it being identical to allowing all codex armies to be used? I am curious if you really perceive there to be no additional challenges, or if you are perceiving those challenges, what steps you would take to deal with them.
I've done this. There are no extra challenges, there is no extra complexity, it is all in your heads. Reality is that FW units are just different units. Every single argument that has been made against Forgeworld in this thread is about perception, not reality.
The reality is that GW doesn't update its codexes well, or often, and does stupid stuff like disable target locks for two months. Whatever faults FW writers and editors suffer from - and I'm certainly not claiming they're perfect, or even competent - GW writers suffer from the same faults.
Trying to sum it all up:
- I can't get FW stuff - You're on dakka, learn to use the internet for buying things.
- I can't be expected to memorize all the possible FW units - You'll get over it. The quiz scores from Adepticon show that you weren't actually very good at memorizing all the stats of the codex stuff either.
- I can't find the rules - You'll figure it out. And your opponent will be required to bring them to use them.
- FW is so much more powerful - Because we're suddenly forgetting about Long Fangs and Doom Scythes and Lash and Nob Bikers.
- FW stuff lets you do things that you couldn't do with just the codex - Every new codex lets you do stuff you couldn't do with the older codex too, big deal.
- FW rules have holes - So do GW codexes. So does the GW main rulebook.
- FWFAQs aren't updated regularly - FW had their 6th ed updates ready sooner than GW.
- FW doesn't update on the same schedule as GW - GW's update schedule is ridiculous anyway. I've got a great idea, let's make a game where you can have flyers, and no army can have weapons that shoot at them until we figure that out later.
- FW stuff favours Imperials - I'm not going to go through the examples of xenos stuff that makes those armies better yet another time. Instead, let's just remember, ALL GW stuff favours Imperials. Have you seen the Ally Chart?
FW stuff is expensive - Have you seen the costs for GW stuff? Finecast models? You're not playing this game if you're on wellfare, and I don't see the minimal extra cost to buy the FW items breaking anyone. Besides, all the "broken" stuff is the little stuff. It's the apocalypse-only items that aren't part of this discussion that command the big bucks. Given the number of people I see at GTs (and RTTs) who have FW doors on their Rhinos, an upgrade that provides no extra in-game effectiveness, I'm simply not buying the cost argument.
Am I missing any? It's all just a matter of perception. You stick the FW sign on it and all of a sudden you're complaining about the exact same stuff that the rest of GW does. This is a piss-poor game system that's designed to push model sales. It's not balanced competitively, and so adding more stuff doesn't actually hurt. It just lets more people use different toys, and construct armies with different themes or approaches. Variety is good, otherwise all we'll ever see is more of those Long Fangs (Have I mentioned how much I hate them, they're probably FW infiltrators...)
I played a game against a friend last night, I used a FW wraithseer, he used the new necron codex. His annihilation barges were far more effective than my FW toy. I had, essentially, an expensive D-Cannon, that he largely ignored while killing other things. Big deal.
So this is basically a laundry list of excuses why it is okay to use FW... like I said it is not fixing anything in the game... just creating more issues. When GW gives it the official green light I will be fully behind it but not until then. This crops up every time a new edition begins.
So the minute GW proper arbitrarily decides to allow it in all official tournaments you will suddenly fully support it? Why not support it based one the rules and diversity it allows? I support FW because it allows for newer, more exotic units, because it provides parts to make more common armies unique (old marks of power armour and special IG models and conversion kits). Will I meet a unit I am unfamiliar with? Perhaps, but then I just look at the rules devise a strategy to deal with it for the game and then build that new unit into my overall game plan. It is just like when a new codex comes out and new units come out with it, I don't refuse to play them, I check the rules, play them, and mold them into my overall list building strategy.
Buttons wrote:
Edit: If you want to talk broken, lets talk Death Korps engineers, or Elysian Special Weapon Squads (3 deepstriking demo charges in one squad).
What on earth is wrong with the DKoK Engineers being 10pt 4+sv guardsmen? And the Elysian unit is a huge "win big/lose big" unit, if it doesn't make it within 6" of it's intended target, it's wasted.
Dozer Blades wrote:
So this is basically a laundry list of excuses why it is okay to use FW... like I said it is not fixing anything in the game... just creating more issues. When GW gives it the official green light I will be fully behind it but not until then. This crops up every time a new edition begins.
You're expecting a green light for GW allowing FW at tournaments? You'll never get it. Tournaments are not normal 40k play, GW doesn't care about tournaments and doesn't write rules for tournaments, and point blank said they didn't design 6th edition for any sort of balanced, competitive play. FW is already as good to go for normal 40k play as anything else, tournaments exist outside of that and organizers can ban everything but Tau if they want as there is no set universal standard set of rules for tournament play. For example Chapter Approved Armored Companies and Kroot Merc lists were legal in US GT's until 2007 running 1750pt play while they were banned after 2005 in UKGT's running 1500pt events.
It's a TO decision, if you're expecting GW to weigh in, they're going to say you're playing the game in a manner they didn't write the rules for in the first place so it's up to the TO.
Dozer Blades wrote: When GW gives it the official green light I will be fully behind it but not until then. This crops up every time a new edition begins.
What do you believe "giving it the official green light" means? Because as far as I can tell, the FW books state that they're official for games of 40k. If you're going to ask for official green lights, you can't get much clearer than that. You're going to wait for something more than a statement in the book that says it's official? Why would anyone ever publish that? If I ignore the Tau codex, there's nothing that says that the Tau Codex is legal either.
shasolenzabi wrote: In all honesty, considering the amount of money sunk into a FW unit or tank, and the points sinks that the are, I have amused myself when one goes up in a huge cloud as the rolls of the dice went against the person who brought such thing. many could be easily replaced by cheaper and more plentiful units or vehicles, and they happen to be cool models, and if the TO makes sure that any player using FW makes photo-copies for their opponent to look at so they are familarized enough for the battle, then why worry? And they have made the rules more balanced, my 325 point Valdor Tank hunbter is as much a danger to itself as any leman russ out there.(If I do no damage to the russ after hitting it, Say I roll under the armor value, I take a d-3 glancing hits due to power feedback.) So with things like that I tend to not really care. Many of the supposedly "balanced" squads and such in codex are far nastier for the points when matched to a "similar" valued unit in an older or other codex.
I always get a kick out of people who say forge world items are under-powered for the most part and that they are taking them because they are cool models.
At a tournaments you will never see the bad/fluffy units. On the table top you will only see the best units that FW has to offer. The first tournament that I went to that allowed Forge World the only FW that I saw were hades breaching drills and Sabre defense platforms.
FW40k-approved units are as official as it would get. If FW is not official, they would get sued out of oblivion if they put a 40K stamp on their book.
I agree with all the points that Redbeard made. Until GW writes a "Tournament specific rules" that gets updated every month based on player feedback, FW40K-approved units should be allowed in all 40K non-apocalypse games (tournament or not).
leohart wrote: FW40k-approved units are as official as it would get. If FW is not official, they would get sued out of oblivion if they put a 40K stamp on their book.
I'm not following you. Sued by whom and on what grounds?
Tournaments are run by game stores and clubs these days, who are free to allow or disallow what they want. The Forge World books still have the "Check with your opponents..." blah, blah, blah blurb at the front.
Those 40k and Apocalypse stamps are to show which units are meant for Apocalypse and which units are meant for standard games. They aren't "These units can be used without your opponent's permission" stamps. You should always ask your opponent what type of game he wants, regardless of FW or not. Do they want a "fluffy" army list, a hard-as-nails tournament game, or something in between?
I am a huge proponent of FW, and my group uses them all of the time. I have the Imperial Armory Books 5-11, along with the Imperial Armory Apocalypse books. I have no issue with them being used in normal games or tournament games.
But the folks that draw a line in the sand and say "You have to let me play with these! They're FW and official" really rub me the wrong way. (Not calling you out specifically here, Leohart)
What about how some armies, mainly Orks, get an ally force which is a battle brother, something most imperial armies take for granted. having extra HQs which are battle brothers makes a huge Impact IMHO. The ability to have an actual reasonable allied force is far and beyond more useful than the units it potentially adds. I feel like the 1999+1 allied situation is the largest impact to true balance right now in the META and armies with no battle brothers suffer the most.
What I meant by suing is: If FW is not endorsed by GW at least internally, they would not be able to create models to be used in a standard 40K game. This is unrelated to FW's being a subsidiary of GW. If FW starts breaking the game, GW would do something about it.
Thus, units with the 40K approved stamp should be treated as if they are available in the normal codices. Informing your opponent about the usage of such unit should be a courtesy not a requirement. Making it a requirement creates a segregation which should not exist given this being a social and friendly hobby.
You have to let me play with these! They're FW and official
I don't think any rational person would utter such non-sense. After all, this is an at-will game. One can choose to play only against Orks and nothing else.
You have to let me play with these! They're FW and official
I don't think any rational person would utter such non-sense. After all, this is an at-will game. One can choose to play only against Orks and nothing else.
Certainly, but that argument/statement/whatever always seems to rear its ugly head in these discussions.
I can't help but find this thread pretty interesting, I have seen a increase in Forge World play but only in casual matches,in these I often see disagreements of rules and other problems. I don't know if there are easy to get FAQs for Forge World rules but if there are not then I think that is another reason for Forge World not be in tournaments.
This is of course just my own thoughts so take it with some salt.
Ecstasy in Service wrote: I don't know if there are easy to get FAQs for Forge World rules but if there are not then I think that is another reason for Forge World not be in tournaments.
Check out the link in my signature. Rules update for 6th edition were posted fairly quickly.
I would imagine that the rules debates were due to unfamiliarity to the units in question. I haven't played Sisters of Battle before. I would imagine that such a game would see me asking a lot of questions, too.
leohart wrote: FW40k-approved units are as official as it would get.
GW still runs GTs (one in the US and several in the UK) so if they are "official as it would get" then why does GW not allow forge world at their tournaments?
leohart wrote: FW40k-approved units are as official as it would get.
GW still runs GTs (one in the US and several in the UK) so if they are "official as it would get" then why does GW not allow forge world at their tournaments?
Why do they match people who have already played each other during the tournament.... why do they determine the overall winner in the crazy way that they do? Hardly the best example.
Official only really matters for Indy GTs and that is up to TOs.
leohart wrote: FW40k-approved units are as official as it would get.
GW still runs GTs (one in the US and several in the UK) so if they are "official as it would get" then why does GW not allow forge world at their tournaments?
Who knows, likely inertia. However they run a small minority of the major events these days, at least in the US, and have made it clear that their tournament rules and standards should not be applied to anything outside said events. Tournaments are not the standard for "official" standing or not. Again, GW's own tournaments aren't even standardized, and certainly in the past had rather divergent rules for chapter approved/white dwarf stuff, etc when all that...existed
If the only reason for doing a thing is that has been done that way before, you should look into changing it.
Reason, not history, should drive decision making. Remember when you couldn't use special characters in tournaments? The way things were does not have to be the way they will be.
Reecius's event allowed it. Did the sky crumble? Did the roof melt in? Did people thrown down their models and storm out in protest? Were there any major issues at all?
While that is true, just because a sample set of 1 works doesn't mean there won't be issues with it in other places, or even the same place, under different circumstances, or once people start preparing FW heavy lists more regularly, with FW allies, etc. It's a big unknown.
Doesn't mean it's not worth trying, but one success doesn't make the large number of legitimate concerns about it invalid. Hopefully, we will see more FW in events, but my personal opinion is that unrestricted FW will degrade other's events. I would love to try restricted FW events, though- like the '12 Adepticon Team Tourney, which I loved!
And Reason, not a history of 1, is why I favor restricted FW rather than unrestricted
RiTides wrote: I'll state the obvious response to that- most Indy GTs don't allow FW, or allow it but in limited measure.
Reecius' event(s) are the only GT(s) I know of who allow full, unrestricted FW use in the main event. Are there others?
As mentioned before, Adepticon has a tradition of allowing FW, but with restrictions (or unrestricted, but not in the main event).
Edit: To reiterate, I'm talking unrestricted FW use at the main event of a GT... not local tournies. Are there other examples I'm missing?
I believe that the Mechanicon GT at the Warstore Weekend will be allowing all FW, except for superheavies and the Apoc units. At least, that is what I heard.
Dozer Blades wrote: I find it somewhat ironic the guy who won the la gt spammed a cheap uber powerful broken unit. That is what will happen... Just like anything else. FW does not solve anything - it just creates more problems. I think it only works for highly specialized tournaments run by gaming vets.
Whoa now partner, let's get our facts straight.
The guy who won used 2 units of Sabers, hardly spamming.
Also, EVERY SINGLE PERSON HE PLAYED said they didn't think the Sabers were OP. In fact, his opponents said the units that did the most damage for him were the Plasmacutioners behind the Aegis and the Masters of Ordnance (shockingly).
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but please don't bandy false information.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Thread
vhwolf in the Ironman has allowed FW and FW lists for a long time! The BSB here in CA has always used FW. In Europe lots of events have been suing FW for years.
It's been done long before us, we're just the ones in the spotlight right now for it is all.
It's been done long before us, we're just the ones in the spotlight right now for it is all.
GW Canada, when it existed, allowed FW in their GTs (3ed and 4ed).
Astronomicon, a long running indy event in Canada ran by guys that playtested for GW at one time, has allowed FW since 3ed.
That's just off the top of my head.
That said, at least for the foreseeable future I won't be allowing FW at an event I run. I'd like to get a good handle on what works and doesn't in 6ed for tournaments before I start introducing even more variables into the mix.
And that said, I am still glad there are events that allow em, cause they are beautiful models and deserve more chances to hit the table and diversity in available events is a good thing.
Reecius, the fact that you say his opponents didn't mind the sabers is anecdotal, though. The fact remains he won with them, and allowing FW will make IG allies really popular. Whether that's good or bad is open to interpretation- but I certainly don't think it's a slamdunk that it's a good thing for a tourney.
