There was a push after the release of 6th edition to include forge world in tournament play and we were seeing it being adopted into tournaments.
Some of the reasons why were:
#1. Forge World will be embraced by Games Workshop soon so we might as well go ahead and include it. We all know what happened here, this turned out to be just a rumor.
#2. Alot of codex’s have no way to deal with flyers and Forge World is the only way they can get Skyfire. Well that was a lot of codexes ago. Let’s take a look at them:
Chaos Space marines
Dark Angels
Chaos Demons
Tau
Eldar
Space Marines (Coming soon)
Also don’t forget the Skies of Blood supplement
GW has been working overtime and cranking out the 6th edition books so now most of them are 6th edition compatible. Almost every army now has some way of dealing with flyers and those that don’t Forge World will not help them. The funny thing is that it really only helped out IG and SM armies who really did not need any help with skyfire. There were also unintended consequences to having all of these units that have skyfire/interceptor. Sure it kept the Necron armies away, but what happens is that you end up hurting armies that are viable builds that use reserves to get onto the board, and it also hurts armies that would like to use fliers (as a means of their only flier defense or for fun) get screwed.
Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.
#3. The codexes are getting tired and old, and this will bring a lot of new and interesting units to everyone’s armies. That sure was a lot of codexes ago. So if you do not have a lot of new toys to play with, you can ally in new and exciting units to your existing army. Also if this is your argument for including forge world in competitive tournaments. I will point to the fact that all you see over and over again are the same units (saber platforms) and the other broken ones since no one uses the fluffy choices.
So now looking back at Forge World in tournaments I have to ask…do we need it?
I'm of the belief it was never "needed" in the first place. People just wanted to take even more broken stuff and run it behind the guise of "more variety". By allowing forgeworld you've just traded the top armies for IG supremacy.
Oh dear god no, please not another FW thread...long story short: cherry-picking sucks, I am happy with the current solution of having both FW allowed and not allowed tournaments. Everyone is happy. Tadaa.
If the players in your area really want it, give it a few tries. Ask them to bring the books and proper models. If it doesn't work in your area, c'est la vie.
Personally, I think some of the ally lists are stronger than any Forge World army list, and find the anti-FW arguments silly as a result.
However, while I'm pro:FW, I'm much more pro: Having fun. If your group doesn't like it, don't bother.
As Sigvatr says, I am happy that there are events that allow FW, and ones that do not allow FW. I don't think we need a "standard" format of ALL events allowing it or ALL events not allowing it.
I do have to ask, though- did the allowance of FW play a role in Hulk's team tournament winning team? I heard mention of one of the players just feeling bad about how powerful his template-machine was... but not so bad as to stop using it
I personally think that my absolute preference is limited FW events. But again, that's my personal take, and I am glad for the diversity of events.
Also, I'm starting a chaos dwarf army, which thankfully most fantasy events allow. But, I feel it's a little bit of a different issue from single FW units in normal 40k lists, than a FW-book list that allows a fantasy army that has no other means of being fielded to be played.
RiTides wrote: I heard mention of one of the players just feeling bad about how powerful his template-machine was... but not so bad as to stop using it
Blackmoor's griping about this more or less sounds like "The army I want to play isn't best sometimes, and an army I don't play is best instead. I don't like that and I refuse to adapt my tactics/army composition to deal with this change."
Something will always be best. Even if we accept the proposition that Forge World units are far better than codex units (and this proposition is dubious, but that's not the point), so what? GW makes the stuff, they seem to balance it as much as anything else they make, and there's no way to complain about this without it sounding like run of the mill gaming whining.
Yes, it was Target (who is a fairly local player who I have yet to meet, but am a big fan of in theory . He even just posted to the local Beltway Gamers forum with one of his tourney experiences) who made the comment, in the post-AdeptiCon thread. For reference:
I appreciate Spag's discretion - but the simple truth of the matter is they crushed us. I have no issue sharing the details of the defeat. I have always felt I learn more in defeat than in victory and am not too proud to share some of the gory details.
As the losing team - here is the summary:
On one table, Bill and Cory (Sons of Shatner) face off against Spag and Target. Upon seeing what Target's Guard has in his list - Cory turns to me and says "f*&k my life. It this really what we have to deal with? It is the perfect counter to our list." According to Bill and Cory - roughly half their army dies on turn one to two blobs and thud guns... and oh, hey - a grey knight army, too! It doesn't get any better from there, as two vendettas and a stormraven are still on their way. A crushing and decisive victory for They Shall Know Fear although I am unsure how many turns it took to finish it. (Sorry, I don't know more details and neither Cory or Bill post on Dakka).
On my table, Greg and I face Yermom and Hulksmash. They go first, doing very little damage. We then deviate from our plan which was "kill the plasma cannon henchmen squads giving the terminators the ability to move around effectively" by targeting the land raider crusader full of assassins and crusaders and "kill me first" acolytes. Greg's dice are stone cold and we accomplish maybe a hull point in damage with 6 stationary psycannons. I score first blood killing a dreadknight. The assassins in the crusader get out and proceed to get what they need when they need it (staying locked in combat when we are up next and getting out when they are up next through brilliant use of the alternating power maul then power axe use) and proceed to kill 3 combat squads, a full strike squad plus Coteaz and a dreadnought. They were the MVPs of the game. The storm raven psy-missiles my inquisitor to death (slay the warlord) and I take couple of other casualties to my full squad. They don't like it and run off the board the same turn. Meanwhile, the swarm of combat squads bleeds away at my terminators, eliminating them on turn 4.
On turn 5, we have one last play to deny points. My dreadnought assaults a strike squad pulling it off an objective. Greg's last three terminators assault and break a combat squad on another objective. If the game ends there, They Shall Know Fear still wins, but it is 15-5. But it continues onto turn 6 and Greg's termies die and another squad takes the unclaimed objective for the 25-0 on objectives. I sleep easier at night knowing that They Shall Know Fear won the tourney by 16 points, as a turn 5 ending was a 15 point swing, which would have still given them the one point victory.
Perhaps the highest praise I can give Yermon and Hulksmash is that this is one of the very, very few times where I haven't felt like I was in control of the game, or sharply contesting control. If it means anything, I played Tony Kopach twice at Nova last year, and while I lost, I never felt overwhelmed or out of control.
Afterwords, I said to my teammates that we simply dropped the ball in the last round. Bill replied with "No. They took the ball, spiked it at our heads, kicked us in the junk, and walked away with the glory." The latter interpretation is probably more accurate...
A well deserved victory for They Shall Know Fear - they came in and took it. Well done.
Cheers,
Nate
Tell Bill and Cory I'm so, so so so sorry Thudd Guns (Quad Launchers) were legal. I felt a little bit dirty all day (but not dirty enough to stop firing them!)
We called our game on T3 I believe, as they only had ~5-10 models left and we hadnt sustained any sizeable casualties, and it was clear where it was going. I'll echo them on it being about as bad of a match as they could have pulled, though we all seemed to have a blast throughout the game, and I still remember them making me and aaron choose the dice for each damage result that got through (1 each) on a raven and vendetta, and then them subsequently rolling us crashing into the ground. So painful picking your own fate!
tomjoad wrote: Blackmoor's griping about this more or less sounds like "The army I want to play isn't best sometimes, and an army I don't play is best instead. I don't like that and I refuse to adapt my tactics/army composition to deal with this change."
That is odd since I play several armies, and 2 of them are Demons and Eldar and we have no idea of what they can do. See the post above for just one of many reasons why I don't like forge world.
I can do really well at a Forge World tournament, I just choose not to spend any more money on forge world units. Heck, anyone can do well at a forge world GT if they want to spend the money buying resin.
And I like your counter argument to my points is that I am a whiner. Why don't you make an argument of why forge world should be at a tournament instead of taking the low road? I made points of why it is no londer needed where are yours?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: Oh dear god no, please not another FW thread...long story short: cherry-picking sucks, I am happy with the current solution of having both FW allowed and not allowed tournaments. Everyone is happy. Tadaa.
Oh and inb4 Peregrine.
The problem for me is that the closest GT level tournament to me without forgeworld is 2000 miles away. So that is not much of a choice of what to play in.
I used to be very anti-FW, but at the BAO I saw several Forge World units fielded and didn't really consider them to be a problem. It kind of changed my mind on the whole thing. That said, there are clearly some balance issues-- most notably, basically all Artillery or Heavy Artillery units from FW are broken, since they don't seem to understand how these models work in the new edition. To be fair, some non-FW Artillery units are broken too (what's up, Thunderfire Cannon), but the Heavy Artillery units really push the boundaries of what's fun to play with and against.
Overall, I think Forge World should be available as a 0-1 choice-- you can have one Forge World unit in your army per primary detachment (it still takes its normal slot). This would allow people to play cool variant models without taking crazy or overwhelming armies that people might not be able to deal with. This would also allow people enough time to easily explain what their one cool FW piece does.
Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.
quadgun with tactical marine (50 +16 points for the marine) 4 BS4, twin linked, S7 shots
Sure you can get more hyperios platforms in the army, which gives more air defence, but they are nowhere near as overpowered and undercosted as a BS4 (or better) model on a quadgun. add in the fact that certain units can get tank hunters and the difference becomes even greater.
So really your problem isn't that FW is OP/undercosted, its that they can allow an army to take more units with skyfire/interceptor
Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.
quadgun with tactical marine (50 +16 points for the marine) 4 BS4, twin linked, S7 shots
Sure you can get more hyperios platforms in the army, which gives more air defence, but they are nowhere near as overpowered and undercosted as a BS4 (or better) model on a quadgun. add in the fact that certain units can get tank hunters and the difference becomes even greater.
So really your problem isn't that FW is OP/undercosted, its that they can allow an army to take more units with skyfire/interceptor
Am I missing something? Like the extra 50 points for the aegis for the quadgun? Or is there more FW stuff I don't know about and you can just buy a quad gun?
So it would REALLY be
140 points for the hyperios
Vs 116 for the quad gun. So for 24 points you get an extra strength on all your shots. And you can take 12 hyperios in a sub 2k list which you cant do with quad gun. Unless like I said I'm missing something and in that case completely disregard. I'm not really for or against forgeworld. Just reporting the facts.
Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.
quadgun with tactical marine (50 +16 points for the marine) 4 BS4, twin linked, S7 shots
Sure you can get more hyperios platforms in the army, which gives more air defence, but they are nowhere near as overpowered and undercosted as a BS4 (or better) model on a quadgun. add in the fact that certain units can get tank hunters and the difference becomes even greater.
So really your problem isn't that FW is OP/undercosted, its that they can allow an army to take more units with skyfire/interceptor
Am I missing something? Like the extra 50 points for the aegis for the quadgun? Or is there more FW stuff I don't know about and you can just buy a quad gun?
So it would REALLY be
140 points for the hyperios
Vs 116 for the quad gun. So for 24 points you get an extra strength on all your shots. And you can take 12 hyperios in a sub 2k list which you cant do with quad gun. Unless like I said I'm missing something and in that case completely disregard. I'm not really for or against forgeworld. Just reporting the facts.
And how much is a codex SM rhino? 35 points right? except by your reasoning its REALLY 125 minimum as you need to buy a squad to get one. You're forgetting that the aegis, like the tactical squad has a benefit itself. So for 116 points you get - 1 strength on all your shots, +1BS, and 30+ inches of 4+ cover terrain to put anywhere in your half of the table.
tomjoad wrote: Blackmoor's griping about this more or less sounds like "The army I want to play isn't best sometimes, and an army I don't play is best instead. I don't like that and I refuse to adapt my tactics/army composition to deal with this change."
That is odd since I play several armies, and 2 of them are Demons and Eldar and we have no idea of what they can do. See the post above for just one of many reasons why I don't like forge world.
I can do really well at a Forge World tournament, I just choose not to spend any more money on forge world units. Heck, anyone can do well at a forge world GT if they want to spend the money buying resin.
And I like your counter argument to my points is that I am a whiner. Why don't you make an argument of why forge world should be at a tournament instead of taking the low road? I made points of why it is no londer needed where are yours?
My argument is that this argument is a waste of time and energy. Forge World IS, and your crusade against it is no more rational than if some loon wanted to ban Death from the Skies, or impose some harsh comp rules in their event. Basically, you can vote with your dollars by skipping all FW events. Or become a TO. Or start playing Malifaux or Infinity. Or just play Magic or some MMORPG that actually has a well run tournament system that rewards top players. - Edited by insaniak -. It's bad for the community that such whinging is so commonplace and it makes the 11th Co. less enjoyable to listen to.
tomjoad wrote: Blackmoor's griping about this more or less sounds like "The army I want to play isn't best sometimes, and an army I don't play is best instead. I don't like that and I refuse to adapt my tactics/army composition to deal with this change."
That is odd since I play several armies, and 2 of them are Demons and Eldar and we have no idea of what they can do. See the post above for just one of many reasons why I don't like forge world.
I can do really well at a Forge World tournament, I just choose not to spend any more money on forge world units. Heck, anyone can do well at a forge world GT if they want to spend the money buying resin.
And I like your counter argument to my points is that I am a whiner. Why don't you make an argument of why forge world should be at a tournament instead of taking the low road? I made points of why it is no londer needed where are yours?
My argument is that this argument is a waste of time and energy. Forge World IS, and your crusade against it is no more rational than if some loon wanted to ban Death from the Skies, or impose some harsh comp rules in their event. Basically, you can vote with your dollars by skipping all FW events. Or become a TO. Or start playing Malifaux or Infinity. Or just play Magic or some MMORPG that actually has a well run tournament system that rewards top players. But constantly harping on how you don't like the rules for tournaments that you go to anyway makes you sound like a child. It's bad for the community that such whinging is so commonplace and it makes the 11th Co. less enjoyable to listen to.
The point of any argument is persuasion.
I wanted to point out that a lot of the reasons for everyone who argued for forge world in the tournament scene at the beginning of 6th edition are no longer valid. It is important to do that before everyone started to accept that forge world is the norm in tournaments.
I also understand that you have an agenda and I have no idea why any regular 40k player wants to have forge in their tournament games other than to use broken units. Your argument for why we need or want to have forge world in tournaments right now is just personal attacks.
Something funny... I have used both Angron and Abbadon. Angron is a heck of a lot more points but to be completely honest I have found Abbadon in general to be way more Killy.
I use Contemptor dreadnaughts and everyone I have played said they are appropriately costed.
There is some units I hate like the Lucius pattern assault drop pod and Hades Breecher Drill. I think they should both be banned from tournament playing.
You know, the same argument can be made for any book published by GW.
Blackmoor - with a little help from Redbeard wrote:
...
There was a push after the release of 6th edition to include Codex: Necrons in tournament play and we were seeing it being adopted into tournaments.
Some of the reasons why were:
#1. Codex: Necrons will be embraced by Games Workshop soon so we might as well go ahead and include it. We all know what happened here, this turned out to be just a rumor.
#2. Alot of codex’s have no way to deal with flyers and Codex: Necrons is the only way they can get Skyfire. Well that was a lot of codexes ago. Let’s take a look at them:
Chaos Space marines
Dark Angels
Chaos Demons
Tau
Eldar
Space Marines (Coming soon)
Also don’t forget the Skies of Blood supplement
GW has been working overtime and cranking out the 6th edition books so now most of them are 6th edition compatible. Almost every army now has some way of dealing with flyers and those that don’t Codex: Necrons will not help them. The funny thing is that it really only helped out IG and SM armies who really did not need any help with skyfire. There were also unintended consequences to having all of these units that have skyfire/interceptor. Sure it kept the Necron armies away, but what happens is that you end up hurting armies that are viable builds that use reserves to get onto the board, and it also hurts armies that would like to use fliers (as a means of their only flier defense or for fun) get screwed.
Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.
#3. The codexes are getting tired and old, and this will bring a lot of new and interesting units to everyone’s armies. That sure was a lot of codexes ago. So if you do not have a lot of new toys to play with, you can ally in new and exciting units to your existing army. Also if this is your argument for including Codex: Necrons in competitive tournaments. I will point to the fact that all you see over and over again are the same units (saber platforms) and the other broken ones since no one uses the fluffy choices.
So now looking back at Codex: Necrons in tournaments I have to ask…do we need it?
I have to say, looking at the Adepticon results, that Codex: Necrons was more harmful to the metagame than Forgeworld, so my vote is definitely to ban Codex: Necrons.
Whatever dude. They're rules, they're published by GW, and say 40k Approved on them. If Saber Platforms (or whatever the current whine is about) are OP, well, so are long fangs and night scythes.
I wanted to point out that a lot of the reasons for everyone who argued for forge world in the tournament scene at the beginning of 6th edition are no longer valid. It is important to do that before everyone started to accept that forge world is the norm in tournaments.
I also understand that you have an agenda and I have no idea why any regular 40k player wants to have forge in their tournament games other than to use broken units. Your argument for why we need or want to have forge world in tournaments right now is just personal attacks.
That is not very persuasive
I fail to see why any regular 40K player wants to use grey knights (or necrons etc) as their tournament army other than to use broken units. have you considered that maybe people like the background? the look of the models? no? of course not! they're just looking for every advantage they can get.
I like FW, I like running an armoured battlegroup, being able to use a lot more of the leman russ battletanks that i own is great, but not really competitive. Here in Ireland we have one tournament that allows unrestricted FW40k approved units and lists, it is one of the most laid back, friendly tournaments you could wish for.
I think the problem is with your outlook. Take for example Cron air, a Night Scythe is far more OP and undercosted than anything FW produce, ut I assume you're ok with this?
I thought that would be a common argument for forge world was the necron results at adepticon.
I would like you to remember that it was several codexes ago, and really demons where not represented there since their codex just came out. If you read Goatboy’s adepticon result you can see that his demon army took apart necrons.
That is my point being that things change so fast that you can’t look at a tournament result 3 months ago because the landscaped changed so much since then.
It will be interesting to see what happens at Wargames Con to see what happens in a major GT with Forge World next weekend.
I was about to add in my bullet points the forge world argument that the Heldrake is so broken why not just have other broken units? Well the Heldrake does not seem like much of a threat anymore since everyone now can counter it without resorting to taking forge world units.
And if Necrons are broken (and I do not play them) why am I ok with Necrons and not forge world?
I fail to see why any regular 40K player wants to use grey knights (or necrons etc) as their tournament army other than to use broken units. have you considered that maybe people like the background? the look of the models? no? of course not! they're just looking for every advantage they can get.
People do not bring all of the forge world artillery pieces and vultures because they like the look of them (well, maybe the vulture because that is a sweet looking model).
I think the problem is with your outlook. Take for example Cron air, a Night Scythe is far more OP and undercosted than anything FW produce, ut I assume you're ok with this?
Not really, take a look at that Vector dancing thing.
Blackmoor wrote: I thought that would be a common argument for forge world was the necron results at adepticon.
I would like you to remember that it was several codexes ago, and really demons where not represented there since their codex just came out. If you read Goatboy’s adepticon result you can see that his demon army took apart necrons.
Sure, it's always going to be easier to add 5 FW models to an existing army than make a new one when a new codex drops. But, that doesn't change the underlying point. There are things that are unbalanced. There are always going to be things that are unbalanced. The very nature of GW's cyclical releases guarantees that you never actually have a complete game designed with one single philosophy, there are always a couple of things ahead of the curve (such as Necrons at Adepticon this year), and a couple of things behind the curve.
So, the argument you're making is flawed from the get go. Forgeworld isn't needed, because it's never needed. Nothing is ever needed. We can say "Black Templars need a new codex" - but no, not really. They're just behind the cycle right now, and something will always be in that position.
The question regarding FW shouldn't be one of need, and realistically, should be entirely separated from what's hot at any given time. Basing the argument on any specific model is flawed because the game is never complete and never balanced.
So, my question is, what good argument exists for telling someone else that they can't use one of their toy soldiers in a game of toy soldiers, when all evidence provided by the toy manufacturer points to their inclusion?
- Balance isn't that good argument, for the reasons stated above.
- Cost? FW models cost more? Because Thudd guns are more expensive than Wraithknights and Riptides. Nope, not a good argument. This is an expensive game. We play it knowing that, and also knowing that, realistically, it's cheaper than hookers and blow.
- Availability? Maybe 10 years ago, but if you're posting on Dakka, you can have FW delivered to your house. So, no, not a good argument.