Yes, this year's MechaniCon allows all Forge World units approved for 40k (basically no superheavies or gargantuan creatures).
We have also had a side tournament the past couple years that allowed any FW units or army lists approved for 40k. Here is what we saw:
Collectors of armies done by FW were allowed to play with their gorgeous models - many for the first time.
An Ork player was finally able to bring his awesome Grot Tanks to the tabletop.
Forge World units were exposed to new armies and did not break the game
Not every player out there is only in this miniatures game just for the game, they are in it for the miniatures
Sure there are some tournaments that don't want to use FW or their attendees will be afraid of what they may go against, but in the end most events are as varied as the armies that show up. There has been many new events that have gained in popularity but by no means are they the only way to play. Some tournaments change the rules to fit their interpretation, create their own FAQs, disallow Mysterious effects and even using missions that do not follow the book is an example of changing the rules. Forge World being accepted seems pretty clear to me but then again so does using the rules in the main book.
The Berks Warhammer club is also planning to include FW units in their events. They started running a large 40K tournament a few years ago. They have grown and the one this spring had over 75 players - so they are approaching in scale to be a major indy event.
RITides - The obvious part to me is we are talking about an INDY event... All these events are Independent and can be run however each TO sees fit. 6th edition is a brand new game and only recently did the Forge World books designate the units in the newer books as 40K legal.
Look at how many events change the rules to create a "competitive" environment - yet they don't use GW terrain and hardly use any of the selections of what is shown in the book, choose not to use basic parts of missions (Mysterious effects) and many more tweaks. None of that is "GW Official", yet players love it. Also, most major events are grown from local tournies so don't exclude them from the discussion.
Blackmoor - GW is no longer running events in the US. When Ed S. left, the new staff killed all events and the reasoning I was given (and I wasn't the only one) is that they did not agree with the competitive, cutthroat atmosphere of many events out there have created and didn't want to associate with that. This included Ard Boyz and GT's (remember 'Ard Boyz?). They are stuck running this year's Throne of Skulls because it was already established and tickets were awarded. I am sure many of us noticed that tickets were originally to go on sale in January which got bumped to June, then July then August then it was September (1 month before the event) before they put tickets on sale? It also got handed to the bunker staff to organize and will not be the affair it was last year.
Also, you can get a kick out of the fact that at our event YES the players showed up with the cool models and not just going for the killer units.
Tironum wrote: RITides - The obvious part to me is we are talking about an INDY event... All these events are Independent and can be run however each TO sees fit. 6th edition is a brand new game and only recently did the Forge World books designate the units in the newer books as 40K legal.
Look at how many events change the rules to create a "competitive" environment - yet they don't use GW terrain and hardly use any of the selections of what is shown in the book, choose not to use basic parts of missions (Mysterious effects) and many more tweaks. None of that is "GW Official", yet players love it. Also, most major events are grown from local tournies so don't exclude them from the discussion.
Totally agreed that no event needs to feel the need to conform to any other- that was actually the primary reason for my posting in this thread (the perception, when 6th hit, that some folks wanted ALL tournies to open up and allow FW). Discussing the options available to Independent events is, after all, a large part of the purpose for this thread, I think!
Tironum wrote:We have also had a side tournament the past couple years that allowed any FW units or army lists approved for 40k.
Personally, I think that's a great thing to allow full-on FW for (just like Adepticon does with the Gladiator!).
But it could be different when it's in the main event... Or, more to the point, when it's in the main event next year and folks will have had time to plan what allies they want to take, and what FW options are available to those allies (such as IG).
I do not think you would see much of an adverse effect this year- 6th edition is still too new for most folks to have built for it yet. However, because of that, I also think that if it goes well this year, it won't necessarily indicate what things will be like once folks have really caught on to how they can build with FW from their allies.
I will be very interested to hear how it goes. I was actually hoping to attend Mechanicon at the Warstore Weekend this year. Unfortunately I won't be making it... but, I look forward to hearing how it goes.
RiTides wrote: Reecius, the fact that you say his opponents didn't mind the sabers is anecdotal, though. The fact remains he won with them, and allowing FW will make IG allies really popular. Whether that's good or bad is open to interpretation- but I certainly don't think it's a slamdunk that it's a good thing for a tourney.
If not them, it would just be something else. Tony won with ig allies at nova and didn't use fw. That, also, will make ig popular allies. They're allowed as allies with more armies than any other, apparently, they're good allies. Falling back on the This game isn't that complicated thought again...
What about they players who lost with fw units. Maybe they'd have won without them. Maybe the origin of the unit really just isn't that important, and this distinction is simply a mindset that you need to move past. Fw really is no different than the rest of gw. They have some good, more bad, and the only real issue is whether you like diversity. And freedom. Why do you hate freedom?
But I do think you will see a Much more pronounced "Kopach effect" if FW were allowed in more tournies.
And you can bet your buttons that if FW is allowed in the Nova next year, and rules haven't changed, he'd have some nasty IGFW unit in there. Nothing wrong with it at all, but the top players are going to take the best tools available to them- and some of those IGFW units are going to be undisputably some of the best tools.
Sure, you'll see people taking fun/fluffy units... but there's a trade-off to be had here.
Personally, I think the Adepticon solution of making FW units unique, and thus un-spammable, is a pretty darn elegant way of "having your cake and eating it too". People get to break out their toys, but don't get to spam the one super unit that FW hasn't updated rules for yet (at this moment, the saber, next year, who knows).
I know people do this normally, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. But you can't say "People will bring fun units" in the same breath as "Who cares if they spam uber units, it's just like the codexes". The second would have an adverse effect on army composition, as it would exacerbate the spam problems already evident in tournies.
Why not just make FW units 0-1 if you just want to play with a cool FW toy? What's the drawback? It's worked well for Adepticon, and would be a good stepping stone to more FW acceptance in tournies.
OverwatchCNC wrote: I think the Narrative and team events are perfect places to allow FW. I am not against FW use across the board, just at the main GT style events. I actually like many of the FW models and their rules but it is the rarity of them that in my mind makes them unacceptable for major GT use.
I understand that stating FW makes the game less fun and less competitive is an opinion of mine but I think the case I made was fairly solid.
Out of interest, did you consider that one of the reasons FW is "rare" is because large numbers of players, regardless of whether they play in tournaments or not, use what is allowed in tournaments as the benchmark for what is "official"? There was recently a "discussion" over on Warseer about that very subject, and the core argument against was "it's not allowed in tournaments, so they're not really official rules".
Allowing FW units at tournaments removes that argument, which would likely lead to more players purchasing FW books and using FW units in their armies and allies, which would in turn eliminate your complaint that they are rare and difficult to learn about(not really true when you can get all the unit rules from IA1(stupid Glossary - this is a link) and IA2(and so is this) for free from the FW site by downloading the updates); the fraction of players, I would wager even among tournament goers, who learn other armies by buying each and every Codex is tiny, most learn by playing against other forces and by reading their friends'/gaming buddies' books.
Dozer Blades wrote: Didn't he beat a Necron flyer army in the last round? I bet those cheap sabers were quite a boon in that game.
He did indeed, but the Cron player was very crafty and used terrain to come on the board out of LoS of the Sabers. The game came down to the last roll of the dice! What a great game, hardly over-powering. It made the game very fun and closely fought as opposed to a blowout which it likely would have been without the Sabers.
That is a very good thing, IMO.
My issue was that the language you used made it sound like he took a million sabers and walked all over everyone with little effort or skill, which is totally false. He barely won most of his games apart from his game against DE which the DE player had awful dice and got pretty owned.
Without knowing what actually happened, don't paint the FW units as OP, it takes away from Vince's win that he earned and it further pushes the fear of FW units that is largely rooted in ignorance or a lack of knowledge of what happened. The Sabers were very good, but did not win him the tournament by any stretch of the imagination.
If FW really were OP and ruined events, we wouldn't allow it as we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot and no one would go to our events. That just isn't the case.
The thing is, it's going to be different at every event, too. I read (in this thread?) that the missions you guys use, Reecius, seem to allow flyers to dominate a bit more than the ones used at some other events, such as Nova.
So, maybe Sabers make it a close game in your format where flyers were a bit more powerful, but in the Nova format (where table quarters were emphasized a bit more as the primary, or something?) maybe the Sabers just wreck face.
It's going to be a different for each event depending on tons of factors... but I don't think we'll truly know until folks have had time to build for FW events now that allies are in. The more events allowing full-on FW, the larger the effect will be.
And maybe it will work out fine but it's definitely worth considering the alternatives or possible problems that could arise with such a shift in the general tournament meta.
Edit: Found the quote I was thinking of regarding flyers and the BAO, spoilered below for reference/context to what I said above:
Spoiler:
Phazael wrote:3) Fear of Flyers- Here is where I think the core issue is with Reece. I consider Reece a friend and respect him a lot, but I think he is overly paranoid about flyers in the game. I will even take it a step further and say that the BAO scenario inadvertantly favors flyers more than the standard book scenarios and that were he running scenarios more closely aligned to the book his playtest results would not be scaring the hell out of him in regards to the Cylon Death Fleet army list. I think its pretty telling that with or without FW, no one has won an event since 6th began with a flyer heavy list of any kind, despite all the irrational fear placed on them.
I feel that the game designers want flyers to be strong (they frankly should be, from a realism standpoint) but not game busting. Any army (except the poor nids) can ally the best parts of guard air defense on the cheap and most armies can spam multishot S6-7ish weapons on the cheap, as well. People just want an easy way out and FW gives them that with cheap twin linked Skyfire/Interceptor artilery and hydra guns with the interceptor rule added. Frankly, its frustrating because if I want to take just a couple flyers, some skimmers, or god forbid some jetbikes I am basically handicapping myself in formats that allow forgeworld. In essence, with this much flyer hate you HAVE to spam them to get use out of them. This leaves entire army builds out in the cold, just to punish one or two builds that have not actually won anything yet.
But I also would caveat what you've said with this: 6th edition is very new, and thus allies are very new. So, while allowing FW may have gone well for you in the past for a side event (not the main event if I'm understanding you correctly), you could see a very different environment once people have had time to plan for allies with FW, as mentioned above. I do not think you would see this effect this year- 6th edition is still too new for most folks to have built for it yet.
The big thing here is we have a very different opinion on what our event is about or how others are run. We don't care about "net lists" or "game meta". We don't try to change the rules to create a different gaming environment, we just allow all the rule/units that GW (yep because Forge World is GW). Our event is about having the best tables and scenery outside of Warhammer World and folks can come play 40K with their models. We are focused on the gamers playing the game. How many events offer a sideboard where you can put your display stand next to your table instead of having to put your army, which may cost a lot more than the books, on the floor? This is the stuff that is important to us but not as important to a lot of others.
Going over this thread from the beginning to now I can see there are quite a lot of points for either side so I tried to bring other points to light that seem to be assumed as the norm yet are anything but "Official". The sky hasn't fallen because NOVA used table quarters in a mission or the INAT was accepted by thousands in 5th edition.
My opinion of what works in 6th edition is players show up with the rules for the event known to them and they have a good time.
Look at The Warstore Weekend this year, many different formats and this is just for the 2 core games...
Warhammer Fantasy GT by Showcase Comics - allows Forge World from Tamurkhan book
Warhammer Fantasy Ard Boyz by Showcase Comics - allows Forge World from Tamurkhan book
40K Kill Team Tournaments by Berks Warhammer - skirmish scale 40K MechaniCon 40K Grand Tournament by Gaming Garage - allows all 40KFW
I also agree, that if there is more representation at US stores that it will help get more exposure. When GW US allowed independent retailers to order the books and hosted sales through the US website I saw a HUGE change in the local opinion and what folks were doing about it. We had FW friendly tournaments, young players get excited about great models (not just the game) and one rising star, Joe G, even scored some Golden Daemons including Forge World Best in Show, Chicago 2011! I was sad to see it get pulled from their sales program after only a brief period but it created a very healthy gaming atmosphere and helped develop a better modeller's environment as well.
I know I am completely spoiled but that is because I have one of the best gaming stores in the world in my backyard. Showcase Comics continues to stock some Forge World and helps customers pool orders to get free shipping. Mike's store is where Joe G learned about models and painting techniques. Sometimes you can catch Joe to learn some of his great techniques.
I will also acknowledge that there are gamers who will only use a few models to make a WAAC list but is it any different from any other things that currently go on? If the tournament is based around finding a top game player then perhaps a more specific debate can be started but the broad topics covered here are not worthy of disallowing FW in general as far as I can see.
What I see now of what is the real problem in 6th (or any edition) is players win tournaments with crazy combos, tournaments change rules and nerd rage spews all over the net. I think it is much more important for folks to enjoy themselves and stop trying to take 40K too seriously - it is not a sport and we are not celebrities. It is a miniatures game that really has no grounds to have a tournament scene like the one that exists today yet despite all that we will continue to make cool lists, chat on forums, watch for rumors of the latest cool thing, assemble model kits and play with our toys with lots of other gamers. Take a look at the newest rulebook - 1/2 of a page that talks about Throne of Skulls and that's it! They completely cut out all other references and are getting back to making a more enjoyable game.
Astronomi-con has allowed FW (non-super heavy and non-gargantuan) for each of the past 3 years I have attended, and I understand they have been allowing FW long before that.
For me, the biggest obstacle FW models offer is a lack of familiarity with them. This makes them harder to deal with on the table top, when I have no experience on how they will function and little time to really think hard about it.
That being said, the option was always available to me to investigate all FW models. In this way, I see this being my fault, not the fault of the organizers or event rules.
My experience with FW was positive, even with the feeling of being under-prepared against them.
Hmm, messed up that last paragraph... Let me redo it.
What I meant to say is some events are more focused on winning and a crazy combo might be the ace up your sleeve, Some events refine the rules with their own house rules or FAQs. That's fine but I could deal without the nerdrage. Ok so you got beat by a combo you never saw before or your dice really did suck. I'd like to see less of the whining articles that will drive new players away and more of the articles that will promote the hobby.
Also, RiTides, you refer to NOVA a lot for your examples but didn't they change the rules (their own missions and house rulings which GW clarified with the opposite of their interpretations the following week)? Isn't that even more of an effect on game outcomes that the permission to use Forge World? I don't knock it, just pointing out that your examples do not refer to "GW - Official" tournament rules.
lots of people seem to be getting this horribly wrong or are simply ignoring it.
Word for word
"this unit is intended to be used in "standard" games of warhammer 40,000, within usual force organisation charts. as with all our models these should be considered "official", but owing to the fact they may be unknown to yout oponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game useing forge world models before you start"
now the models are official, permission is not needed to use them, but is polite and damn good manners to inform him before hand, not drop a lucius pod with a contemptor on him and troll lololol, as with ALL 40k games you need to agree on things before hand.
FW is official, permission not needed, be polite and inform your oponent before hand, its all good manners.
RiTides wrote: The thing is, it's going to be different at every event, too. I read (in this thread?) that the missions you guys use, Reecius, seem to allow flyers to dominate a bit more than the ones used at some other events, such as Nova.
So, maybe Sabers make it a close game in your format where flyers were a bit more powerful, but in the Nova format (where table quarters were emphasized a bit more as the primary, or something?) maybe the Sabers just wreck face.
It's going to be a different for each event depending on tons of factors... but I don't think we'll truly know until folks have had time to build for FW events now that allies are in. The more events allowing full-on FW, the larger the effect will be.
And maybe it will work out fine but it's definitely worth considering the alternatives or possible problems that could arise with such a shift in the general tournament meta.
Edit: Found the quote I was thinking of regarding flyers and the BAO, spoilered below for reference/context to what I said above:
Spoiler:
Phazael wrote:3) Fear of Flyers- Here is where I think the core issue is with Reece. I consider Reece a friend and respect him a lot, but I think he is overly paranoid about flyers in the game. I will even take it a step further and say that the BAO scenario inadvertantly favors flyers more than the standard book scenarios and that were he running scenarios more closely aligned to the book his playtest results would not be scaring the hell out of him in regards to the Cylon Death Fleet army list. I think its pretty telling that with or without FW, no one has won an event since 6th began with a flyer heavy list of any kind, despite all the irrational fear placed on them.
I feel that the game designers want flyers to be strong (they frankly should be, from a realism standpoint) but not game busting. Any army (except the poor nids) can ally the best parts of guard air defense on the cheap and most armies can spam multishot S6-7ish weapons on the cheap, as well. People just want an easy way out and FW gives them that with cheap twin linked Skyfire/Interceptor artilery and hydra guns with the interceptor rule added. Frankly, its frustrating because if I want to take just a couple flyers, some skimmers, or god forbid some jetbikes I am basically handicapping myself in formats that allow forgeworld. In essence, with this much flyer hate you HAVE to spam them to get use out of them. This leaves entire army builds out in the cold, just to punish one or two builds that have not actually won anything yet.
Our missions are almost exactly the book missions, we just play 3 at once. There is little to no deviation from the book. I honestly don't think our format favors Flyers more than any other.
I do fear flyers no doubt, and for good reason. In our test games they are dominating. Just devastating, and require very little skill to play well. Introducing AA (which FW offers a ton of) helps to mitigate this a lot.
@Phazeal
No worries brotha, you can criticize me. I know you you're not being personal and I appreciate your input as a very experienced TO and a good player.
One thing that has not been mentioned is that many tournaments are going for battle point scoring only for most of the top prizes. If it was still like the old RTT's used to be where soft scores counted then FW stuff would be much more acceptable, you could get high marks for your awesome models while still not spamming or playing like TFG. All the spamming of only the best units and lists that are just no fun to see on the other side of the table would go down if there were tournaments that rewarded you for modeling, painting, sportsmanship, etc. Now it's all about tabling the guy for max battle points so you can win prizes. The painting and other soft scores are an afterthought now and if they are included in overall scoring the competitive crowd goes ballistic... unless you give them a best (at tabling people) general award that overshadows all the others. IMHO that is why GW has washed their hands of tournaments. Spamming and playing to table people has never been what 40k was supposed to be like to them... or me.
If it was a 1/3,1/3,1/3 with Battle Points, Painting, Sportsmanship for the top prizes at tournaments I think you would see people using FW units in a way that is deemed more acceptable by others. I know this doesn't have as much to do with FW as it does the entire culture of competitive 40k but I was sad to see how tournaments have changed over the past 5-10 years. I think everyone would be willing to see FW units anytime if they were given a way to penalize TFGs who "do it wrong" while still rewarding the hobbyists that are "doing it right". You should be a great all around player, hobbyist, and person to win a tournament... not just the guy with the deepest pockets and greatest knowledge of loopholes in rules.
RiTides wrote: My point was that there's a lag between FW units getting updated and GWFAQs being released. We all know there are old codexes, but they get FAQ'ed at the same time as every other codex. FW books are on their own schedule.
Except they don't get updated. GW's 6th edition updates have been better, yes, but the past trend has been for GW to ignore problems for years at a time and update them inconsistently, if at all.
If you were to run a tournament next week, with full FW allowance, do you see yourself as having to make any special provisions... or do you anticipate it being identical to allowing all codex armies to be used? I am curious if you really perceive there to be no additional challenges, or if you are perceiving those challenges, what steps you would take to deal with them.
The only difference for allowing FW would be that my FAQ would have to be a bit longer.
RiTides wrote: The argument of "GW is broken, too" doesn't make FW less broken.
No, but the point is that the "broken" state of FW is no more broken than the "broken" state of codex stuff, and they're both equally official and intended to be used in normal 40k games. If there's no compelling argument to exclude FW (since it's no worse than the stuff you already allow) then it should be included just like all other official stuff.
Adding more problematic rules, without FAQs, and units to the mix does indeed add problems.
So why don't we ban everything but the starter set marine army? After all, that would mean even fewer problematic rules to worry about. I see no reason to ban some official rules for being problematic but then allow others that are equally problematic.
Oh hey, here's an even better idea. To keep the level of problematic rules the same we can ban all the non-marine armies and then add all the FW marine units. It'll be awesome!
Dozer Blades wrote: So this is basically a laundry list of excuses why it is okay to use FW... like I said it is not fixing anything in the game... just creating more issues. When GW gives it the official green light I will be fully behind it but not until then. This crops up every time a new edition begins.
GW has given the official green light, many times. The only problem is that people refuse to accept that green light and demand their own personal signed and notarized letter from the CEO of GW informing them that it's ok to use FW units in normal 40k.
Why not just make FW units 0-1 if you just want to play with a cool FW toy? What's the drawback? It's worked well for Adepticon, and would be a good stepping stone to more FW acceptance in tournies.
Because I've paid for more than one Vulture gunship, and I'd like to use them? Why should I have to spend another $100+ on buying more Vendettas to replace them with?
I would like to see a statement from GW condoning FW for regular games of 40k. Truth be there isn't one. There has been a lot of talk that they will release such a statement but it is just more talk at the end of the day.
RiTides wrote: I'll state the obvious response to that- most Indy GTs don't allow FW, or allow it but in limited measure.
Reecius' event(s) are the only GT(s) I know of who allow full, unrestricted FW use in the main event. Are there others?
As mentioned before, Adepticon has a tradition of allowing FW, but with restrictions (or unrestricted, but not in the main event).
Edit: To reiterate, I'm talking unrestricted FW use at the main event of a GT... not local tournies. Are there other examples I'm missing?
As I state every time this thread comes up. In Vegas at our Ironman series 1-18 of GT's we always allowed forgeworld including the army lists. In all of the GT's I ran in Flagstaff AZ (Warmaster Series1-5) we allowed Forgeworld. There was never a problem from the use of these rules.
Dozer Blades wrote: I would like to see a statement from GW condoning FW for regular games of 40k. Truth be there isn't one....
Except the one right there in the Games Workshop-published Imperial Armour books, written by staff employed by Games Workshop in their capacity as staff writers, and sold to players through Games Workshop stores.
Seriously, the only reason people can get away with this stupendous case of willful blindness when it comes to FW's status is because they have a separate online storefront to handle their orders.
"this unit is intended to be used in "standard" games of warhammer 40,000, within usual force organisation charts. as with all our models these should be considered "official", but owing to the fact they may be unknown to yout oponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game useing forge world models before you start" Imperial Armor Apocalypse Page 3. (Thanks to the poster above who typed it first.)
This is becoming a wee bit pedantic, FW is legal and a part of 40k. You may dislike it however this thread has shown little compelling reason to ban FW or something of that nature.
- The fact is FW brings exciting and varied options to many armies, especially Tau and Eldar who gain a slew of options. This hobby is about nice toys and FW has a great selection. They are purchasable elements usable in legally sanctioned games..
- It's cognitive dissonance to not allow the full range of current models in a game, people pay good money for these models, money which directly supports the hobby we are all a part of. They have current rules and are more widely available at the moment than the current rules for Sisters of Battle or specific Daemon units. Cost and unfamiliarity cannot be a limiting factor.
- The 'problem' choice hit upon by many is the Sabre defense platform.... PLUS an aegis defense line. The defense line is the force multiplier here. Without it the platforms a bit more naked. Coupled with the fact they are a bit more expensive point wise, this is not as much of an issue. Again think of the top 10 most broken FW units.... then compare them to the top 10 most broken things in the Imperial Guard codex, or the Necrons or Grey Knights. You have these platforms, maybe Breeching Drills, maybe Warp Hunters and Finally Tetras? The list is short and they pale in comparison to things found in every book. People would just about riot if a new FW unit were to come out, one called... Long Fangs, or maybe Grey Hunters.
Dozer Blades wrote: I would like to see a statement from GW condoning FW for regular games of 40k. Truth be there isn't one....
Except the one right there in the Games Workshop-published Imperial Armour books, written by staff employed by Games Workshop in their capacity as staff writers, and sold to players through Games Workshop stores.
Seriously, the only reason people can get away with this stupendous case of willful blindness when it comes to FW's status is because they have a separate online storefront to handle their orders.
This gets argued over again and again.
People would like to see Games Workshop give the OK for Forge World, not Forge World giving the OK for Forge World. And yes, everyone is aware that FW is owned by GW. So why doesn't the GW part of GW give the OK for FW then? And again, if GW is one big happy family why is FW not allowed in official GW tournaments since they are official GW rules?
To give you a real world example: Marijuana is legal in California for medicinal use so you could say that the government is approving marijuana usage. The problem is that it is a federal crime and you will be arrested for marijuana possession because federal law takes precedence over state law. So on one hand you have a government entity saying it is OK to do something, but the larger entity saying that it is not OK to do it.
Blackmoor wrote: People would like to see Games Workshop give the OK for Forge World, not Forge World giving the OK for Forge World. And yes, everyone is aware that FW is owned by GW. So why doesn't the GW part of GW give the OK for FW then?
Because they don't need to. They printed it in the FW books, that's all that they need to do. It's not their fault that a few stubborn people refuse to accept it no matter how many times it's said unless they have a personal signed and notarized letter from the CEO of GW.
(And if you think FW could independently approve their stuff without GW agreeing, that's just absurd. The same people that approve every codex also approved that "this is legal" statement.)
And again, if GW is one big happy family why is FW not allowed in official GW tournaments since they are official GW rules?
Why does the only current US tournament run by GW only allow 500 points of allies? Why do they have weird scoring that has nothing to do with anything in any rulebook or codex? Should we also limit allies to 500 points in every other tournament because that's what GW does in their tournament?
To give you a real world example: Marijuana is legal in California for medicinal use so you could say that the government is approving marijuana usage. The problem is that it is a federal crime and you will be arrested for marijuana possession because federal law takes precedence over state law. So on one hand you have a government entity saying it is OK to do something, but the larger entity saying that it is not OK to do it.
Except the California law is in direct contradiction to the federal law, as it is very clear that federal law takes priority. Not only is there no such hierarchy in GW's rules, but there's also nothing at all saying that FW is illegal. FW is just never mentioned at all outside of the FW books, and the only statement on its legality is that it is 100% official and intended for standard 40k.
I'm in the US, and I own a few Forgeworld upgrade bits but none of the full models they have available. Now here is how I look at it. I have two armies painted up to 2000 points, 1 space marine and 1 tyranid, and I have models for each that I'm still working on to allow flexiablity in my builds.
Now with the cost of FW parts I have very few of them. WIth that alone in mind it's like the rest of my units, as much time and money I put into building my armies I want to be able to field all the units at one time or another and if I have gone out and bought one the boutique FW models for the same monetary cost as my families weekly grocery bill I wanna be able to play it on the table. I'm sorry that you may not have seen the model or ever heard of it before but that's not my issue.
Besides war gaming is all about adapting to the situation at hand. If you know how to play your army then a quick look at the stat line and war gear of an unfamiliar model should be all you need to say, well that's a priority because it can do this or this, or well that is a tertiary target for me because this unit and this unit can do this or that to nullify it or blah blah...
Learn your army well enough and a random FW model will not toss you off your game.
"this unit is intended to be used in "standard" games of warhammer 40,000, within usual force organisation charts. as with all our models these should be considered "official", but owing to the fact they may be unknown to yout oponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game useing forge world models before you start" Imperial Armor Apocalypse Page 3. (Thanks to the poster above who typed it first.)
Which requires an opponent's (or TO's) permission to use... Hence the purpose of this thread, to allow them or not, and if so, when and how much!
Thanks for the many great replies to my comments. I am flying out of town (which is why I'm posting this at 4am lol), so this is all I will add: I love a variety of events, and don't necessarily prefer Nova above others.
Despite my position in this thread (which was originally a reaction to folks pressuring ALL TOs to allow full FW, as if it were a codex, instead of encouraging a variety of events), my favorite event that I played in this year allowed FW: the Adepticon team tourney. My team even won a prize (not for placement!) at it . I am by no means anti-FW... just anti "You MUST allow" FW! Variety in events is a great thing
The team tourney, in particular, was limited FW, which I personally prefer, for all the reasons previously stated.