- It changes the unbalanced environment from one that I'm comfortable with, to one that I'm less comfortable with? Well, from a personal standpoint, maybe, but I'm not really too sympathetic to you in that case. I don't like a competitive environment dominated by one or two codexes and their broken stuff, but I'm not about to tell someone who paid for three helldrakes that they shouldn't use them.
And if Necrons are broken (and I do not play them) why am I ok with Necrons and not forge world?
That's a question that only you can answer. If you analyze the issue clinically and dispassionately, you will realize that FW stuff is no different than any other stuff. The only difference is in what the specific items are, at any given snapshot in time, that are pushing the envelope. Sometimes those may be FW units, more often, they're not. Saber Platforms and Thudd Guns have been out for years. It's only the dominance of flyers in the early going of 6th that pushed Sabers to the forefront. FW wasn't an issue at all during the SW dominance period a year or two ago, Long Fangs were so much better for the cost than anything FW was making. Thudd guns haven't changed in the last two years (if not more), but weren't an issue two Adepticons ago. It wasn't the gun that changed, it was the fact that more infantry are on foot now. But you could make the exact same argument about aegis lines.
So, the only difference is in your mind. You're drawing a distinction between the two. I don't know why. Maybe you lost to a FW model as a small child (were you ever a small child?) and it scarred you for life?
So what if Goatboy's daemons ripped apart Necrons? He designed an army to counter the current meta. Good for him. I fail to see how that in and of itself makes Forge World a bad thing.
My guess is Forge World will not have a drastic effect on the results at WarGamesCon. I applaud them for being bold enough to allow it.
Blackmoor wrote: I thought that would be a common argument for forge world was the necron results at adepticon.
I would like you to remember that it was several codexes ago, and really demons where not represented there since their codex just came out. If you read Goatboy’s adepticon result you can see that his demon army took apart necrons.
Sure, it's always going to be easier to add 5 FW models to an existing army than make a new one when a new codex drops. But, that doesn't change the underlying point. There are things that are unbalanced. There are always going to be things that are unbalanced. The very nature of GW's cyclical releases guarantees that you never actually have a complete game designed with one single philosophy, there are always a couple of things ahead of the curve (such as Necrons at Adepticon this year), and a couple of things behind the curve.
So, the argument you're making is flawed from the get go. Forgeworld isn't needed, because it's never needed. Nothing is ever needed. We can say "Black Templars need a new codex" - but no, not really. They're just behind the cycle right now, and something will always be in that position.
The question regarding FW shouldn't be one of need, and realistically, should be entirely separated from what's hot at any given time. Basing the argument on any specific model is flawed because the game is never complete and never balanced.
So, my question is, what good argument exists for telling someone else that they can't use one of their toy soldiers in a game of toy soldiers, when all evidence provided by the toy manufacturer points to their inclusion?
- Balance isn't that good argument, for the reasons stated above.
- Cost? FW models cost more? Because Thudd guns are more expensive than Wraithknights and Riptides. Nope, not a good argument. This is an expensive game. We play it knowing that, and also knowing that, realistically, it's cheaper than hookers and blow.
- Availability? Maybe 10 years ago, but if you're posting on Dakka, you can have FW delivered to your house. So, no, not a good argument.
- It changes the unbalanced environment from one that I'm comfortable with, to one that I'm less comfortable with? Well, from a personal standpoint, maybe, but I'm not really too sympathetic to you in that case. I don't like a competitive environment dominated by one or two codexes and their broken stuff, but I'm not about to tell someone who paid for three helldrakes that they shouldn't use them.
And if Necrons are broken (and I do not play them) why am I ok with Necrons and not forge world?
That's a question that only you can answer. If you analyze the issue clinically and dispassionately, you will realize that FW stuff is no different than any other stuff. The only difference is in what the specific items are, at any given snapshot in time, that are pushing the envelope. Sometimes those may be FW units, more often, they're not. Saber Platforms and Thudd Guns have been out for years. It's only the dominance of flyers in the early going of 6th that pushed Sabers to the forefront. FW wasn't an issue at all during the SW dominance period a year or two ago, Long Fangs were so much better for the cost than anything FW was making. Thudd guns haven't changed in the last two years (if not more), but weren't an issue two Adepticons ago. It wasn't the gun that changed, it was the fact that more infantry are on foot now. But you could make the exact same argument about aegis lines.
So, the only difference is in your mind. You're drawing a distinction between the two. I don't know why. Maybe you lost to a FW model as a small child (were you ever a small child?) and it scarred you for life?
Ummm...thud guns did change they went from dying to a glance to making an entire unit of wounds T7... The biggest 2 arguments against FW inclusion IMO are:
1.) units in these books are not frequently updated and do not cycle with codex change. Meaning if something is op now it will not change with a new dex release. Furthermore something that is not op in one edition can be in the next and while this is true with codices they at least some day get updated FW not so much..
2.) Imbalance in army releases, imperial armies get an overwhelming number of the FW units, as well as getting most of the really good units.
You missed the most important reason to include FW in tournament play:
#4. Games Workshop has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) FW rules are official and part of standard 40k.
That's really all there is to it, it's part of the game and "no FW" house rules should be treated with the same contempt as every comp-heavy event run by a TO who banned anything that could be a threat to their favorite army or wasn't "fluffy" enough. Asking if we need to include FW makes about as much sense as asking if we need to include the new Eldar codex.
RiTides wrote: I heard mention of one of the players just feeling bad about how powerful his template-machine was... but not so bad as to stop using it
Let's be realistic here, you could find plenty of similar quotes involving non-FW units in other events. I'm sure there have been plenty of people who have felt bad about crushing their opponents with Necron flyerspam/WD demons/etc. The fact that one of these incidents happened to involve a FW unit doesn't mean anything.
But, I feel it's a little bit of a different issue from single FW units in normal 40k lists, than a FW-book list that allows a fantasy army that has no other means of being fielded to be played.
But how is that any different from my DKoK that require FW rules to be played? Why are chaos dwarves special?
Peregrine wrote: You missed the most important reason to include FW in tournament play:
#4. Games Workshop has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) FW rules are official and part of standard 40k.
That's really all there is to it, it's part of the game and "no FW" house rules should be treated with the same contempt as every comp-heavy event run by a TO who banned anything that could be a threat to their favorite army or wasn't "fluffy" enough. Asking if we need to include FW makes about as much sense as asking if we need to include the new Eldar codex.
RiTides wrote: I heard mention of one of the players just feeling bad about how powerful his template-machine was... but not so bad as to stop using it
Let's be realistic here, you could find plenty of similar quotes involving non-FW units in other events. I'm sure there have been plenty of people who have felt bad about crushing their opponents with Necron flyerspam/WD demons/etc. The fact that one of these incidents happened to involve a FW unit doesn't mean anything.
But, I feel it's a little bit of a different issue from single FW units in normal 40k lists, than a FW-book list that allows a fantasy army that has no other means of being fielded to be played.
But how is that any different from my DKoK that require FW rules to be played? Why are chaos dwarves special?
I must have missed that announcement, where outside a fw book did it happen, it seems to me that any time a Gw location runs an event FW Is banned....also pretty sure FW frequently includes language involving asking opponents permission (not sure if this is in all the books or is left out of new books.). Say FW is legal is the same as saying planet strike, or dog fighting rules are legal... Now I'm all for tournaments making their own choice on the matter. I tend to leave it to my players to decide what they want
Really? How exactly can I use the earthshaker batteries and heavy mortars that my DKoK are supposed to have with just the codex? Don't forget that fluff-wise a siege regiment does not have Basilisks or other artillery tanks, so even if I was allowed to count the earthshakers as Basilisks (the models are completely different) I would be directly contradicting my army's fluff.
(Or did you just forget that DKoK have more than infantry models?)
Breng77 wrote: I must have missed that announcement, where outside a fw book did it happen
That doesn't matter. The "must appear in a non-FW book" rule is one certain players have invented, not a GW policy. GW has given their answer, and the choice of which book they put it in is irrelevant.
it seems to me that any time a Gw location runs an event FW Is banned
So what? GW runs events for the sole purpose of selling models. A local store manager is never going to want FW allowed because buying FW potentially takes away from their personal sales numbers, and GW is obsessively focused on employee sales statistics. A manager who said "here's something cool you can buy outside my store" is just setting themselves up to be fired for low performance.
....also pretty sure FW frequently includes language involving asking opponents permission (not sure if this is in all the books or is left out of new books.).
The "permission" language has been gone for years. There is a statement that you should (note, not must) tell your opponent in advance to be polite and not surprise them with rules they've never heard of before, but that's covered by tournaments having a formal "what is legal" policy.
Say FW is legal is the same as saying planet strike, or dog fighting rules are legal...
No it isn't. Those are explicitly stated to be expansions that introduce optional rules for playing special variant games of 40k. FW rules are explicitly stated to be part of standard40k.
Since I have been quoted in this thread, along with Spag, about our respective teams' Adepticon game, I think I will toss in a couple of comments.
1. The Sons of Shatner have no issue with the inclusion of Thudd Guns in any army list for the team tournament. We all new going in that forgeworld was on the table - that we didn't capitalize on it had more to do with not seeing anything that fit our army design well as opposed to a philosophical bias against the use of forgeworld. That being said - Thudd guns for 50 points are a LOT of business.
2. I agree with the overall assessment of Blackmoor (and the 11th company) that with the inclusion of forgeworld that Imperial Guard rises to the top of the pile, and that in a tournament setting it is only the powerful forgeworld units that get introduced meaningfully. In a major tournament - has anyone seen a malanthrope in a bug army? Has anyone seen Ork Mek Boss Buzzgob? I haven't. *shrug* - but if shifting the game in this manner floats a tournament organizers boat, I can choose to attend or not.
3. When I was a tourney organizer (I spent 5 years running tournaments) my personal preference was "no" to forgeworld. That being said, I support a tourney organizer's right to decide "Yes" or "No" in accordance with their taste and the desires of the local community
4. The inclusion or not of Forgeworld at a tourney doesn't really impact my decision to attend an event or not. However, if there were two tourneys on the same date, I would choose the non-forgeworld event. Also, if I attended a GT with forgeworld, it does become a major army list design concern. It is a significant difference.
carlosthecraven wrote: In a major tournament - has anyone seen a malanthrope in a bug army? Has anyone seen Ork Mek Boss Buzzgob? I haven't.
But how is this any different from all the weak codex units? Has anyone seen ratlings or penal legions in a major tournament? Of course not. Whether it's FW or non-FW people will always take the most powerful options and ignore a long list of weak options.
2. I agree with the overall assessment of Blackmoor (and the 11th company) that with the inclusion of forgeworld that Imperial Guard rises to the top of the pile, and that in a tournament setting it is only the powerful forgeworld units that get introduced meaningfully.
Why does it matter if IG floats to the top, or if Necrons float to the top? IG does a fairly decent job of floating to the top without FW, I'm not convinced that leafblower armies are any less potent now than a couple of years ago, and that the only reason we don't see more of them is because people got somewhat bored, not because they lose potency.
In a major tournament - has anyone seen a malanthrope in a bug army? Has anyone seen Ork Mek Boss Buzzgob? I haven't. *shrug* - but if shifting the game in this manner floats a tournament organizers boat, I can choose to attend or not.
I haven't seen Mek Boss Buzzgob (well, apart from in my army), but neither have I seen Kaptin Badrukk. In fact, there are probably more units from standard codexes that I haven't seen in a standard tournament than that I have seen. I've never seen Shining Spears. I've never seen Flayed Ones, or Nork Deddog, or Lukas the Trickster or Pyrovores either.
4. The inclusion or not of Forgeworld at a tourney doesn't really impact my decision to attend an event or not. However, if there were two tourneys on the same date, I would choose the non-forgeworld event. Also, if I attended a GT with forgeworld, it does become a major army list design concern. It is a significant difference.
Just for sake of completeness, if there were two different events on the same date, I'd pick the one that allowed FW units, even if I didn't plan to use any myself. I prefer the additional diversity, even if it changes which unbalanced list is top dog. And I don't think it would greatly impact my list design, except for possibly making it weaker by making sure I got some cool looking thing into my list. But, I also don't spend a whole lot of time planning for events thinking about what all everyone else might bring.
Peregrine wrote: You missed the most important reason to include FW in tournament play:
#4. Games Workshop has explicitly stated that (non-Apocalypse) FW rules are official and part of standard 40k.
The reasonable counter to this argument is that Games Workshop sponsors exactly 0 tournaments these days.
For the record, I'm neither for nor against, though I don't like the idea of running into a "Hey, gotcha!" situation unless I pay out the ass for a ton of books I'll never use myself.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The reasonable counter to this argument is that Games Workshop sponsors exactly 0 tournaments these days.
But the point is FW rules are part of the game, and excluding them should be treated with the same contempt as the comp-heavy events that do stuff like banning allies or making dedicated transports 0-1 because it "isn't fluffy". The default should be that everything in the standard game is legal, and people don't have to worry about the new Eldar codex being randomly banned because some people don't like it.
For the record, I'm neither for nor against, though I don't like the idea of running into a "Hey, gotcha!" situation unless I pay out the ass for a ton of books I'll never use myself.
How is that any different from the situation with codex armies? Buying every codex in the game to be familiar with the armies you don't play costs even more than buying all the FW books, and somehow people manage to deal with it. Either you borrow them from someone else, you ask to look at the relevant rules before each game, or you pirate them like most people already do. And even if you don't want to do any of those things you can still just read tactics forums and get a pretty good idea of what most competitive-level units can do.
And at least, unlike the SoB "codex", you can buy everything. You're going to be pretty surprised if an SoB player shows up at a tournament and you haven't pirated their codex.
In the UK, no Warhammer World tournament allows Forge World - this includes the large interstore tournaments and the Throne of Skulls. It's totally banned except as proxies for codex models. To me, that's very telling.
Here's my gripes with FW currently:
1) Thudd guns have no place in anything timed. They're strong, tough and stupidly cheap for what they do, but that's manageable. However, if you've been on the receiving end of someone trying to resolve the damage of 12 barrage shots, you'll understand this point. It's tedious and it takes an age because you MUST do it one at a time due to wound allocation. It's absurd.
2) Sevrin Loth. Knowing all of the powers from a psychic discipline not enough? ML3 not enough? Then BAM; 2++ save for 1 warp charge. This is a guy who, every single turn, will cast his 2++ thing, enfeeble and endurance every single turn. Yeah, 2++ with FNP is stupid broken but who cares when you can make your heavy weapons relentless? Silly and unjustifiably overpowered. I don't know anyone who can defend this guy.
3) Heavy artillery. This thing... what the hell. So, let's take an incredibly good barrage gun and make it 75 points. To offset the point reduction, let's make it ridiculously durable and give it a smaller model. Yeah. With correct model placement, this thing essentially has 7 T7 wounds. For 75 points. You can upgrade it to a Medusa gun for 25 points but who cares? S8 AP3 ordinance barrage large blast will rip up most stuff and you can have up to 9 in a single list.
4) Sabre platforms. T7 W2 troops with TL heavy weapons, all of which come standard with skyfire/interceptor. Park them on an objective/behind an Aegis with good LOS and make flyers worthless. And drop pods. And deep strikers. Pretty much anything really. 40 points for a TL autocannon which you can take 15 times per infantry platoon. By far the best fire support in any codex available, plus it's scoring.
5) Caestus Assault Rams are the worlds biggest middle finger. Not got skyfire capable of killing AV13? Too bad - ordinance melta 36" ram attack. Not enough? S8 AP1 melta large blast in reserve. It's not hugely strong in a balanced army but even one can knock out otherwise decent balanced armies - just because their army cannot deal with AV13 flyers.
6) Ahazra Redth, the Librarian famous for ruining assault armies. He has a 1 warp charge psychic power that makes a unit gain shrouded and all units charging that unit count as making a disordered charge. He also gets access to SM powers (aka always Null Zone) and Divination. If you haven't played this bull, consider yourself lucky, ESPECIALLY in the wake of the new Tau codex. Know what's more fun than a Riptide? A Riptide with 3+ cover because its toe is in area terrain and still good vs assaults as they all count as disordered. Not good enough? How about trying to assault a Tau gun line without your charge bonus attack/furious charge boosts? Other uses: Kroot/IG blobs with a 4++; misfortune against any IG/Tau gun line; foreboding on an IG blob; perfect timing when joined to almost any heavy weapon in the game. These aren't even the worst abuses of this power and you can already see how crazy it is.
I have other issues, but these are the ones that really need fixing IMO for FW to be taken seriously. Don't get me wrong, in a non-competitive game it's fine because people won't abuse these units so much. In a tournament, these are all inexcusable.
Blackmoor wrote: That is true in the US, but they still run the Throne of Skulls GT in the UK and they do not allow forge world.
They also impose a limit on how many points you can spend on allies, but I don't see anyone pushing to include that restriction just because GW's official events include it.
Is an incredibly overrated gimmick. A 2++ is easily dealt with the way other similar units are dealt with, through volume of fire. Meanwhile his support powers are nice, but it's not like you can't get them from other psykers.
3) Heavy artillery. This thing... what the hell.
Blame GW for changing the artillery rules in 6th and turning mediocre units into overpowered ones. Just like with the Sabre guns nobody complained about them in 5th, so you can put this in the same category as some idiot at GW deciding that Helldrakes need a magic 360* turret for their hull-mounted weapon. I'll take demands to ban these units seriously when they're accompanied by a similar demand to ban Helldrakes.
5) Caestus Assault Rams
And you miss the part where it's completely overpriced and useless unless you're using the transport capacity, which means hovering and having your 300 point flyer instantly blown up by every lascannon in your opponent's army. And that's 300 points in addition to the 400+ points you're going to spend on putting enough of a death star in it to justify taking it over a Stormraven.
6) Ahazra Redth
In other words, you get less of a bonus than Shadowsun, pay a lot more points for it, have to take allies (including troops you probably don't want), and have to cast a psychic power instead of getting it by default. The only Tau players who find that even remotely appealing are the ones who haven't bothered to read their codex yet.
And of course in a C:SM army he's still not all that great. You don't really have any units that benefit enough from hiding in cover better to justify that kind of price increase for the unit, and losing combat tactics for no gain for many of your units is just painful.
I have other issues, but these are the ones that really need fixing IMO for FW to be taken seriously. Don't get me wrong, in a non-competitive game it's fine because people won't abuse these units so much. In a tournament, these are all inexcusable.
So how is this any different than all the overpowered codex units? Should we ban all codex armies until GW fixes Helldrakes? Or are people magically able to cope with balance issues when they involve a particular set of books, but completely incompetent when a unit is published in a different book?
"I will point to the fact that all you see over and over again are the same units (saber platforms) and the other broken ones since no one uses the fluffy choices. "
This. 1000x this. I'd be all for it if it were actually about the pretty models. However, it is quite clear to anyone walking the tables at a big FW event that this simply isn't the case.
Really? How exactly can I use the earthshaker batteries and heavy mortars that my DKoK are supposed to have with just the codex? Don't forget that fluff-wise a siege regiment does not have Basilisks or other artillery tanks, so even if I was allowed to count the earthshakers as Basilisks (the models are completely different) I would be directly contradicting my army's fluff.
(Or did you just forget that DKoK have more than infantry models?)
Do you have an afternoon to spend while I tell you all of the times where the fluff does not match the rules in game?
No one is telling you that you can't play that army, just not for tournament play. Ironically most Imperial Armor armies like DKoK are still not allowed at even tournaments that do have FW so you still would be unable to use it.
I was planning on buying a DKoK army because I love the models. The difference is that I was going to use them as IG. I like the look of the Earthshaker cannon and I was going to use them as basilisks. I was going to cut a base out that has the same size as the basilisk tank and mount it on that, and put ruined posts and walls around the base to mirror the profile of it. So I can have the look of the DKoK while playing with IG rules.
I also have a harlequin army and do you know what I do with that? I find eldar units that are close approximations to what were in the citadel journal and play with those.
I do have one question for you Peregrine, how many GTs have you played in in the last year?
Say FW is legal is the same as saying planet strike, or dog fighting rules are legal...
No it isn't. Those are explicitly stated to be expansions that introduce optional rules for playing special variant games of 40k. FW rules are explicitly stated to be part of standard40k.