Again cheers for the thoughts all particularly the TOs who shared their valuable experience on this and the last page
blood lance wrote: Why is it such a big issue just reading the unit profiles before the match? Not to sound aggressive or anything, but from your article, I cant help but think you seem to think everyone in tournaments knows all the rules. I know there are at least 4 armies in this game I know nothing about. The same effect is formed here, but I don't ask to read through the player's codex before the match.
Not to sound aggressive, but I imagine that you don't win many tournaments
The bottom line is that people who are for using Forgeworld in tournaments thinks it would be a great addition to the competitiveness and variety of such an event (or whatever). People who do not want it argue that it may be too expensive, too alien in new rule sets, or simply too imbalancing (or whatever).
Guys, this is a game where we want to have fun even if it is a competitive event. If the majority of players want FW in a tournament and the TOs are okay with it, I'd say challenge yourselves to get others who are not on the bandwagon to see for themselves casually first hand how FW can be a neat addition to an army, especially one that may be limited it what it can do. Proxy models, help build FW orders to get the models in their hands, whatever. If you want FW in tournaments, then you have to work at it.
And don't say it is not your responsibility. We've all tried introducing this game to others and maybe even to Apocalypse level games or to drag a mate or two to a tournament. Think of this as an exercise in making others see a different perspective to the game they never thought of before.
Also, if the majority of players locally along with TOs do not allow FW, then you have to suck it up. A TO ultimately decides to want or not want FW in his or her tournament. The way I see it, it offers a challenge when you have to think outside the box when competitive events are not monotonous, kinda like how MTG has Elder Dragon Highlander, Standard, Extended, ect..
In summary, this is a game and we want to have fun. Talk to TOs and respective players about what you want to play with and then play with what is agreed. There are more things to do than bicker over this particular subject that few want to positively influence.
People would like to see Games Workshop give the OK for Forge World, not Forge World giving the OK for Forge World. And yes, everyone is aware that FW is owned by GW. So why doesn't the GW part of GW give the OK for FW then?
It is simple ... because there is no clear upside for them to do so.
Right now you have:
1. Some folks opposed to the inclusion of FW in standard games of 40k 2. Some folks favor the inclusion of FW in standard games of 40K.
3. The vast majority of people do not care one way or another.
As it stands, those opposed are “happy” because FW is not “official” and those in favor are still buying FW and “happy” because they are “official”. The onus is then not on GW to be the decider but rather the opponents and event TO’s. It is the same reason GW is happy to get out of the “event” game and the blame associated.
GW prints the simple little statement that those opposed require and you have a vocal negative reaction from the “opposed” crowd, threats of rage quitting, cries of how the game is now broken, they can no longer afford to be in the hobby, and every time they would lose to an opponent with FW models they would curse under their breath for GW allowing them etc. The added bonus is right now those in favor have to buy basically more models to cover off on games that they can play with FW and those games in which they can not.
If Forgeworld was “standard” in games of 40K. That would certainly mean more Forgeworld sales but it might also mean less Games Workshop sales. Games Workshop makes more profit on those core Games Workshop sales then they make on whatever percentage Forgeworld is obligated to give them. Just because it is all one big company and all the same pool of money doesn’t mean management does not care how that pool is divided.
They won’t print it until there is a discernible upside for them to do so. Right now that does not exist.
I've found over the past decade plus running events ... If you wait on Games Workshop to officially do something you might be waiting along time. Sometimes you have to seize the opportunity and decide for yourself.
BladeWalker wrote:One thing that has not been mentioned is that many tournaments are going for battle point scoring only for most of the top prizes.
I'm not sure about this. The names of the people winning the battle point race are publicized more, because people want to know what armies are winning games, but I think most RTTs and GTs still offer significant prizes for sportsmanship, appearance, and some other categories. So, no, they're not just about winning and some people still knowingly take inferior models because they look better. I know I do.
Blackmoor wrote:
This gets argued over again and again.
People would like to see Games Workshop give the OK for Forge World, not Forge World giving the OK for Forge World. And yes, everyone is aware that FW is owned by GW. So why doesn't the GW part of GW give the OK for FW then? And again, if GW is one big happy family why is FW not allowed in official GW tournaments since they are official GW rules?
GW now sells the FW books in their own stores. If I buy a book at a GW store and it tells me that it's legal for use in games of 40k, what reason do I have not to believe this?
GW Official tournaments? Few, far between, generally poorly organized, and really not relevant. It's a big company. I don't know what half the divisions at my company are up to at any given time. The people running the "official tournaments" are usually not happy to have been given the task and want to get it over with as quickly as possible, with as little effort as possible. A few years ago they had a debacle where the official tournament ruled one thing when the printed FAQ said something else. I wouldn't get too wrapped up in anything the official tournaments do, because really, other than being run by the company, they're not that official, and their rules aren't written with any great deal of thought. (Actually, it does sound like the rest of the company)
To give you a real world example: Marijuana is legal in California for medicinal use so you could say that the government is approving marijuana usage. The problem is that it is a federal crime and you will be arrested for marijuana possession because federal law takes precedence over state law. So on one hand you have a government entity saying it is OK to do something, but the larger entity saying that it is not OK to do it.
Except that there's nothing published saying they're not legal, and there is something published saying they are. So your analogy doesn't hold up.
Having the rules for the Vraks campaign, and the breaching drills, they have the one shot and yes they can be a surprise, but they are limited in how they get to be used, they do their pop out of the ground once, and then have to survive enemy fire like any other vehicle. So maybe they seemed so potent as they have a multi-melta and were a surprise the first time a player had to deal with being on the receiving end.
Sabre gun platforms, in a tourney? really? those are emplacement platforms for forts and such, I can imagine horde players not liking the ones with multiple heavy volume weapons like the quad of Heavy stubbers and Heavy Bolters, otherwise the other weapons are simply twinlinked for the IG, just a bit better than normal heavy weapons,,,,,,Oh wait, the special order of "Bring it down" make my weapons already twinlinked.
So, these can be killed. The majority of FW stuff I hjave seen in the past were turret upgrades for Chimeras, and I was never afraid to play a guy with twin-linked HB's or an autocannon on a transport, the Eldar codex has scarier weapons on waveserpents.
And I doubt anyone would try to use a titan in a regular tournament fight, that would be nearly all they had on the table is allowed. some FW units are meant as Apoc units.
Others can be used to suck up a slot, like my Valdor, and i would still take and use it as it is a good weapon when it works right, but it also has that feedback issue built in so on top of paying 300+ points for the one tank, I also risk it wrecking it's main gun. Yes, some FW stuff for the points costs are very effective and good,
But now with GW making 50dollar codexes, I may be out of the game anyway.
shasolenzabi wrote: Sabre gun platforms, in a tourney? really? those are emplacement platforms for forts and such, I can imagine horde players not liking the ones with multiple heavy volume weapons like the quad of Heavy stubbers and Heavy Bolters, otherwise the other weapons are simply twinlinked for the IG, just a bit better than normal heavy weapons,,,,,,Oh wait, the special order of "Bring it down" make my weapons already twinlinked.
Just a bit better eh? You forgot things like interceptor and skyfire and toughness 7. It is a big advantage in being twin-linked because you are going to be needing your orders for "Get back in the fight" after your went to ground to get your 2+ cover save.
So, these can be killed.
Sure they can be killed, but at toughness 7 and a 2+ cover save they won't be.
The majority of FW stuff I hjave seen in the past were turret upgrades for Chimeras, and I was never afraid to play a guy with twin-linked HB's or an autocannon on a transport, the Eldar codex has scarier weapons on waveserpents.
If that is what people take to a tournament then sure go ahead, but that is not what people use the IA books for.
Also isn't it possible to go and make almost entire Tau army from the IA books? So that means you have 5 minutes to learn a whole new army?
Blackmoor wrote: Sure they can be killed, but at toughness 7 and a 2+ cover save they won't be.
You mean the same 2+ cover save that gives you a 40% chance of failing to shoot effectively next turn? Let's not forget about that part.
Also isn't it possible to go and make almost entire Tau army from the IA books? So that means you have 5 minutes to learn a whole new army?
Yes, if you're dumb enough to go into a tournament and not bother to learn all of the legal armies/units in advance. Should we also ban the entire Tyranid codex because some guy hasn't bothered to read it yet?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shasolenzabi wrote: And I doubt anyone would try to use a titan in a regular tournament fight, that would be nearly all they had on the table is allowed. some FW units are meant as Apoc units.
There's exactly zero chance of using a titan, since they don't occupy a FOC slot and no army can take them. Unless you're playing Apocalypse (so no FOC and army limits are gone) or specifically agree to allow a titan they can not be used in standard 40k.
I have a large tourny to attend at the end of the month, it does allow for FW units and I am taking some, what am I taking, hyperios defence launchers, gives me some anti tank and anti air which is most needed, I am using the FW models to plug a gap in my army and to be fair I should have took more.
Peregrine wrote: Should we also ban the entire Tyranid codex because some guy hasn't bothered to read it yet?
I know that this point has already been made earlier in the discussion, but if they're so comparable then why does GW ban IA units at its own tournaments yet not ban the Tyranid Codex?
Peregrine wrote: Should we also ban the entire Tyranid codex because some guy hasn't bothered to read it yet?
I know that this point has already been made earlier in the discussion, but if they're so comparable then why does GW ban IA units at its own tournaments yet not ban the Tyranid Codex?
thats an easy one
The Nid book is more widespread, so more people have acess to it on the ground level, the FW books are just as official but not as widespread, so its less work for the T'O to organise.
GW tourny's are not what I would call competative either, there more aimed at a younger player base, I even know of a time where a friend of mine was told off by the T'O for bringing a competative army, GW tourny's are a
bad example so I would stick to the bigger ones, and ask why they ban FW.
Peregrine wrote: Should we also ban the entire Tyranid codex because some guy hasn't bothered to read it yet?
I know that this point has already been made earlier in the discussion, but if they're so comparable then why does GW ban IA units at its own tournaments yet not ban the Tyranid Codex?
The Nid book is more widespread, so more people have acess to it on the ground level, the FW books are just as official but not as widespread.
And there we go. It's not a case of being too lazy and not bothering to read the IA books, it's that they aren't very accessible.
Peregrine wrote: Should we also ban the entire Tyranid codex because some guy hasn't bothered to read it yet?
I know that this point has already been made earlier in the discussion, but if they're so comparable then why does GW ban IA units at its own tournaments yet not ban the Tyranid Codex?
The Nid book is more widespread, so more people have acess to it on the ground level, the FW books are just as official but not as widespread.
And there we go. It's not a case of being too lazy and not bothering to read the IA books, it's that they aren't very accessible.
were talking kids here at GW tourny's, with a smattering of adults, the adults will have easy acess to the rules, kids not so much (unless its little timmy), we as adults can find anything we want online and/or buy it from the source, I have personally bought all the FW books and scanned them onto my pc so i can make a PDF and put them on my Ipod, in a normal game of 40k I see no reason why I cannot use my FW units (within reason), at a tourny I can understand to a certain extent, but as i have said before its all down to the T.O
I was going to say I thought that they were available for the Ipad and then remembered you have to then get an Ipad too. EDIT: And they're not even available for Ipad anyway.
Also, surely saying that you are going to use Forge World in your tournament because those that don't want to buy the book can just access it online is condoning such activity, and I'm pretty sure that that's not what TOs are going to want to be promoting.
They may also be more available than other things simply because they are on the shelves but then it comes back around to the issue of price, and the fact that it will cost you a heck of a lot more to then purchase all of the Imperial Armour books as well. Plus, seeing a unit entry in a book is often very different to actually encountering it on the table, and very few people actually use Forge World at the minute.
Then it could come back to maybe the reason that we aren't seeing as much Forge World is because it is not accepted by the community at large, and a big part of that is the tournament scene. I could possibly understand tournaments saying that they are going to use Forge World but only from one book to start off with, that way no-one has to break the bank to learn all of these new unit entries, just get one book, then we might start to see the units from that book appearing more commonly and people getting more familiar with them, and then if it can be decided whether or not it is a good thing for the community and whether we want to start including more Forge World.
I'm personally on the fence, but I definately don't think that suddenly implementing a huge number of Forge World units into a tournament is the right way to go, I think if Forge World is going to happen it'll have to be a transitional thing.
Rampage wrote: I was going to say I thought that they were available for the Ipad and then remembered you have to then get an Ipad too. EDIT: And they're not even available for Ipad anyway.
Also, surely saying that you are going to use Forge World in your tournament because those that don't want to buy the book can just access it online is condoning such activity, and I'm pretty sure that that's not what TOs are going to want to be promoting.
They may also be more available than other things simply because they are on the shelves but then it comes back around to the issue of price, and the fact that it will cost you a heck of a lot more to then purchase all of the Imperial Armour books as well. Plus, seeing a unit entry in a book is often very different to actually encountering it on the table, and very few people actually use Forge World at the minute.
Then it could come back to maybe the reason that we aren't seeing as much Forge World is because it is not accepted by the community at large, and a big part of that is the tournament scene. I could possibly understand tournaments saying that they are going to use Forge World but only from one book to start off with, that way no-one has to break the bank to learn all of these new unit entries, just get one book, then we might start to see the units from that book appearing more commonly and people getting more familiar with them, and then if it can be decided whether or not it is a good thing for the community and whether we want to start including more Forge World.
I'm personally on the fence, but I definately don't think that suddenly implementing a huge number of Forge World units into a tournament is the right way to go, I think if Forge World is going to happen it'll have to be a transitional thing.
I know what you mean mate, its the price that i think is the restrictive element to it, people of my age generally dont have an issue with it, if they want it of course. Its people on lower income that may have an issue,
Peregrine wrote: Should we also ban the entire Tyranid codex because some guy hasn't bothered to read it yet?
I know that this point has already been made earlier in the discussion, but if they're so comparable then why does GW ban IA units at its own tournaments yet not ban the Tyranid Codex?
The Nid book is more widespread, so more people have acess to it on the ground level, the FW books are just as official but not as widespread.