Then why does the recent second edition printing of IA Vol. 3: The Taros Campaign have "Warhammer 40,000 Expansion" printed on the bottom right? By your argument it also includes essential rules, because as far as I know it contains the most up-to-date version of the Elysian army list and rules for Tallarn which are only in that book, but it's still labeled as an expansion.
Eyjio wrote: In the UK, no Warhammer World tournament allows Forge World - this includes the large interstore tournaments and the Throne of Skulls. It's totally banned except as proxies for codex models. To me, that's very telling.
Can't you buy FW models at Warhammer World, too? Seems kind of odd then to restrict them so heavily when you can buy them right there, especially if GW's intent this whole time has been to make FW a part of "normal" 40k just like any standard codex release.
For myself,
FW units are NOT in the codex of the army that I am bringing, and that just says no use for tourney play.
I am having trouble keeping up with 13+ codexi (sp?) now I gotta get these other forgeworld books on top of that.
Blackmoor wrote: No one is telling you that you can't play that army, just not for tournament play. Ironically most Imperial Armor armies like DKoK are still not allowed at even tournaments that do have FW so you still would be unable to use it.
So then why are chaos dwarfs the exception? Why is it ok to tell DKoK players that they can't play their army in tournaments, but not ok to say the same to chaos dwarf players?
Sidstyler wrote: Then why does the recent second edition printing of IA Vol. 3: The Taros Campaign have "Warhammer 40,000 Expansion" printed on the bottom right?
Because it's an expansion. GW publishes two different types of expansions:
1) Expansions (like FW books) that add units and/or rules to the standard game of 40k. Just like a codex they are assumed to be included unless you make a house rule otherwise.
2) Expansions (like Planetstrike) that add optional rules for playing variant games. These require an agreement to play a non-standard game and have to be set up in advance (for example, you need to bring appropriate Planetstrike terrain and an army that follows the non-standard FOC).
If you read the entire sentence you quoted you'll see that I said "expansions that introduce optional rules", not just "expansions".
Can't you buy FW models at Warhammer World, too? Seems kind of odd then to restrict them so heavily when you can buy them right there, especially if GW's intent this whole time has been to make FW a part of "normal" 40k just like any standard codex release.
Maybe they got tired of having people bringing FW units and causing a conflict when their pirated copy of the book got them kicked out of the event.
They also impose a limit on how many points you can spend on allies, but I don't see anyone pushing to include that restriction just because GW's official events include it.
No they don't.
Is an incredibly overrated gimmick. A 2++ is easily dealt with the way other similar units are dealt with, through volume of fire. Meanwhile his support powers are nice, but it's not like you can't get them from other psykers.
How do I get rid of him with volume of fire when he hides in a blob squad pray tell? You can't. There's also no other psyker that can reliably always get the entirety of telekinesis/biomancy, so that's also untrue. He's far from overrated.
Blame GW for changing the artillery rules in 6th and turning mediocre units into overpowered ones. Just like with the Sabre guns nobody complained about them in 5th, so you can put this in the same category as some idiot at GW deciding that Helldrakes need a magic 360* turret for their hull-mounted weapon. I'll take demands to ban these units seriously when they're accompanied by a similar demand to ban Helldrakes.
So because GW made artillery usable in 6th, that's an excuse for Forge World to release a minimal effort update that totally breaks them? No. The Heavy Artillery change is entirely on FW who decided that the step from AV10 to AV11 was equivalent to double the wounds of an artillery piece. They also didn't change the points at all despite how much stronger these units got. It's just poor rules writing. Complain about Heldrakes all you want, at least you can't take 6 of them for 450 points - when a unit makes the Heldrake look underwhelming, you dun goofed.
And you miss the part where it's completely overpriced and useless unless you're using the transport capacity, which means hovering and having your 300 point flyer instantly blown up by every lascannon in your opponent's army. And that's 300 points in addition to the 400+ points you're going to spend on putting enough of a death star in it to justify taking it over a Stormraven.
No I didn't, at all. I even said it's not particularly strong in a balanced army. That doesn't mean it's not an ass. Why would I bother putting something in it? All it needs to do is ram when it enters then melta blast a unit nearby. Unless I get very unlucky, it won't die if I don't hover. As I said, it wrecks otherwise good armies and there's really no way armies like Orks or Dark Eldar can deal with it. That makes it poor.
In other words, you get less of a bonus than Shadowsun, pay a lot more points for it, have to take allies (including troops you probably don't want), and have to cast a psychic power instead of getting it by default. The only Tau players who find that even remotely appealing are the ones who haven't bothered to read their codex yet.
Less of a bonus? You can cast it on any squad within LOS at any time, even if you aren't attached. That's a hell of a lot stronger than Shadowsun who must join the unit she gives shrouding. If you think Tau wouldn't love Space Marine allies, well... Yeah. I don't even know what to say, that's pretty crazy. You're telling me they wouldn't want up to 4 more troops, which are substantially more durable and have better mobility options? It's not a fit for every Tau list certainly, but it's still insanely strong. I also noticed you didn't even attempt to rebut his ridiculous buffs to an IG blob.
I can only assume that you not mentioning thudd guns means you must agree with me on that front. Brill.
So how is this any different than all the overpowered codex units? Should we ban all codex armies until GW fixes Helldrakes? Or are people magically able to cope with balance issues when they involve a particular set of books, but completely incompetent when a unit is published in a different book?
So your argument boils down to this: there's a lot of unbalanced units, there's no harm adding more even though it disproportionately favours IG which are already one of the best codices in the game? That's a pretty bad argument. Even so, I would argue Heavy Artillery and Thudd guns ruin the game far more than anything GW has done as games go from taking a couple of hours to an entire afternoon. Even if you reject all balance issues (of which there are several), this is still a major issue at tournaments. How do you propose we get around that, other than either comp restrictions on FW or not using it at all?
Warhammer 40,000: 1500 points chosen from any offi cial and current Warhammer 40.000 Codex
Note the singular "codex". One codex, no allies. I guess you're now going to argue that all tournaments should ban allies because GWHQ bans them? Or do GW's own tournaments only matter when they ban FW?
How do I get rid of him with volume of fire when he hides in a blob squad pray tell? You can't. There's also no other psyker that can reliably always get the entirety of telekinesis/biomancy, so that's also untrue. He's far from overrated.
Who cares about a 2++ if you're hiding in a blob squad and not taking any wounds?
As for the powers, who cares. I'd much rather have two DA divination librarians casting a total of four powers a turn (complete with the ultimate shooting buff as a primaris power) than waste time on biomancy "support" powers.
So because GW made artillery usable in 6th, that's an excuse for Forge World to release a minimal effort update that totally breaks them?
No, I think FW should fix the problem and increase their point cost appropriately. However it's just ridiculous to complain about FW's failure to fix obvious balance issues when GW still can't figure out how to errata the Vendetta to cost more than 130 points. If you're going to ban FW units over this issue then you need to ban all codex units over GW's identical "balance" policy.
Also, the problem with the artillery units isn't having four wounds on the gun, it's that the giant blob of guardsmen in front of it are all counted as being T7. Once you finally get through all the meatshield wounds doing an extra two wounds to the guns is no big deal.
No I didn't, at all. I even said it's not particularly strong in a balanced army. That doesn't mean it's not an ass. Why would I bother putting something in it? All it needs to do is ram when it enters then melta blast a unit nearby. Unless I get very unlucky, it won't die if I don't hover. As I said, it wrecks otherwise good armies and there's really no way armies like Orks or Dark Eldar can deal with it. That makes it poor.
Oh, I see. So you're going to cheat and melta blast on a turn you ram (check the ramming rules), and pretty much turn your 300 point flyer into a really expensive combi-melta Sternguard pod? How exactly is the Caestus even remotely appealing as a one-shot anti-tank weapon?
Less of a bonus? You can cast it on any squad within LOS at any time, even if you aren't attached.
Sigh. You should read the rules before you complain about them, the power can only be cast on the character and his own unit (or vehicle he's being transported in).
And it's less of a bonus because Shadowsun gives shrouded AND stealth. A +3 cover bonus is much better than a +2 bonus.
I also noticed you didn't even attempt to rebut his ridiculous buffs to an IG blob.
You're right, I didn't. Because DA are already handing out a 4++ to blobs, and I haven't seen you post a demand to ban DA from tournaments because of how overpowered blobs with a 4++ are.
I can only assume that you not mentioning thudd guns means you must agree with me on that front. Brill.
You're right, I agree that 6th edition's barrage rules are stupid and thudd guns are a time problem. I'd also say the same thing about a codex IG list that spams as many mortars as possible to slow down the game and win by running out of time.
How do you propose we get around that, other than either comp restrictions on FW or not using it at all?
Ban the single unit that causes a time problem, for time problem issues (not power level issues), stop trying to play high-point games in too little time, and actually enforce slow play rules. It's just insane to ban a huge list of units just because one unit is a time issue.
#1. Forge World will be embraced by Games Workshop soon so we might as well go ahead and include it. We all know what happened here, this turned out to be just a rumor.
How is Games Workshop supposed to embrace something made by Games Workshop. We do all understand that Forgeworld is a division of Games Workshop and the Imperial Armor books are official expansions to the game, correct?
#2. Alot of codex’s have no way to deal with flyers and Forge World is the only way they can get Skyfire. Well that was a lot of codexes ago. Let’s take a look at them:
Chaos Space marines
Dark Angels
Chaos Demons
Tau
Eldar
Space Marines (Coming soon)
Also don’t forget the Skies of Blood supplement
GW has been working overtime and cranking out the 6th edition books so now most of them are 6th edition compatible. Almost every army now has some way of dealing with flyers and those that don’t Forge World will not help them. The funny thing is that it really only helped out IG and SM armies who really did not need any help with skyfire. There were also unintended consequences to having all of these units that have skyfire/interceptor. Sure it kept the Necron armies away, but what happens is that you end up hurting armies that are viable builds that use reserves to get onto the board, and it also hurts armies that would like to use fliers (as a means of their only flier defense or for fun) get screwed.
Also the bottom line is that player who takes 12 Hyperios Launchers or Saber Platforms is not looking to protect himself from flyers, but trying to blow his opponent away with an over powered and undercosted unit.
And anyone who is making the argument that FW should be allowed because it somehow addresses power balance is putting an unfair onus on Imperial Armor that the company itself does not. Imperial Armor exists solely to expand the breadth and width of the game of 40K, no more, no less.