And there we go. It's not a case of being too lazy and not bothering to read the IA books, it's that they aren't very accessible.
Neither are the rules for the Sisters of Battle, Strorm Talons, Nightspinner, etc. Are you going to ban Sisters of Battle because unless you snagged that WD when it came out there's no place to get the rules but pirating them?
Formosa wrote:
I know what you mean mate, its the price that i think is the restrictive element to it, people of my age generally dont have an issue with it, if they want it of course. Its people on lower income that may have an issue,
The problem here then is that if you bring cost into it, suddenly you realize that the same issues apply to normal GW stuff. Now codex books are going to be $50 right out the gate, 250% of what they were 5 years ago. Imperial Guard and Ork armies typically cost 150-250% of what a Marine army does without Forgeworld at all. Sisters of Battle cost as much or more than Forgeworld DKoK and Elysian infantry.
Reading the rules over and over again will not give you a true understanding of a Units ability until you see it used to great effect. Unless you some kind of genius there is no way you can read through the rules for unit and think up of every singe method of exploiting it.
Peregrine wrote: Should we also ban the entire Tyranid codex because some guy hasn't bothered to read it yet?
I know that this point has already been made earlier in the discussion, but if they're so comparable then why does GW ban IA units at its own tournaments yet not ban the Tyranid Codex?
The Nid book is more widespread, so more people have acess to it on the ground level, the FW books are just as official but not as widespread.
And there we go. It's not a case of being too lazy and not bothering to read the IA books, it's that they aren't very accessible.
Neither are the rules for the Sisters of Battle, Strorm Talons, Nightspinner, etc. Are you going to ban Sisters of Battle because unless you snagged that WD when it came out there's no place to get the rules but pirating them?
No, because at least you can often get the opportunity to get to play against a Sisters of Battle army so that you can learn what each unit does without having to buy the book, whereas someone paying with Forge World is probably only going to be using 1, maybe 2 FW units per game, and what you can learn about the units from that book as a whole is limited.
White Ninja wrote: Reading the rules over and over again will not give you a true understanding of a Units ability until you see it used to great effect. Unless you some kind of genius there is no way you can read through the rules for unit and think up of every singe method of exploiting it.
This was my main point. It introduces an element into the tournament where the "gotcha" factor becomes the primary element by which the player is winning the game. The only way to truly understand a unit is to use it or see it used, outside of the tournament format seeing FW is pretty rare.
Rampage wrote:
No, because at least you can often get the opportunity to get to play against a Sisters of Battle army so that you can learn what each unit does without having to buy the book, whereas someone paying with Forge World is probably only going to be using 1, maybe 2 FW units per game, and what you can learn about the units from that book as a whole is limited.
How much more often are you going get to play against an SoB army who's rules were only available for a month than Forgeworld? I've seen way more forgeworld usage than Sisters of Battle usage in the last year or so in any of the places I've played.
Rampage wrote:
No, because at least you can often get the opportunity to get to play against a Sisters of Battle army so that you can learn what each unit does without having to buy the book, whereas someone paying with Forge World is probably only going to be using 1, maybe 2 FW units per game, and what you can learn about the units from that book as a whole is limited.
How much more often are you going get to play against an SoB army who's rules were only available for a month than Forgeworld? I've seen way more forgeworld usage than Sisters of Battle usage in the last year or so in any of the places I've played.
I've played SoB 3 times since the WD codex came out and no FW. Still, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal and not very reliable. Obviously.
Rampage wrote:
No, because at least you can often get the opportunity to get to play against a Sisters of Battle army so that you can learn what each unit does without having to buy the book, whereas someone paying with Forge World is probably only going to be using 1, maybe 2 FW units per game, and what you can learn about the units from that book as a whole is limited.
How much more often are you going get to play against an SoB army who's rules were only available for a month than Forgeworld? I've seen way more forgeworld usage than Sisters of Battle usage in the last year or so in any of the places I've played.
I've played SoB 3 times since the WD codex came out and no FW. Still, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal and not very reliable. Obviously.
My latter statement yes, but the point still stands, if we're talking about availability, an army list available for one month from White Dwarf with mini's that cost as much as forgeworld models, versus actual forgeworld stuff where you can at least get the books in *some* stores or at least order online, are we really being fair here?
Same with Dark Eldar for years, you couldn't get them in stores, you had to direct order *everything* online, if you went to a shop you'd never know they even existed.
Rampage wrote:
No, because at least you can often get the opportunity to get to play against a Sisters of Battle army so that you can learn what each unit does without having to buy the book, whereas someone paying with Forge World is probably only going to be using 1, maybe 2 FW units per game, and what you can learn about the units from that book as a whole is limited.
How much more often are you going get to play against an SoB army who's rules were only available for a month than Forgeworld? I've seen way more forgeworld usage than Sisters of Battle usage in the last year or so in any of the places I've played.
Since January, I've played against 4 Sisters of Battle armies and I've only played against 1 Forge World unit.
Then, to be honest, I think you have an abnormally high number of SoB players around because I haven't seen 4 different SoB players in 2 and a half years in three major cities while gaming on a weekly basis aside from major gaming cons and myself, and given the sheer number of armies 40k has coupled with the relative obscurity of the army, 4 in one year (assuming you game once or twice a week) would be statistically abnormal for most people.
Not trying to hate on anyone or anything here, just making a point that Sisters of Battle aren't any more accessible in terms of availability of rules, or price, than Forgeworld is.
That's entirely possible, I've noticed a lot of apparent perception differences. GW in the UK for example apparently tends to have lots of middle/high schoolers play 40k, whereas in the US it's not usually until after high school people get into it.
This was my main point. It introduces an element into the tournament where the "gotcha" factor becomes the primary element by which the player is winning the game. The only way to truly understand a unit is to use it or see it used, outside of the tournament format seeing FW is pretty rare.
This seems incorrect. If it were true that the only way to understand a unit was to use it, then every time a new dex was released, it would dominate the first event it was used at. We don't see that. In fact, the whole idea is ludicrous.
This game is not that hard. It is not that complex. You can draw a parallel between any unit and some other unit in the game and have some idea what it's going to do. You cannot name a single FW unit that can't be quickly assimilated as to what it's going to do in the game by anyone with a modicum of tournament experience, and claiming otherwise, or playing dumb about it just to make a case against the models being used is pathetic.
Yeah, I think there is too much stigma over Forge World units.
Its really no different then when a new codex comes out and you play against that thing for the first time.
Except FW actually puts experimental rules up for free on their website for months prior to actually releasing the official version of the unit in an IA book. And some units remain on the free downloads page forever, the rules always free.
I also firmly believe that FW actually has proper playtesting, compared to GW anyway. And their Experimental Rules also give them the opprotunity to guage the audience's reaction to the unit.
As for avaliability, I say that this really isn't a solid argument against them. GW stuff is already in the moderatly expensive range, Forge World books should come at a premium for the quality they deliver. Which is outstanding by the way. Their books and models are beautiful works of art with lots of original fluff, scenerios, and rules. The models are expensive too, so is GW.
Explaining a forge world unit can be as easy as giving someone a minute to look over the rules. Competitive gamers should aready have a balanced list that can handle everything. Forge World doesn't add new elements. If Forge World had extra core rules showing up in the game you might have a point.
using a (non-super heavy)Flyer in a 5th ed game would indeed throw a curve ball at the opponent because competitive 5th ed games didn't have flyers in them. Something so radically different like that would not be acceptable.
But now that Flyers are in the regular rules its all systems green.
Redbeard wrote: This seems incorrect. If it were true that the only way to understand a unit was to use it, then every time a new dex was released, it would dominate the first event it was used at. We don't see that. In fact, the whole idea is ludicrous.
Plus it's hilarious compared to a real competitive game like MTG. So what if a new set came out right before a major tournament with thousands of dollars in cash prizes at stake, it's your responsibility to do the playtesting required (including proxies if you need to) and understand everything. If you lose because you were too lazy to playtest properly and didn't understand every detail of the new cards nobody is going to have any sympathy for you. Oh, and playtesting consists of "spend several hours a day playing every matchup over and over again with small tweaks in your deck", not "play a game occasionally with your friends".
Only in 40k do we see this kind of sense of entitlement that you should be able to skip playtesting entirely and just show up on tournament day and expect to win.
Been lurking this thread, and it's disappointing how some (not the TOs) continue to demand near universal acceptance of FW, as if it were the Tau codex.
Variety in events is good. Enjoy the events that allow FW, but don't demand that all match your view. It's up to the TO... and many have posted why they allow it.
There are reasons not to, and both sides have been exhausted by now... the conversation is starting to go in circles. Live and let live!
/goes to browse absurdly priced, but beautiful, Horus Heresy FW pics
Peregrine wrote: Oh, and playtesting consists of "spend several hours a day playing every matchup over and over again with small tweaks in your deck", not "play a game occasionally with your friends".
RiTides wrote: Variety in events is good. Enjoy the events that allow FW, but don't demand that all match your view. It's up to the TO... and many have posted why they allow it.
So by that rule we should be happy and encourage people to run tournaments where entire codices are banned at random just because it adds variety? Should we petition every TO in our area to ban our codex to maintain "variety" when people in other areas allow it?
I don't know about you, but I think we should play 40k as published by GW, not 40k with a bunch of house rules from people who think they know better than GW about what armies you should be allowed to play.
And in my opinion 40k "as published by GW" includes the main rulebook and codices, with supplemental material like Apocalypse, Planetsrike, etc. if you're bored with the core game and want to try something new. The way I see it Forge World is like an expansion, it's designed for use with 40k rules but obviously isn't part of the "core", supported by the fact that you can't buy it in stores or on GW's main website.
By your logic we might as well allow everything with a 40k logo on it. If you argue that FW should be legal in all events then why can't I make the same argument for the scenarios in Battle Missions or Planetstrike? Why should the TO dictate the missions after all, what makes him think he knows any better than GW? Why can't I bring Apocalypse units and formations, Apocalypse is 40k so it's obviously all balanced and meant to be used in regular games, and it's a 40k tournament after all.
GW owns forgeworld. Forgeworld has a stamp "40k approved unit" an the bottom of any unit that is approved for 40k games. FW unit development team is simply another team in GW. We still install Microsoft updates even though they were produced by another team from the team that developed windows 7, so in the same way forgeworld is legitimate in games of normal 40k.
Now as to what TO's should do, thats up to them. We had a big discussion at my lgs when 12 of the 31 entries were GK about a month after necrons came out and of the top 10, only 2 were not GK (me in eldar and a regular with chaos demons). Same discussion goes on here, should you limit or ban FW.
I say ban a few of the rediculous units, but keep the vast majority. Dred drop pods are pretty silly when you consider that BA can get them and they are so cheap. The new pred infernus with the magna melta is pretty OP with a multimelta large blast weapon for 120. The Vulture with its TL punisher cannon, vector thrusting, hover mode for 150 points is just silly. However, the vast majority of other units are fine and very good additions to the game.
FW allows me to run eldar with a decent chance to compete with more modern codexes. The eldar book has been hit by so many nerfs in 6th that im migrating entirely to the Corsairs book (IA11) and taking eldar only as allies. Without FW i have to rely on overcosted units(harlequins, rangers, jetbikes) with overcosted transports (WS, falcons) and underpowered long ranged AT options (prisms, ranged Wraithlords).
Adding to your Sisters argument, we have ZERO sisters players at my lgs. I have seen one sisters player in about 25 tournies in the largest game shop in 300 miles. We have quite a number of FW models though, from the tau prototype commander to the cestus assault ram to the LR achiles to the scattering of contemptor dreds in multiple armies. I even saw one of those necron tomb stalker MC things in a tourney back before crons new codex. Just because you are not experienced with a unit does not mean you should ban them from tournies. I dont know SoB and i have never faced a BT player in competitive play, so should they also be banned?
Saber platforms are only strong when you compare them to HV weapons teams which are very weak. Compare them to vendettas and they dont look so amazing.
Progress is inevitable and that is what the OP is rallying against.
With exposure to FW, at all levels of play, your main concern over the limited knowledge of FW units and their synergy within the current roster of armies lessens greatly. The fact that you propose that it only be allowed at the highest levels of competition actually blunts that process.
Lastly, the availability of FW units based upon cost is ridiculous. Where do you set the standard? What if someone cannot afford flyers? Should flyers now be considered exclusively for the highest levels of competition? That almost soinds like a socialist view basing the availaibilty of units upon the ability of the gamers able to purchase them.
As I said, progress is inevitable. Gamers of all levels can and will eventually absorb and overcome the knowledge gap that you believe exists. It is already underway and a prime example is displayed by those weapon platforms mentioned earlier in the thread. People will read or hear about those battle reports and that information will be dessimated and absorbed for the next tournament that an opponent puts them in a list.
In the end youpersonally can choose to attend or not attend events that allow or disallow FW, however standing in the way of inevitable progress will just have you being runover. Pick and choose, but accepting that FW is becoming part of Warhanner 40k now will allow you to begin filling your own knowledge gap of FW.
zephoid wrote: FW unit development team is simply another team in GW.
Who don't actually collaborate at all with the team from GW who writes the core rules for 40k and all the codices. It's really no different (at least in my opinion) from a group like BoLS writing their own codices for use with 40k, the only difference is GW owns FW and can put the "official" stamp on them.
zephoid wrote: I say ban a few of the rediculous units, but keep the vast majority.
And I say there's no reason that shouldn't apply to all GW codexes as well.
Except there's nothing in 40k codices that comes off as being so incredibly broken that it deserves outright banning. The main cause of 40k's imbalance isn't some codices being too good, it's others being too bad. And then the poorly-thought-out allies matrix which feths things up even more, but nothing we can do about that until 7th now.
Sidstyler wrote: And in my opinion 40k "as published by GW" includes the main rulebook and codices, with supplemental material like Apocalypse, Planetsrike, etc. if you're bored with the core game and want to try something new. The way I see it Forge World is like an expansion, it's designed for use with 40k rules but obviously isn't part of the "core", supported by the fact that you can't buy it in stores or on GW's main website.