#3. The codexes are getting tired and old, and this will bring a lot of new and interesting units to everyone’s armies. That sure was a lot of codexes ago. So if you do not have a lot of new toys to play with, you can ally in new and exciting units to your existing army. Also if this is your argument for including forge world in competitive tournaments. I will point to the fact that all you see over and over again are the same units (saber platforms) and the other broken ones since no one uses the fluffy choices.
So now looking back at Forge World in tournaments I have to ask…do we need it?
How can I answer this question? Why did you think we 'need' Imperial Armor in the first place? If you're judging this by any of the misguided points above then obviously your answer is 'no'.
But if you're asking the question based on the actual reason to why Imperial Armor is 'needed' (to add breadth and width to the game of 40k), then the answer should always be 'yes' (at least in some tournaments).
The reason that these models and these rules should be allowed is because the company that makes the game makes them as part of the game. I can buy those models from the company and they have rules for using them in the game of Warhammer 40K, so why can't I use them?
Who are you (we) to judge that everyone taking Sabres or Thudd Guns is somehow worse than everyone taking Annihilation Barges? Games Workshop makes these rules and they DO NOT CARE, so why is Imperial Armor suddenly the place where the line gets drawn?
If it is true that allowing IA suddenly makes Imperial Guard the top army, then WHO CARES? Why is this suddenly worse then whatever other army (probably Necrons) would be 'top dog' when IA isn't allowed?
So in short:
I bought my Tetras from Games Workshop (Forgeworld) and Games Workshop (Forgeworld) makes rules for them in games of Warhammer 40k (just got my brand spanking new IA3, 2nd edition today!), so why the hell can't I use them in a tournament?
Do you think I care if everyone is taking a bunch of Sabres and Thudd Guns (I don't)? I just want to use the damn models that I paid for and I don't understand why when it comes to Forgeworld and Imperial Armor suddenly everyone thinks its totally cool to be the armchair games designer and make the decision that Imperial Armor needs to be banned from tournaments for 'balance' reasons, when the company that makes the game (which IA is a part of) does not care in the least.
If they wanted to fix Sabres, Thudd Guns, etc, they could and they would. Until they do, we have a couple more super-powerful units in the game, and so be it. It's GW's problem to fix, not ours.
Really? How exactly can I use the earthshaker batteries and heavy mortars that my DKoK are supposed to have with just the codex? Don't forget that fluff-wise a siege regiment does not have Basilisks or other artillery tanks, so even if I was allowed to count the earthshakers as Basilisks (the models are completely different) I would be directly contradicting my army's fluff.
(Or did you just forget that DKoK have more than infantry models?)
Do you have an afternoon to spend while I tell you all of the times where the fluff does not match the rules in game?
No one is telling you that you can't play that army, just not for tournament play. Ironically most Imperial Armor armies like DKoK are still not allowed at even tournaments that do have FW so you still would be unable to use it.
I was planning on buying a DKoK army because I love the models. The difference is that I was going to use them as IG. I like the look of the Earthshaker cannon and I was going to use them as basilisks. I was going to cut a base out that has the same size as the basilisk tank and mount it on that, and put ruined posts and walls around the base to mirror the profile of it. So I can have the look of the DKoK while playing with IG rules.
I also have a harlequin army and do you know what I do with that? I find eldar units that are close approximations to what were in the citadel journal and play with those.
I do have one question for you Peregrine, how many GTs have you played in in the last year?
While I was refusing to jump into this conversation when I already caused this storm once a few months ago with: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/477448.page I would like to know the answer to Blackmoors question highlighted in red.
I imagine it will be a number near 0 and the reason will be because he can't use DKoK in tournaments. Then again I may be assuming too much and since this is the internet nothing is really verifiable unless someone has actually been to the same events and knows who he is in real life.
j_p_chess wrote: For myself,
FW units are NOT in the codex of the army that I am bringing, and that just says no use for tourney play.
I am having trouble keeping up with 13+ codexi (sp?) now I gotta get these other forgeworld books on top of that.
Why should they put the rules in codices? Makes no sense at all.
Carlosthecraven- Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I thought the team tourney results at AdeptiCon might be relevant since it is such a big event, and so recent. Also given Target's comments as part of the winning side. I certainly don't blame anyone for using what is available! But, it's something to consider.
Simply banning, limiting, or FAQ'ing the few grossly overpowered FW artillery pieces for a GT seems like a decent compromise, imo... Fantasy events do this all the time with even rulebook/army book special characters/items. Just taking out the most egregious handful can answer most problems/critics, imo.
RiTides wrote: Simply banning, limiting, or FAQ'ing the few grossly overpowered FW artillery pieces for a GT seems like a decent compromise, imo... Fantasy events do this all the time with even rulebook/army book special characters/items. Just taking out the most egregious handful can answer most problems/critics, imo.
"FW legal except Artillery and Heavy Artillery" is certainly simple and effective.
The main problem with FW isn't FW overall. A lot of people buy their units because they love the looks, they are high quality overall.
The main problem is the extreme cherry-picking with FW stuff, especially some ridiculously overpowered crap...yes, I am looking at you, IG, love-child of FW.
Restricting it would solve that problem but as far as I am aware of it, and correct me here please, the US is very new to limiting games or armies and thus, it might take a lot of time to get some well-working restrictions out.
Sigvatr wrote: The main problem is the extreme cherry-picking with FW stuff, especially some ridiculously overpowered crap...yes, I am looking at you, IG, love-child of FW.
The ironic part is the 'big 3' powerful FW units aren't IG, they're Space Marine (Caestus, Achilles and Lucius drop pod)
It goes in cycles, Sigvatr, in the US tourney scene I think. Right now, the tourney scene is largely "no restrictions", but a simple FW artillery fix (and perhaps a handful of others) would address most concerns.
Blackmoor wrote: That is true in the US, but they still run the Throne of Skulls GT in the UK and they do not allow forge world.
They also impose a limit on how many points you can spend on allies, but I don't see anyone pushing to include that restriction just because GW's official events include it.
Regardless, GW prohibit the use of Forgeworld in their official tournaments, so you're wrong when you say that GW explicitly allow them.
I like how nobody addressed either of my concerns about FW.
IMO were I allowing FW I would limit its use to the 2 or 3 most recent FW book containing rules for a particular army. That way the rules cycle just as the do for codices, and there is more balance in the number of options available to each faction.
I also disagree with the idea that FW books are not expansions that provide optional rules for game play (they are) and we might consider that the lists and units are designed with use in those types if games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also funny how people want to use stuff and lists from old supplements. So why not allow squats then I bought e models so I should be able to use them. I also don't buy the why are Chaos dwarves allowed. Are they in ever fantasy event? Why does that matter for 40k? And why only that one list, would FW players be happy if I said well the only FW allowed is eldar corsairs.
Sigvatr wrote:The main problem with FW isn't FW overall. A lot of people buy their units because they love the looks, they are high quality overall.
The main problem is the extreme cherry-picking with FW stuff, especially some ridiculously overpowered crap...yes, I am looking at you, IG, love-child of FW.
Restricting it would solve that problem but as far as I am aware of it, and correct me here please, the US is very new to limiting games or armies and thus, it might take a lot of time to get some well-working restrictions out.
Sorry, the problem is that people cherry pick the best units, PERIOD.
This is not an issue with just Imperial Armor, yet people suddenly have an issue when people do it with an IA because they are expansion rules.
When's the last time you saw someone take Praetorians or Lychguard in a tournament Necron army? Its like all people do is 'cherry pick' the Wraiths, Sycthes & Ann Barges...so clearly those units are the problem and should be banned from tournaments.
Here's a news flash people:
GAMES WORKSHOP MAKES ARMIES THAT CONTAIN UNITS THAT ARE WAAAAAY BETTER THAN OTHERS IN THE ARMY. THIS IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO IMPERIAL ARMOR.
So to gripe about Imperial Armor being a 'problem' because people seem to only take the 'best' units from it, is ridiculous. Its like chastising SW players for taking a bunch of Long Fangs or CSM players for taking Heldrakes.
Games Workshop has never, ever, ever, ever trumpeted Imperial Armor as being any kind of 'solution' or 'balancing' formula for their codexes, and anybody who acts like this should be a reason to allow them or disallow them is playing armchair games designer.
The fact is, these are RULES published by the company for their game. Are these rules an expansion? Of course, they say so right on their front covers and in the intro for every IA book...but just because they are an expansion is NOT A REASON TO DISALLOW THEM FROM BEING USED.
If you want to run your tournament not allowing IA rules, then fine, everybody has a right to run their tournaments the way they want. But for anyone to act like its not appropriate to include IA in a tournament simply because the rules are an expansion or because they think the rules are 'unbalancing' is poppycock.
The people who write the game have made these rules. They are rules for their game. I bought models for their game using the rules they have written for their game. I should be able to use those models in my games, tournament or no. If the designers have no issues with Imperial Armor being unbalanced like their codexes, then who are you exactly to step in and try to say that this 'needs' to be done to preserve some theoretical 'balance'?
If you don't like the fact that you feel IA unbalances the game, then write GW a letter or consider quitting the game because it is inherently imbalanced. But please don't randomly highlight and try to restrict IA rules from being used because they're just as unbalanced as units in the codex.
Breng77 wrote:I like how nobody addressed either of my concerns about FW.
IMO were I allowing FW I would limit its use to the 2 or 3 most recent FW book containing rules for a particular army. That way the rules cycle just as the do for codices, and there is more balance in the number of options available to each faction.
I also disagree with the idea that FW books are not expansions that provide optional rules for game play (they are) and we might consider that the lists and units are designed with use in those types if games.
Also funny how people want to use stuff and lists from old supplements. So why not allow squats then I bought e models so I should be able to use them. I also don't buy the why are Chaos dwarves allowed. Are they in ever fantasy event? Why does that matter for 40k? And why only that one list, would FW players be happy if I said well the only FW allowed is eldar corsairs.
I don't even understand the point of your post.
Of course the most current published rules for every IA unit need to be used if they're going to be played just like the most current codex has to be used. I mean, you can agree with opponents to go back and play out of date rules, but in general any discussion involving IA is simply talking about using the most current rules version of any given unit.
And yes, of course IA is an expansion, it says so on their front covers. However, just because it is an expansion shouldn't be an automatic reason not to allow them. They are still part of the game written by the company who makes the game.
I basically echo Carlos on the subject. Nothing wrong with a TO doing as they please, but the heavy push for fw use in sixth edition is buoyed by powerful units competitive players want to take. The casual fw lovers have always been there, but as soon as vocal competitors saw units actually worth taking, the voices multiplied.
Also, it's known now that FW rules are not playtested, and not balanced at all with the GW primary rules. GW actual playtesters came out and said it flatly. That's fine, but can we stop claiming they're official, balanced, etc? There's a reason GWHQ literally never uses them in store tournaments. That doesn't mean a TO should be lambasted for using them himself. It's one of the more awesome things to be able to run your event as you see fit.
Honestly there are plenty of powerful units in the game as is, in every codex ... People hardly need MORE, especially more that aren't balanced or play tested. You want to see the REAL motives behind the FW push, ban sabres, thudds, redth, and maybe three others while freely legalizing the rest, and watch the results and response. We've considered it ourselves. Allowing FW changes list design and planning and is a form of comp itself. Tweaking a little when you're already tweaking isn't all that horrible, after all.
I personally like FW in play.. Do I have or use "broken" fw models... surprise NO, I have Eldar Wasps, Hornets, Shadow Spectres.... None of them are that great or that cost effective. With the new Eldar codex, none are really that great any more, but I still like the models. Have I had a hard time at adepticon with FW models, yes. Do I want them eliminated, no. I think the big scare is the big unknown. More people do not have the books for the models and thus are scared of what they do not know, typical for any human response "fear the unkown". I do think that someone that is going to play the models needs to 1.) have the rules in their mitts for the opponent to look at and 2.) have the model....
I don't think it needs to be a big deal
RiTides wrote:
Simply banning, limiting, or FAQ'ing the few grossly overpowered FW artillery pieces for a GT seems like a decent compromise, imo... Fantasy events do this all the time with even rulebook/army book special characters/items. Just taking out the most egregious handful can answer most problems/critics, imo.
Doing this would go a long way to fixing the entire game, but you'd have to expand it to all OP models, not just FW ones.
However, that's a slippery slope, and one that's philosophically wrong. There's a lot of resistance to restricting what the rules say people can use, and/or using a comp system to manage the OP items, and the main reason for this is that comp systems do not fix a broken system, they only change what is broken.
In order to really address these issues, for OP units, both FW and Codex, someone would really need to create an alternate point system, that covered everything in the game, and that was a living document that evolved with new rules and books.
That's a lot of work. Arguably, the game designers themselves should be doing it, but GW are pretty inept when it come to writing rules (Or have an alternate goal besides designing a balanced game), which is why we always see something being way better than anything else. Not only is it a lot of work, it's a lot of work that's bound to be met with a lot of resistance. People who bought 3 vendettas, or helldrakes don't want to see that $200 lose its effectiveness. It's a lot of work that has very little interest to casual players, but that would require widescale adoption by tournaments in order to have value. As such, it's unlikely that it will be done.
Realistically, the options are embrace the game, flawed as it is, and accept that, in a competitive setting, you're going to see a lot of spammed good units and none of the bad units, OR stop trying to play the game competitively.
And neither of the above are impacted by FW. FW doesn't create imbalance, it just shifts what's on top. If you're already accepting a flawed system, then you should be okay with having whatever on top. As such, the reasons that I see people not wanting to allow FW are because the specific good FW units trump their existing army's units, and they want to protect your own investment. At some point, they're going to have to do this anyway - Helldrakes, for example, deprecated a lot of 3+ save armies. But the inclusion of FW means that now they need to put a lot more into their army, so that they've got a competitive list for FW events, and another for non-FW events.
Of course, this would be solved if FW were universally adopted too.
Blackmoor wrote:I do have one question for you Peregrine, how many GTs have you played in in the last year?
I have one question - why is this at all relevant? This is a logical fallacy, you're attempting to introduce an appeal to authority, implying that your opinion on the matter is more valid than Peregrine's because you've been to more GTs this year.
I've been to very few tournaments since 6th ed came out, because I don't think it's a game well-suited for competitive play, with or without FW. The idea of playing against (essentially) the same army 3 or 4 times over a weekend simply doesn't appeal to me.
I'm not sure it's an appeal to authority. I agree that the argument should be able to stand on and be addressed on its own merits.
However the question of whether or not to include Forgeworld (or anything else) is primarily of relevance to the people who attend events. They're primarily the ones affected by it.
I've been to a lot of 6th ed events, and overall I find it a pretty exciting and surprisingly balanced play environment and experience. I'll agree with you and Yakface that even within the usual codices, there are overused and overpowered units, and those are indeed cherry-picked. I also agree with Carlos and MVBrandt that I like having variety in events, however my preference leans toward the non-FW-allowing, and it seems that that the top Forgeworld units exacerbate and worsen the problem of cherry-picked overpowered units, rather than mitigating it.
RiTides wrote:
Simply banning, limiting, or FAQ'ing the few grossly overpowered FW artillery pieces for a GT seems like a decent compromise, imo... Fantasy events do this all the time with even rulebook/army book special characters/items. Just taking out the most egregious handful can answer most problems/critics, imo.
Doing this would go a long way to fixing the entire game, but you'd have to expand it to all OP models, not just FW ones.
However, that's a slippery slope, and one that's philosophically wrong. There's a lot of resistance to restricting what the rules say people can use, and/or using a comp system to manage the OP items, and the main reason for this is that comp systems do not fix a broken system, they only change what is broken.
In order to really address these issues, for OP units, both FW and Codex, someone would really need to create an alternate point system, that covered everything in the game, and that was a living document that evolved with new rules and books.
That's a lot of work. Arguably, the game designers themselves should be doing it, but GW are pretty inept when it come to writing rules (Or have an alternate goal besides designing a balanced game), which is why we always see something being way better than anything else. Not only is it a lot of work, it's a lot of work that's bound to be met with a lot of resistance. People who bought 3 vendettas, or helldrakes don't want to see that $200 lose its effectiveness. It's a lot of work that has very little interest to casual players, but that would require widescale adoption by tournaments in order to have value. As such, it's unlikely that it will be done.
Realistically, the options are embrace the game, flawed as it is, and accept that, in a competitive setting, you're going to see a lot of spammed good units and none of the bad units, OR stop trying to play the game competitively.
And neither of the above are impacted by FW. FW doesn't create imbalance, it just shifts what's on top. If you're already accepting a flawed system, then you should be okay with having whatever on top. As such, the reasons that I see people not wanting to allow FW are because the specific good FW units trump their existing army's units, and they want to protect your own investment. At some point, they're going to have to do this anyway - Helldrakes, for example, deprecated a lot of 3+ save armies. But the inclusion of FW means that now they need to put a lot more into their army, so that they've got a competitive list for FW events, and another for non-FW events.
Of course, this would be solved if FW were universally adopted too.
Blackmoor wrote:I do have one question for you Peregrine, how many GTs have you played in in the last year?
I have one question - why is this at all relevant? This is a logical fallacy, you're attempting to introduce an appeal to authority, implying that your opinion on the matter is more valid than Peregrine's because you've been to more GTs this year.
I've been to very few tournaments since 6th ed came out, because I don't think it's a game well-suited for competitive play, with or without FW. The idea of playing against (essentially) the same army 3 or 4 times over a weekend simply doesn't appeal to me.
If you don't think 40k is suited to tournaments why spend so much time commenting on a thread in the tournament section? Why are you trying to impose your views on how Tournament 40k should be played if you don't think Tournament 40k should be played?
That is Blackmoors point. If you aren't actually attending these events then you're not only attempting to impose your will on how the game should be played in a setting you don't play in but it feels like you're (by this I mean all who comment here without actually playing competitive 40k not just you personally Redbeard) also continuing to stir the pot on a topic for the sake of stiring the pot.
If you don't think 40k is suited to tournaments why spend so much time commenting on a thread in the tournament section? Why are you trying to impose your views on how Tournament 40k should be played if you don't think Tournament 40k should be played?
Well, first off, I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone.
But, secondly, because I used to attend a lot more tournaments, and would like to do so again, but find that the current "competitive > everything else" mentality is what I don't find enjoyable. As such, I feel that I have as much right as anyone else to lobby in favour of tournament structures that I would enjoy.
Ninja'd by the man himself. What I got from that was that Redbeard used to go to a fair amount of tournaments but hasn't recently as he doesn't enjoy 6th Ed. in a competitive environment. Presumably his past tournament experience still holds weight in the conversation, seeing as 6th Ed. isn't the beginning and end of 40k.
I don't really hold a side in this debate, but I find it interesting to read none-the-less. As an outsider I think the people that are presenting the clearest argument are those for the inclusion of FW units.
Medium of Death wrote: Ninja'd by the man himself. What I got from that was that Redbeard used to go to a fair amount of tournaments but hasn't recently as he doesn't enjoy 6th Ed. in a competitive environment. Presumably his past tournament experience still holds weight in the conversation, seeing as 6th Ed. isn't the beginning and end of 40k.
I don't really hold a side in this debate, but I find it interesting to read none-the-less. As an outsider I think the people that are presenting the clearest argument are those for the inclusion of FW units.
No idea how you came to that conclusion?
The arguments for including FW have been this:
1) GW expressly allows it (Incorrect)
2) Their not broken, or at least not as broken as codex units (Not true, powerful Codex units are not nearly as durable and spammable as a Sabre or Thudd.)
3) Doesn't effect tournament play. ( You have a veteran tournament player who has played against these units and is arguing against them. 2 FW heavy armies nearly won BAO open and only lost because they played each other and then lost to broken flamer/screamer demons)
4) Brings Flyers/Necrons in line. (Tau already does that. Eldar will do that. FMC Daemons eat up Night Scythes. Best thing is I know exactly where to go to get these armies. They have the name of the army on the front of the book).
You do have people like Peregrine who want to play their fluffy FW lists, but then for everyone of them you have just as many who want to abuse those untested units to win the tourney.
GW is actually doing a good job of updating their codices. Eldar dropping today will be a good book. Tau is a good book. Daemons is a good book. Dark Angels and Chaos lag behind those three a bit but not by much and have very good, competitive builds in there. The meta is changing and for the better. Wait till wraithwing runs into a Tau gunline. Triple Drake getting shot by Lashing Daemon Princes.