GW's webstore has nothing to do with gameplay...you can't get every legal codex unit off their either, does that mean it shouldn't be playable?
By your logic we might as well allow everything with a 40k logo on it. If you argue that FW should be legal in all events then why can't I make the same argument for the scenarios in Battle Missions or Planetstrike? Why should the TO dictate the missions after all, what makes him think he knows any better than GW? Why can't I bring Apocalypse units and formations, Apocalypse is 40k so it's obviously all balanced and meant to be used in regular games, and it's a 40k tournament after all.
Most Forgeworld stuff is designed to be used with the existing core rules and existing codex books or on their own without modification to the core rules in any way. You can use a Forgeworld Leman Russ Annihilator without needing a new FoC chart, you can play a Death Korps Siege Regiment list without needing Strategems or new missions. It can all be set up and played identically to a game where only codex stuff is used, nothing is different. Apocalypse, Planetstrike, etc all require a change to the primary rules to function. Forgeworld does not, no more than Codex: Space Marines does.
zephoid wrote: FW unit development team is simply another team in GW.
Who don't actually collaborate at all with the team from GW who writes the core rules for 40k and all the codices. It's really no different (at least in my opinion) from a group like BoLS writing their own codices for use with 40k, the only difference is GW owns FW and can put the "official" stamp on them.
Except their books are published at GW headquarters, their copyright and publisher is not "Forgeworld" but very specifically "Games Workshop". When you buy a Forgeworld model, it's copyright symbol says Games Workshop, not Forgeworld. The distinction you are making here is one based on GW's internal corporate structure, not one based on the the rules or the company's intent.
Sidstyler wrote: And in my opinion 40k "as published by GW" includes the main rulebook and codices, with supplemental material like Apocalypse, Planetsrike, etc. if you're bored with the core game and want to try something new. The way I see it Forge World is like an expansion, it's designed for use with 40k rules but obviously isn't part of the "core", supported by the fact that you can't buy it in stores or on GW's main website.
The people who actually make 40k have clearly stated otherwise, that FW rules are intended for use in standard40k, not as an expansion.
By your logic we might as well allow everything with a 40k logo on it. If you argue that FW should be legal in all events then why can't I make the same argument for the scenarios in Battle Missions or Planetstrike? Why should the TO dictate the missions after all, what makes him think he knows any better than GW? Why can't I bring Apocalypse units and formations, Apocalypse is 40k so it's obviously all balanced and meant to be used in regular games, and it's a 40k tournament after all.
You can't bring Planetstrike stuff in 40k because it has an entirely separate scenario with different FOCs, different gameplay rules, etc. It is not possible to play a Planetstrike game while your opponent plays standard 40k.
You can't bring Battle Missions stuff because the TO picks the missions, and the players have no say in it. If the TO wants to run missions from that book there is no problem with it.
You can bring Apocalypse units and formations when you can tell me how you add them to your army.
You CAN bring FW units without changing the core rules of the game, just like you can choose between codex units without changing the game. And in fact that's what GW tells you to do, the units are for standard 40k and all of them clearly state which armies can take them and what FOC slot they occupy.
Dred drop pods are pretty silly when you consider that BA can get them and they are so cheap.
BA can't take them. This is why it's important to actually know the FW rules when you're discussing them, not just second-hand rumors of what they do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote: Who don't actually collaborate at all with the team from GW who writes the core rules for 40k and all the codices. It's really no different (at least in my opinion) from a group like BoLS writing their own codices for use with 40k, the only difference is GW owns FW and can put the "official" stamp on them.
And that's the only difference that matters. Whether you like their development process (which clearly doesn't work as you claim it does, since they released their first 6th edition book early enough that they had to have collaborated on it) or not doesn't change the fact that GW has clearly said that's how things are.
Kaldor wrote: Except there's nothing in 40k codices that comes off as being so incredibly broken that it deserves outright banning. The main cause of 40k's imbalance isn't some codices being too good, it's others being too bad. And then the poorly-thought-out allies matrix which feths things up even more, but nothing we can do about that until 7th now.
Err, lol? Do you even play the same 40k that the rest of us do? There are horribly broken units in 40k, and the only reason we accept them is because banning is a last resort that few people are willing to use. If those same units were published by FW instead of in a codex you'd be whining about how overpowered they are and how it would ruin the game to allow them.
RiTides wrote: Been lurking this thread, and it's disappointing how some (not the TOs) continue to demand near universal acceptance of FW, as if it were the Tau codex.
Variety in events is good. Enjoy the events that allow FW, but don't demand that all match your view. It's up to the TO... and many have posted why they allow it.
There are reasons not to, and both sides have been exhausted by now... the conversation is starting to go in circles. Live and let live!
/goes to browse absurdly priced, but beautiful, Horus Heresy FW pics
How is it disappointing? That's an offensive and presumptuous remark to make. Are people who want FW to be allowed some how inferior to those who are against it? Because that is how you're coming off right now.
I dont think hes coming off like that at all. Hes simply saying, let the tournys that allow FW allow them, and the ones that dont, dont. I agree with that. I mostly play for fun of the game, and seeing my horde on the table. I wouldnt however, like to play in a tourny that allows some incredibly over priced FW unit, that in many opinions, is undercosted, kick my pants off because I cant/dont want to afford the FW counter that also costs a boat load of money. So if all tournys allowed this, I most definitely wouldnt want to play in a tourny ever. Simply because again, I wouldnt have fun getting my face kicked in by what I previously mentioned
It's nice to go to the Odd Tournament and see Ork Deff/ MEGA Dreads or Storm-Eagles etc etc.
It's also nice to have tournaments that are GW core range only so no FW stuff.
The problem comes when there is a blurring of the lines. Better to have some Tournaments that do and some that don't, exceptions just end up being abused.
WAAC players make up a good portion of Tourney Play, they come to these events because they want the Silverware. People seek to exploit the RAW anyway they can, like someone the other day saying that if he fires his Leman Russ Battle Cannon (Ordance) last, he doesn't have to snap fire the other weapons and can use the full BS because the Rules say the if you fire the Battle Cannon first.... Fecking nonsense.
It's nice to go to the Odd Tournament and see Ork Deff Dreads or Storm-Eagles etc etc.
Deff Dreads are in the Ork Codex.
Guessing maybe this is why people laugh when people say "It's because you cannot identify the stuff from forgeworld!" When people barely know whats in each others codex's.
RiTides wrote: Been lurking this thread, and it's disappointing how some (not the TOs) continue to demand near universal acceptance of FW, as if it were the Tau codex.
Variety in events is good. Enjoy the events that allow FW, but don't demand that all match your view. It's up to the TO... and many have posted why they allow it.
There are reasons not to, and both sides have been exhausted by now... the conversation is starting to go in circles. Live and let live!
/goes to browse absurdly priced, but beautiful, Horus Heresy FW pics
I was thinking the same thing. I dont see this discussion going anywhere further. The pro FW people will likely never have an arguement that the anti FW people will accept and vice versa. As long as tournaments are ran by independant 3rd parties, FW will NEVER be 100% allowed. Even if GW makes FW completely 100% legal in all games no matter what, a TO will still be able to disallow FW units.
It's nice to go to the Odd Tournament and see Ork Deff Dreads or Storm-Eagles etc etc.
Deff Dreads are in the Ork Codex.
Guessing maybe this is why people laugh when people say "It's because you cannot identify the stuff from forgeworld!" When people barely know whats in each others codex's.
WAAC players make up a good portion of Tourney Play,
I think this is a misconception about "tournament" and "competive" play.
The reality, from my experiences is most the people are just looking at a tourney as an opportunity to get a lot of games in on a weekend, hang out with people they don't see all that often and scratch that hobby itch that for whatever reason doesn't get scratched near as often anymore. Be it work or family obligations.
That is the majority and just like your local gaming group or 40k league at your LGS .. you got about the same mix of guys at these events.
The difference is think about your own local gaming group ... if you have 1 very vocal competitive player out of 10 at your LGS he is less of issue because you all know him and while he might come off as a jerk or an over competitive prick you know the real guy and he's ok. because he's your over competitive jerk.... at AdeptiCon .. you may get 180 of that guy and you don't know them all that well because in reality just like the one at your store ... they are not that bad of guys ...: ) What can get overlooked is the other 1600+ players as those 180 like to make alot of noise.
Anyways .. best a topic discussed in another thread .. : )
It's hard to look at what Forgeworld is doing .. and not want to see it on the table. But it is clear that it's up to the TO's and up to those that want to support FW use to attend events and formats that allow it.
Competitive doesn't mean WAAC. Win at Any Cost is the type of person who bends the rules all the time, trys to force the issue of being silly and then trying to be concilliatory by saying things like "Well lets roll for it, 4+ I'm right" even though their contention is utter nonsense.
I'm a fair player, I like competitive play, but some people try to claim silly things for an advantage and if you don't have a Very good knowledge of the rules and all the Codexes you may not have the confidence or even the time to call them out on it.
This is what WAAC players prey on, 50% of the time they get slapped down, 50% of the time they get away with it. Competitive is not the same as WAAC. A good example was a player who forgot to roll for reserves but moved a unit. I was pretty straight with him, saying he had made a mistake and I gave him a chance to put the unit back and start his turn again, he looked confused didn't see what I was driving at and then just continued with a 2nd unit move. When he realised his mistake he then said "I'm going to roll for Reserves now", er no. He got really crappy about it, I had already given him an out, he failed to take it, then tried to get the tournament organisers involved and then proceeded to sulk throughtout the game and had the audacity to blame me for him being 6th in the results and not higher.
And when I said I was disappointed, it's because the TOs posting here aren't pushing for every event to allow FW, just the ones that want to. No matter how reasonable the reasons are for its inclusion, or the counters to arguments against it, it is still opponent (i.e. TO!) permission required.
To keep saying that it is like not allowing the Tau codex and ignoring reality there a bit is what I thought was disappointing.
As I said earlier- pro-FW inclusion folks saying anti-FW ones are scared, inexperienced, etc just leads to the opposite label being thrown: that pro-FW folks are WAAC. Neither is necessarily true, as muwhe says!! Labels don't help anything.
What is true is that, unlike the Tau codex, an opponent (or TO) must allow FW to be used in an event. That's why we had this thread. But to use labels (on either side) does not advance the discussion. Again, highly agree with muwhe's post above!
Even the part about wanting to see Some FW in more tournaments . But as kronk said earlier, it bothers me when people demand all events do this, instead of rightfully leaving it up to the TO. Remember, variety in events is a good thing!
Vaktathi wrote: Except their books are published at GW headquarters, their copyright and publisher is not "Forgeworld" but very specifically "Games Workshop". When you buy a Forgeworld model, it's copyright symbol says Games Workshop, not Forgeworld. The distinction you are making here is one based on GW's internal corporate structure, not one based on the the rules or the company's intent.
I'd like to know what the company's real "intent" is then, because the whole reason this argument keeps coming up is because they refuse to be clear about it. Even that little blurb that everyone's quoting as hard evidence that GW intend for players to force FW on their unsuspecting opponents consider FW rules "official", it still says to discuss it with your opponent before the game, indicating that playing with FW rules could cause issues and that it's good to make sure your opponent is happy to play against them first...basically you're still asking for "permission", because I highly doubt they really want you to make people play with FW rules if they aren't happy to play against them.
If they really "intended" for it to be treated no differently from any regular codex then they've failed, because that's exactly what they're doing, and what they've kinda done from the start. There shouldn't be a blurb at all if that's the case, and if there is, it should explicitly state that they're no different from codices and that they're all tournament legal.
Until then, this argument is never gonna stop, it's just going to be the same people saying the same thing over and over. GW probably likes watching us argue over this gak, because they could very easily end this debate once and for all by being a little more decisive, but they deliberately choose not to. It's always "FW is official, but...", and that's what causes problems. If that's what they really want then why not say so?
Variety in events is a good thing, but why are you attaching whether or not Forgeworld is allowed to that concept of variety? If the only variety you have between events is what units are allowed, well that's pretty crappy variety and certainly not a selling point of those events.
You started out in this thread actually arguing points, but once those were rebutted you've resorted to lurking in and making outlandish claims like "it's good some events don't allow Forgeworld, that's variety!" and then insulting the pro-FW crowd by saying that you're disappointed they don't agree with you.
It doesn't really matter though, this thread is starting to get circular. Any point each side actually wants to make is probably already out there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KingCracker wrote: I dont think hes coming off like that at all. Hes simply saying, let the tournys that allow FW allow them, and the ones that dont, dont. I agree with that. I mostly play for fun of the game, and seeing my horde on the table. I wouldnt however, like to play in a tourny that allows some incredibly over priced FW unit, that in many opinions, is undercosted, kick my pants off because I cant/dont want to afford the FW counter that also costs a boat load of money. So if all tournys allowed this, I most definitely wouldnt want to play in a tourny ever. Simply because again, I wouldnt have fun getting my face kicked in by what I previously mentioned
Can you actually name such a unit?
And by your logic you should be incredibly annoyed with the Necron Air Force list and other three cheese lists from the past. Are you refusing to play against those as well?
zephoid wrote: Dred drop pods are pretty silly when you consider that BA can get them and they are so cheap. The new pred infernus with the magna melta is pretty OP with a multimelta large blast weapon for 120. The Vulture with its TL punisher cannon (20 shots S5 Bs4 TL), strafing run, vector thrusting, hover mode for 150 points is just silly.
Codex units are build around the concept that Force org conflicts will often limit the number of units you can take from that slot. See Tyranid's Elite slot with hive guard, zoans, and ymargls , guard HS slot with mants and medusa, tau HS with broadsides, SWHS or elite with longfangs and Lone Wolves, or GKHS with DK and Psydreds. FW models are put out without that consideration and, most times, without intense playtesting that codexes go through. 30% of FW models are just overcosted, another 65% are balanced, and just a few slip by and are undercosted. Removing or limiting the undercosted units to 1/army means you are left with a change of pace without effecting the overall power level of the game, which should be what FW are for.
zephoid wrote: . Dred drop pods are pretty silly when you consider that BA can get them and they are so cheap.
If you are referring to the lucius pattern drop pod, BA are most certainly not allowed them. The allowable codecies are listed in Imperial Armor Apocalypse Second Edition.
This seems to continue to go around in a circle as RiTides pointed out.
To address whoever it was that said my OP was railing against progress that is not correct. As I have asserted several times, and so has RiTides, I will and do play in events that allow FW. What I am railing against is the idea that all tournaments should allow FW. There is no need to have all tournaments allow FW.
The constant comparison between disallowing FW being the same as disallowing an actual codex is ridiculous. The two aren't even close to comparable. A codex is put out by Games Workshop to be used with the current rules for Warhammer 40,000. Imperial Armor books are put out by Forgeworld to be used with the current Warhammer 40,000 rule set. They are not the same.
Again I am not saying FW should be banned from all tournaments. I am saying there are legitimate reasons on both sides and that TOs should give ample thought, and ask their constituency what they think, prior to allowing or not allowing FW at their events. My post on here and C&C was a response to what Reecius wrote on BoLS the only intent of which was to bring the opposing view point out as well.
Unfortunately it seems there is no room for compromise in some minds, on both sides, and so we continue to go in circles. I would like to point out however that the number of mistakes made by posters in regards to FW rules, and what is or is not a FW unit is anecdotal evidence showing that the FW rules are not well known and can be slightly confusing.
Anyway, unless the cyclical nature of the conversation breaks I will probably join RiTides and Reecius in the lurker category of this thread.
OverwatchCNC wrote: This seems to continue to go around in a circle as RiTides pointed out.
A codex is put out by Games Workshop to be used with the current rules for Warhammer 40,000. Imperial Armor books are put out by Games Workshops Forgeworld division to be used with the current Warhammer 40,000 rule set. They are the same.
Amaya- Some TOs made great points that made me change my position after a bit of thought...
Variety is good- who said anything about that being only FW? We talked about mission and objective selection varying, too.
Perhaps "disappointed" was unnecessarily inflammatory language to use on my part... Sorry about that.
As Overwatch says, I just don't want to see people pressure full FW acceptance in all events. They're optional, and this thread has shown me fantastic reasons to allow them And go to events that do.
But they are not the Tau codex. No TO is claiming they are. And that got my back up... So, sorry for sounding condescending... I really like to think I'm not a jerk
But the fact that I've been convinced to modify my stance should show these threads are not all in vain
RiTides wrote: Amaya- Actually, some TOs made great points that made me reconsider my position. Variety is good- who said anything about that being only FW? We talked about mission and objective selection varying, too.
Perhaps "disappointed" was unnecessarily inflammatory language to use on my part... Sorry about that.
As Overwatch says, I just don't want to see people pressure full FW acceptance in all events. They're optional, and this thread has shown me fantastic reasons to allow them / go to events that do.
But they are not the Tau codex. No TO is claiming they are. And that got my back up... So, sorry for sounding condescending... I really like to think I'm not a jerk
We had a long discussion in our club preceding the decision to allow Forgeworld into our tournaments. In the end it came down to this:
Pros:
1) We had all the books available
2) People wanted to be able to play with their toys
3) It adds variety to the game
4) It breaks up the meta
5) It allows for some awesome and fun armies you never see otherwise
Cons:
1) Not everyone was familiar with the rules for forgeworld units
2) Not everyone had access to Forgeworld models
We now have a pool to create FW orders. You pay into it for what you want +5% and tell the person placing the order a list of things you want. Once we reach the minimum for free shipping, we place the order.
This has allowed us as a club to get more familiar with FW models and greatly driven up its acceptance in casual games. After that it was not much of a leap to allow it in tournaments. There have been no complaints of broken units, but only positive feedback saying that people were happy to be able to play with cool units.
I think that's great . You beat my edit. This thread has made me change my stance.
But it hasn't made me think everyone must allow FW, or that it's equivalent to a codex. I think yours, and similar solutions for tournies instead of clubs, is fantastic.
Yours in particular was a gradual solution, and personally I think that's best. I loved a single FW allowance at Adepticon... Maybe I'll brave a full FW event next! We'll see
RiTides wrote: I think that's great . You beat my edit. This thread has made me change my stance.
But it hasn't made me think everyone must allow FW, or that it's equivalent to a codex. I think yours, and similar solutions for tournies instead of clubs, is fantastic.
We don't have a blanket house rule saying "Though Shall Allow Forgeworld In Causal Games", and we generally tell our playing partners before the game. It generally is not a game stopping issue though. I know from experience, because my Nurgle Demons use Blight Drones, Decimators and a Plague Hulk. We don't allow Experimental units into tournaments though.
zephoid wrote: . Dred drop pods are pretty silly when you consider that BA can get them and they are so cheap.
If you are referring to the lucius pattern drop pod, BA are most certainly not allowed them. The allowable codecies are listed in Imperial Armor Apocalypse Second Edition.
A Dreadnought Drop Pod is a dedicated transport choice for any type of Space Marine Dreadnought in Space Marine, Dark Angel, Black
Templar, Space Wolf and Blood Angels Armies, please refer to the appropriate codex
zephoid wrote: . Dred drop pods are pretty silly when you consider that BA can get them and they are so cheap.
If you are referring to the lucius pattern drop pod, BA are most certainly not allowed them. The allowable codecies are listed in Imperial Armor Apocalypse Second Edition.
A Dreadnought Drop Pod is a dedicated transport choice for any type of Space Marine Dreadnought in Space Marine, Dark Angel, Black
Templar, Space Wolf and Blood Angels Armies, please refer to the appropriate codex
And, as I just told you, that is out of date per the more recently released Imperial Armour Apocalypse Second Edition.
The cost went up, it not takes up a force org slot, there are rules about assaulting out of it (doesn't work 1/6th of the time) and BA CANNOT take them.
Yep. If you want to run Imperial Armor in your tournaments, you REALLY need to know what is the most recent IA entry for the model/unit in question. Otherwise, confusion like this can happen. The fact that there exists a book called Imperial Armor Apocalypse 2 and then then went and released Imperial Armor Apocalypse Second edition REALLY irks me.
It would have been far less confusing to call it 3, I think.
OverwatchCNC wrote: This seems to continue to go around in a circle as RiTides pointed out.
To address whoever it was that said my OP was railing against progress that is not correct. As I have asserted several times, and so has RiTides, I will and do play in events that allow FW. What I am railing against is the idea that all tournaments should allow FW. There is no need to have all tournaments allow FW.
The constant comparison between disallowing FW being the same as disallowing an actual codex is ridiculous. The two aren't even close to comparable. A codex is put out by Games Workshop to be used with the current rules for Warhammer 40,000. Imperial Armor books are put out by Forgeworld to be used with the current Warhammer 40,000 rule set. They are not the same.
Again I am not saying FW should be banned from all tournaments. I am saying there are legitimate reasons on both sides and that TOs should give ample thought, and ask their constituency what they think, prior to allowing or not allowing FW at their events. My post on here and C&C was a response to what Reecius wrote on BoLS the only intent of which was to bring the opposing view point out as well.
Unfortunately it seems there is no room for compromise in some minds, on both sides, and so we continue to go in circles. I would like to point out however that the number of mistakes made by posters in regards to FW rules, and what is or is not a FW unit is anecdotal evidence showing that the FW rules are not well known and can be slightly confusing.
Anyway, unless the cyclical nature of the conversation breaks I will probably join RiTides and Reecius in the lurker category of this thread.
I am not so much as saying that you are standing in the way of progress, but that is where the game appears to be trending after all these years. FW is becoming more and more accepted and it is just a matter of time that accepting FW will be the norm for all tournaments. Playing a tournament without FW will be akin to people that insist on playing 3rd edition Warhammer 40k. They will become the minority versus the number that will accept FW.
White Ninja wrote: Reading the rules over and over again will not give you a true understanding of a Units ability until you see it used to great effect. Unless you some kind of genius there is no way you can read through the rules for unit and think up of every singe method of exploiting it.
This was my main point. It introduces an element into the tournament where the "gotcha" factor becomes the primary element by which the player is winning the game. The only way to truly understand a unit is to use it or see it used, outside of the tournament format seeing FW is pretty rare.
This is no different than playing against a new codex. Or playing against someone who uses a unit in a clever way that you didn't think of. Sometimes you are going to be "gotcha'd". But if a FW unit turns out to be super good, then you will see it on the tabletop and you will learn how to play against it the same way you learn to play against these other things. With experience!
The mitigating factor here is that you can practice against a new codex with proxies, but what would be stopping you from doing the same with FW units? There is definitely too much fear mongering going on here about the unknown. The units will prove themselves or they will die out. It's part of an evolving metagame and I for one welcome our new resin overlords!
RiTides wrote: Grimtooth, I disagree that full FW allowance in all tournies is inevitable. Who knows what the future will bring!
True, but it will probably end up being more common then not.
On the GT level I think most people are actually ok with FW being more common than uncommon. On the local RT level I would personally like the reverse to be true, with neither GTs or RTs going 100% one way or the other.
I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.
Oaka wrote: I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.
I think almost no one will ban models used as Count's As, or models that are just cooler versions of GW models(like using a FW dreadnought model)
Oaka wrote: I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.
I regularly used my Forgeworld Ultramarine Dread and Vulnerable Dreads with Rifleman Arms... no one ever thought that I was using them as something different... tournament or not.
Oaka wrote: I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.
I regularly used my Forgeworld Ultramarine Dread and Vulnerable Dreads with Rifleman Arms... no one ever thought that I was using them as something different... tournament or not.
I'm also confused by that statement. Do you have a specific example of what your local tournaments won't let you use in a counts-as basis? I use my Forge World Black Templar dreadnought every time I field a dreadnought, but I suppose that's not really a counts as.
I think I can safely say that any TO that disallows a FW alternative to a codex model like a dreadnought or door kit is someone you don't want to support with your entry fee.
Oaka wrote: I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.
I am not sure about that. I would have a hard time supporting any TO or tournament that didn't allow me to use a FW dread in a game. I use a FW Space Wolf Venerable dread as my Bjorn, I modeled the fist to have claws like Bjorn. I was told I could use my Contemptor as a normal dread or my HH Mk III or Mk VI marines as regular marines.
I've never heard of someone disallowing FW MODELS, just the rules.
The crux of the argument, of course, is whether a TO is "disallowing" them or "allowing" them ... whether the standard requires disallowance or allowance.
I think the fact that the rules still say you should make sure your opponent is comfortable playing with them (aka, ask your opponent's permission) implies TO's have to make the call here.
The funny thing is people who read that quote and claim it says "see opponent's permission no longer matters."
I'm undecided about how we'll handle this issue next year at NOVA '13. I also am really excited as a hobbyist about the Horus Heresy series. Presently we allow FW in some events and not in others, following leads of events like AdeptiCon.
While I enjoy the discussion about whether it is or isn't balanced, I'm not sure that's actually relevant. The cost to prepare issue is one I personally find relevant (as I know how much our attendees already spend to prepare). There are a lot of good points on both sides ... that's why there's a discussion at all.
The only thing I'm passionately in agreement with is the notion that people should not be claiming automatic rightness in pressuring TO's as a whole to allow OR disallow FW. In fact, that kind of pressure goes explicitly against the very nature of the FW40k stamp rules - the requirement that you make sure your opponent is comfortable using them. When it comes to "comfortable or not" for a tournament setting, that's quite unavoidably the TO's determination to make ... not FW's, or GW's, or pushy internets types (in EITHER direction).
Quote in question, btw, after stating that they are now official:
Forgeworld wrote:but owing to the fact they may be unknown to yout oponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game useing forge world models before you start"
This applies just as much to pick-up games. The rules require you to ask an opponent at a local game store who you don't even know if he's happy to play with Forgeworld rules. If he says, NO, I don't know them at all, I'm not happy with that ... he's NOT the douche for saying no. Social pressure on rules that give free choice to both answers is uncool.
This quote from the actual rules is also why there's no comparison between Codex and FW/IA. People can't refuse to let you play with a part of your codex that they're not as familiar with. They can refuse to play with a part of FW rules they aren't familiar with.
This also of course highlights the only real question - FW's officiality and playability isn't restricted by balance issues, or cost issues, or any of that. It's restricted by familiarity. Therein lies the rub for me - do participants have a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with the various FW rules? MOST people won't develop an encyclopedic familiarity with every Codex or even the Rulebook, but they have a very reasonable opportunity to do so, should they so choose. Even local Game Stores, and all GW's, have free readable copies of all the codices/rulebook. The same cannot as easily be said about FW. The breadth to which you permit FW use in your tourneys, then, is directly related to this question as a TO, IMO.
Oaka wrote: I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.
I regularly used my Forgeworld Ultramarine Dread and Vulnerable Dreads with Rifleman Arms... no one ever thought that I was using them as something different... tournament or not.
I'm also confused by that statement. Do you have a specific example of what your local tournaments won't let you use in a counts-as basis? I use my Forge World Black Templar dreadnought every time I field a dreadnought, but I suppose that's not really a counts as.
These are all from the Imperial Armor Apocalypse books which all cost less than $50. None of these Items have a codex entry that is close to the same except the Landspeeder tempest but then it would not be WYSWIG.
Oaka wrote: I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.
I regularly used my Forgeworld Ultramarine Dread and Vulnerable Dreads with Rifleman Arms... no one ever thought that I was using them as something different... tournament or not.
I'm also confused by that statement. Do you have a specific example of what your local tournaments won't let you use in a counts-as basis? I use my Forge World Black Templar dreadnought every time I field a dreadnought, but I suppose that's not really a counts as.
These are all from the Imperial Armor Apocalypse books which all cost less than $50. None of these Items have a codex entry that is close to the same except the Landspeeder tempest but then it would not be WYSWIG.
That's kinda understandable.
A proper Count's As needs to be easily identified and of similer size and shape to what its counting as.
A Dreadclaw counts as drop pod. Thats cool. A Blight Drone counting as a Defiler, thats more of a stretch.
A dread claw counts as a drop pod for a Marine army but the CSM book currently does not have drop pods as an option. So in order to use it you would need to counts as your chaos army into a Imperial one.
Fantastic post, MVBrandt! Fully agree... which is to say, agree it's up to each individual TO, and with your thoughts on the wording of the clause at the start of the book.
Playing any game of 40k requires your opponents permission.
So that applies to both Games Workshop and Forgeworld models. It's part and parcel of playing a game vs a live opponent.
I've seen players refuse to play opponents that have standard 40K army builds and withdraw from a game.
I've seen players refuse to play certain opponents and withdraw from a match.
Certainly, few and far between. I don't advocate doing so especially at an event but it happens. The end result is people have the right to say I don't want to spend the next 2.5 hours playing against an opponent or army having a miserable time.
Forgeworld or no Forgeworld.
So Forgeworld spells it out, but it applies to even "standard" 40k.
MVBrandt wrote: I've never heard of someone disallowing FW MODELS, just the rules.
The crux of the argument, of course, is whether a TO is "disallowing" them or "allowing" them ... whether the standard requires disallowance or allowance.
I think the fact that the rules still say you should make sure your opponent is comfortable playing with them (aka, ask your opponent's permission) implies TO's have to make the call here.
The funny thing is people who read that quote and claim it says "see opponent's permission no longer matters."
I'm undecided about how we'll handle this issue next year at NOVA '13. I also am really excited as a hobbyist about the Horus Heresy series. Presently we allow FW in some events and not in others, following leads of events like AdeptiCon.
While I enjoy the discussion about whether it is or isn't balanced, I'm not sure that's actually relevant. The cost to prepare issue is one I personally find relevant (as I know how much our attendees already spend to prepare). There are a lot of good points on both sides ... that's why there's a discussion at all.
The only thing I'm passionately in agreement with is the notion that people should not be claiming automatic rightness in pressuring TO's as a whole to allow OR disallow FW. In fact, that kind of pressure goes explicitly against the very nature of the FW40k stamp rules - the requirement that you make sure your opponent is comfortable using them. When it comes to "comfortable or not" for a tournament setting, that's quite unavoidably the TO's determination to make ... not FW's, or GW's, or pushy internets types (in EITHER direction).
Quote in question, btw, after stating that they are now official:
Forgeworld wrote:but owing to the fact they may be unknown to yout oponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game useing forge world models before you start"
This applies just as much to pick-up games. The rules require you to ask an opponent at a local game store who you don't even know if he's happy to play with Forgeworld rules. If he says, NO, I don't know them at all, I'm not happy with that ... he's NOT the douche for saying no. Social pressure on rules that give free choice to both answers is uncool.
This quote from the actual rules is also why there's no comparison between Codex and FW/IA. People can't refuse to let you play with a part of your codex that they're not as familiar with. They can refuse to play with a part of FW rules they aren't familiar with.
This also of course highlights the only real question - FW's officiality and playability isn't restricted by balance issues, or cost issues, or any of that. It's restricted by familiarity. Therein lies the rub for me - do participants have a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with the various FW rules? MOST people won't develop an encyclopedic familiarity with every Codex or even the Rulebook, but they have a very reasonable opportunity to do so, should they so choose. Even local Game Stores, and all GW's, have free readable copies of all the codices/rulebook. The same cannot as easily be said about FW. The breadth to which you permit FW use in your tourneys, then, is directly related to this question as a TO, IMO.
muwhe wrote: Playing any game of 40k requires your opponents permission.
So that applies to both Games Workshop and Forgeworld models. It's part and parcel of playing a game vs a live opponent.
I've seen players refuse to play opponents that have standard 40K army builds and withdraw from a game.
I've seen players refuse to play certain opponents and withdraw from a match.
Certainly, few and far between. I don't advocate doing so especially at an event but it happens. The end result is people have the right to say I don't want to spend the next 2.5 hours playing against an opponent or army having a miserable time.
Forgeworld or no Forgeworld.
So Forgeworld spells it out, but it applies to even "standard" 40k.
I agree here. The fact that it is not spelled out explicitly has bearing, however .. it is also spelled out explicitly in the game rules that the codices in full are used, and it spells out how they are used. They do not say you can/should/mightwantto build an army using subsidiary company FW rules.
That said, I think they mean what they say when they say these new FW40k stamps are official. I also think they mean what they say when they say opponents should be OK with and happy to play with them prior to commencing a game.
Even in regard to regular codices though, tournament organizers intentionally or incidentally decide that "comfort zone" of what's playable and not when they design their missions. Narrative, 40kfriendly, team, apoc, GT's, etc., all have missions and rules and restrictions that directly (comp) or indirectly (mission design) influence what should be brought.
The overarching point of my post was simply that: not only am I not personally sure what all events I want to allow or disallow FW in (and it may be, "allowed in all"), there's an explicitly written FW statement that familiarity and happiness need to be taken into account when considering their use. Official and "opponent's permission" are BOTH included still within that 40k approved stamp. As tournaments cannot leave that up to each game (i.e. Round 1 my opponent said he wasn't familiar so I couldn't use 250 points of my army), the TO has to make that decision for his/her attendees. Without at all stating my PERSONAL choice for NOVA 2013 on this issue (I haven't made a decision, won't for a while, and that decision has no bearing on the argument anyway), I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.
I like FW and would like to see it used, but anyone who thinks its fair in a vacuum is deluding themselves to fit their personal agenda. There has been this massive push against comp in the 40k community for the last few years, as the Warmahordes crowd has taken over, but the reality is I think if you guys want to use it and want the game to be something other than "SW with IG Allies vs IG w SW Allies" at table one every event that there needs to be some discussion about bringing soft scores back into the game. Hell, I would argue that 6th edition in general needs comp again in some form, but thats a different discussion....
MVBrandt wrote: This quote from the actual rules is also why there's no comparison between Codex and FW/IA. People can't refuse to let you play with a part of your codex that they're not as familiar with. They can refuse to play with a part of FW rules they aren't familiar with.
Err, lol? Since when do I have to allow someone to play with every part of their codex? If I don't want to let a marine player take tactical squads I can say "I'm not playing against tactical squads" and not play a game against them until they remove the unit from their list.
I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.
MVBrandt wrote: This quote from the actual rules is also why there's no comparison between Codex and FW/IA. People can't refuse to let you play with a part of your codex that they're not as familiar with. They can refuse to play with a part of FW rules they aren't familiar with.
Err, lol? Since when do I have to allow someone to play with every part of their codex? If I don't want to let a marine player take tactical squads I can say "I'm not playing against tactical squads" and not play a game against them until they remove the unit from their list.
You can do whatever you like, but the Codex and Rulebook do not have a specific rule that says you must make sure your opponent is happy to play against tactical squads. The FW Official stamp MAKES them official, but it ALSO says you have to make sure your opponent is happy to play with those rules. This is explicitly unique to FW, no matter how you want to draw inferences to how you could behave toward someone with just a Codex. Do note I'm not arguing what is or isn't official. I'm not even arguing the tournament import of the 40k Forgeworld stamp (I think each TO should decide independently what they think of it). I'm just pointing out something VERY unique to Forgeworld - the requirement to make sure your opponent is familiar with and happy to play with FW rules before commencing a game of 40k. This is a step beyond the inherent and unspoken requirement of being happy to simply play a game of rulebook+codex 40k against someone. This is reinforced by the fact that no 40k codex has any mention of making sure your opponent is familiar with and happy to use that codex in a game prior to playing. There's ALWAYS an unspoken rule that nobody has to play a game they don't want to, but clearly the FW stamp goes a step further - it speaks it, and speaks exactly how it works.
This differentiation is what causes some hesitation on the part of many reasonable and intelligent people. It's neither "right" nor "wrong" as a TO to allow or disallow FW in any of the given events you run.
MVBrandt wrote: I'm just pointing out something VERY unique to Forgeworld - the requirement to make sure your opponent is familiar with and happy to play with FW rules before commencing a game of 40k. This is a step beyond the inherent and unspoken requirement of being happy to simply play a game of rulebook+codex 40k against someone.
Except it really isn't different. Whether it says so explicitly in the rulebook or not a two-player game requires both people to agree on what armies they're going to use (or agree to a TO's policy by entering a tournament). It's still the exact same principle in both cases.
The FW statement is really just a concession to the whiners. The best way to read it is "everything here is 100% official, we've said it dozens of times, but there are still TFGs who refuse to believe it so you should make sure you aren't playing against one of them before bothering to set up your army". It's a useful policy for avoiding extended arguments with people who still think the old "opponent's permission" line exists, but it doesn't say a whole lot about official policies about what should and shouldn't be used.
This differentiation is what causes some hesitation on the part of many reasonable and intelligent people. It's neither "right" nor "wrong" as a TO to allow or disallow FW in any of the given events you run.
Just like it's not right or wrong to ban the entire Necron and GK codices because the TO doesn't like silver armies, or ban armies with more than two dedicated transports. It's just hilarious to see 40k players whine and cry about comp because we should play the game as GW wrote it, not according to some individual TO's house rules about how it should be, but then argue that we shouldn't allow FW rules because they're too powerful.
MVBrandt wrote: I'm just pointing out something VERY unique to Forgeworld - the requirement to make sure your opponent is familiar with and happy to play with FW rules before commencing a game of 40k. This is a step beyond the inherent and unspoken requirement of being happy to simply play a game of rulebook+codex 40k against someone.
Except it really isn't different. Whether it says so explicitly in the rulebook or not a two-player game requires both people to agree on what armies they're going to use (or agree to a TO's policy by entering a tournament). It's still the exact same principle in both cases.
The FW statement is really just a concession to the whiners. The best way to read it is "everything here is 100% official, we've said it dozens of times, but there are still TFGs who refuse to believe it so you should make sure you aren't playing against one of them before bothering to set up your army". It's a useful policy for avoiding extended arguments with people who still think the old "opponent's permission" line exists, but it doesn't say a whole lot about official policies about what should and shouldn't be used.
This differentiation is what causes some hesitation on the part of many reasonable and intelligent people. It's neither "right" nor "wrong" as a TO to allow or disallow FW in any of the given events you run.
Just like it's not right or wrong to ban the entire Necron and GK codices because the TO doesn't like silver armies.
The comment that FW wrote the statement to make a concession to "whiners" lowers your merit in argument, I would think. However and whyever upset you are about toy soldier games, there's a dramatic difference between "unspoken rules of gaming" and "printed specific rule about how to introduce an opponent to FW rules." Suggesting we re-write a rule in our minds to claim everyone on the other side of your position is a whiner and TFG ... well, I'm not sure why I'm even replying.
I'll reiterate that there's nothing in my opinion that makes FW rules unofficial, or illegal. That said, they explicitly state permission-seeking above and beyond the natural flow of 2-player gaming.
In regard to your right/wrong TO comment, I agree of course! I don't know what your point is? I think it would be far less common, though - as I said in the more relevant above post, the Necron codex includes no clearly printed requirement for you to make sure your opponent is happy to play with that part of rulebook 40k. The FW stamp DOES explicitly state that requirement. So it's more natural for a TO to consider a printed requirement than an unprinted one. Nevertheless, events that forbid the use of some or many codices actually happen quite routinely. What was your point?
I don't find it hilarious, I find it representative of the nature of gamers. Some like comp, some like no comp, some like FW, some like no FW, some like comp but no FW, some like FW and comp. Me, I kinda enjoy playing any of them. I actually think this argument is rather pointless, because I think the vast majority of tournament-goers are like me in that regard. I run into a lot of the same crowd at AdeptiCon as at BFS or NOVA. Some people like to play in tournaments for reasons other than the nuances of what the TO felt comfortable allowing or disallowing.
In positive news, this discussion has made me consider running both a FW-only and/or Horus Heresy evening tourney next year at NOVA ... and/or of running a "softdex" tourney, where only the codices perceived as old and/or weak are allowed to be played. Both would be perfectly within the rights of a TO, and I'll bet we'd get at least 32 people playing in each in just the first year! Good idea with the whole "no silver robot dex" comment.
So what about using your own converted models as counts-as FW units? Sure you can use FW models to count as some codex entries in events that don't allow FW but can I convert up my own models and use them in events that do? Just curious if it goes both ways in peoples minds...
My Armored Company utilizes several Forge World models, including a pair of Ryza-pattern Vanquishers, a squadron of Hydras, a Forge World executioner, and some other Forge World goodies like Chimera turrets.
Of course, however, the core of any good armored regiment is the humble (and formidable) standard Leman Russ battletank, which is by no means a Forge World exclusive model. So if I can use 9x LRBT, 1x Vanquisher, and some other stuff as a Forge World army, I don't see why you can't.
OTOH I see the reasoning behind, for example, making DKoK players use DKoK models. So IDK.
I'm simply reinforcing only the position that each TO has the right to do as they please here, and people trying to pressure them NOT to use FW, or TO use FW, are the ones being unreasonable in the 10+ page debate.
Agreed!!
Peregrine, you realize that in taking issue with the above, written by MVBrandt and agreed to by muwhe, you're disagreeing with 2 TOs of some of the biggest US GTs, Nova and Adepticon, right?
You have every right to do that, but these guys know what the heck they're talking about!
And a Horus Heresy evening event at Nova sounds just plain awesome
Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.
RiTides wrote: Re: Counts as, generally making something to counts as a FW model has less acceptance, for whatever reason (probably just keeping track of everything) than doing the reverse. The Mechanicon document linked to above prohibits it outright.
Which makes no sense - if you're going to say there's no difference between a codex unit and a Forgeworld unit but only allow conversions/counts-as for the former... I'd love to hear some reasoning.
me Hulk! I see your point, I probably should have spelled that out better in my 
. After all I've typed trying to show examples of people you should respect / should mean something to you as a well-known 
) or take it a bite or two at a time 
), but other than that, what?
I can't even tell anymore 