FW is not needed to make a more competitive environment, in fact will have an opposite effect.
I second this sentiment. You don't "need" Forge World, in the same vein as you don't "need" any of the other codexes, nor do you "need" to play Warhammer 40k.
Breng77 wrote:
I must have missed that announcement, where outside a fw book did it happen, it seems to me that any time a Gw location runs an event FW Is banned....also pretty sure FW frequently includes language involving asking opponents permission (not sure if this is in all the books or is left out of new books.). Say FW is legal is the same as saying planet strike, or dog fighting rules are legal... Now I'm all for tournaments making their own choice on the matter. I tend to leave it to my players to decide what they want
In all Forge World books, there is a page which states that FW is intended for and legal for use in classic 40k games. I quoth the following from IA3E2:
Warhammer 40,000: This unit or scenario is intended to be used in 'standard' game of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitations of Codex selection and force organisation charts.... As with all of our models these should be considered 'official', but as they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start.
So yes, FW is legal by GW's own statement (FW is under GW), and it basically comes down to this: if you don't want to play against FW, don't play. It's no different from not playing against someone because they are GK players or just because you don't like them as a person.
Really? If you're going to say something is incorrect, you should present some reasoning behind it.
Here's the reason that GW does allow it:
I have a book, printed by GW, that says the units marked with the 40k logo are for use in standard games of Warhammer 40,000 and should be considered 'official'.
You're going to have to stretch to come up with a better argument than that.
2) Their not broken, or at least not as broken as codex units (Not true, powerful Codex units are not nearly as durable and spammable as a Sabre or Thudd.)
You're arguing specifics, which means that your argument here revolves around this current moment in time. For all I know, new Eldar stuff will be better than thudds. There will always be 'best units'. Whether they are, or are not FW at any moment in time is disputable, but is also fairly irrelevant. They're all 'official', and they're all available. Just because the current 'best' is FW (in your opinion) is no reason to ban FW, just as if the current best is Necrons, that's no reason to ban Necrons.
3) Doesn't effect tournament play. ( You have a veteran tournament player who has played against these units and is arguing against them. 2 FW heavy armies nearly won BAO open and only lost because they played each other and then lost to broken flamer/screamer demons)
So, you have another veteran tournament player (me) arguing that they're fine. What's your point. It's also notable that the broken GW army trumped the broken FW army, so what does that say?
For the record, Blackmoor is absolutely correct, at this moment in time, those specific FW units will affect the metagame. But I'm also right, in that while they change the specific metagame, they don't impact the fact that there will always be a metagame, and there will always be 'best' units, and FW does not alter this reality. Including FW does not alter the fact that there is a metagame, or change the dynamic involved in the metagame, its inclusion only alters what that metagame is at any given snapshot in time.
4) Brings Flyers/Necrons in line. (Tau already does that. Eldar will do that. FMC Daemons eat up Night Scythes. Best thing is I know exactly where to go to get these armies. They have the name of the army on the front of the book).
This is the worst argument in favour of, or against, FW, and I see no merit in debating this point on either side. FW will change the specific metagame, but won't solve the basic fact that the game is broken.
GW is actually doing a good job of updating their codices.
This is a very debatable sentence. GW is doing a good job at releasing codexes at a decent pace. I'm not convinced that the products are good.
Of course, to get into this, we have to define what good is.
Eldar dropping today will be a good book. Tau is a good book. Daemons is a good book.
So, we still haven't defined "good". I reject the notion that any of these are good books, and I'll give you my definition.
A "good" codex is one that is both internally and externally balanced. One that does not have must-take units, does not have must-avoid units, and that has a place in the metagame. I haven't read the new eldar book yet, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that there will be at least one must-take unit, and that Howling Banshees will be avoided by everyone. Tau are not good because their internal balance is poor, and while the codex is probably too new to have really defined the good and the bad, it's pretty obvious that there are a number of Fast Attack choices that will not get used because pathfinders are must-haves and piranahs and drone squadrons are much better than vespids or the new flyers. Likewise, with missilesides, skyrays and hammerheads in the mix, I'm not sure sniper teams have a place. Poor internal balance = unused units = not good book. In a good book, everything has a place.
Daemons... that one is so easy to pick apart, and this really isn't the thread for this sort of analysis. Needless to say, these books can only be considered good if you are only looking at how their best entries stack up against the best entries in other books, and that's not a good benchmark. That's what leads to a game where spam rules and you play the same thing over and over.
FW is not needed to make a more competitive environment, in fact will have an opposite effect.
FW will not make a more competitive environment, yet it won't have the other effect at all. It will not change the general approach that anyone takes to competitive play, all it will do is change what specific items are taken. And introduce more variety, which, in my opinion is the best reason to allow them.
Sorry, the problem is that people cherry pick the best units, PERIOD.
[snip!]
I don't see where I disagreed with you, yakface. You're correct. The thing with FW is that you simply increase the number of overpowered stuff and I don't see how this would improve the game at all. And we can both agree that some armies, mostly IG, profit a LOT more than most other armies, making the entire issue even worse. It's the "Opening a can of worms" argument. Lack of playtesting rules is another big issue with FW, even moreso than GW.
Why would I write a letter to GW? If you are obviously offended by the attitude of players / tournaments disallowing FW, why don't you write a long, sad letter about them allowing FW? Or maybe ask them to host FW aka IG-only tournaments
The broken unit argument against FW seems to me to be moot because of the allied matrix allowing you to cherry pick from not one but two broken lists.
@Peregrine, in this thread and others you have repeatedly stated that people that do not agree with how you want to play 40k should be treated with contempt. That is a supremely arrogant position to take and I defy you to defend it.
Most tournament organizers are not making any money from their effort and I strongly support their right to run the tournament how they see fit. As long as they are up front with the rules ahead of time no one has a right to bitch about comp or FW allowed or not allowed. If you dont like the parameters then just dont go, or better, dont be such a goldilocks about events with plastic dollies and go and try and have a good time anyway.
I second this sentiment. You don't "need" Forge World, in the same vein as you don't "need" any of the other codexes, nor do you "need" to play Warhammer 40k.
Breng77 wrote:
I must have missed that announcement, where outside a fw book did it happen, it seems to me that any time a Gw location runs an event FW Is banned....also pretty sure FW frequently includes language involving asking opponents permission (not sure if this is in all the books or is left out of new books.). Say FW is legal is the same as saying planet strike, or dog fighting rules are legal... Now I'm all for tournaments making their own choice on the matter. I tend to leave it to my players to decide what they want
In all Forge World books, there is a page which states that FW is intended for and legal for use in classic 40k games. I quoth the following from IA3E2:
Warhammer 40,000: This unit or scenario is intended to be used in 'standard' game of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitations of Codex selection and force organisation charts.... As with all of our models these should be considered 'official', but as they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start.
So yes, FW is legal by GW's own statement (FW is under GW), and it basically comes down to this: if you don't want to play against FW, don't play. It's no different from not playing against someone because they are GK players or just because you don't like them as a person.
So inside FW books counts as where outside FW books? Just saying? Also still says, make sure your opponent is ok playing against them. Language not contained in codices. But like I said I am not against events containing them (at my next event, FW will be allowed in one tournament and not in another.). I still think the biggest issue is the imbalance of units available to each army. If we assume (nothing backing this up) that say 1 in 5 units is broken. Then IG having like 30 new units is a big deal compared to say Eldar having 5 or 6 (numbers here are not accurate.)
Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form.
MVBrandt wrote: I basically echo Carlos on the subject. Nothing wrong with a TO doing as they please, but the heavy push for fw use in sixth edition is buoyed by powerful units competitive players want to take. The casual fw lovers have always been there, but as soon as vocal competitors saw units actually worth taking, the voices multiplied.
Also, it's known now that FW rules are not playtested, and not balanced at all with the GW primary rules. GW actual playtesters came out and said it flatly. That's fine, but can we stop claiming they're official, balanced, etc? There's a reason GWHQ literally never uses them in store tournaments. That doesn't mean a TO should be lambasted for using them himself. It's one of the more awesome things to be able to run your event as you see fit.
Honestly there are plenty of powerful units in the game as is, in every codex ... People hardly need MORE, especially more that aren't balanced or play tested. You want to see the REAL motives behind the FW push, ban sabres, thudds, redth, and maybe three others while freely legalizing the rest, and watch the results and response. We've considered it ourselves. Allowing FW changes list design and planning and is a form of comp itself. Tweaking a little when you're already tweaking isn't all that horrible, after all.
Agreed with this... about the variety of events being good, and allowing all but 5-6 FW units in a tourney allowing them being a good compromise. The theme players get to use their toys, and the competitive players don't have to deal with thudd guns- as mentioned even by the player who won the AdeptiCon team tourney with them, Target. Win-win!
The "no restrictions, ever" argument doesn't make sense when allowing FW, imo. Why stand by all or nothing when there's an easy compromise? Only makes sense- imo- if you were wanting to field things like thudd guns yourself. Banning them but allowing most would make the "for fun / theme" FW players rejoice, imo.
cerbrus2 wrote: It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules.
I agree with your opinion on fliers, riptides, and wraithknights.
"Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form."
That goes both ways. If you can afford to play you can probably afford some Forge World.
cerbrus2 wrote: Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form.
Well if you can afford an airplane ticket and hotel accommodations etc you can afford Forgeworld models. tournaments always have and always will favor people with relatively unlimited resources to buy the latest and best stuff. This is true for many kinds of sports and hobbies that have a competitive element. That is just the way the world works.
Also, I dont think it is fair to say that all people who buy FW do it for the snob factor.
Since you brought it up, it is kind of funny though thinking about one neckbearded chubby/fat guy with a stained t-shirt being snobby to another one. Yeah I am being unfair and stereotyping but you cant deny this has probably happened.
JWhex wrote: Most tournament organizers are not making any money from their effort and I strongly support their right to run the tournament how they see fit. As long as they are up front with the rules ahead of time no one has a right to bitch about comp or FW allowed or not allowed. If you dont like the parameters then just dont go, or better, dont be such a goldilocks about events with plastic dollies and go and try and have a good time anyway.
Fortunately, it's not up to you whether or people people have a "right" to criticize events (rightly or wrongly). If you don't like people discussing tournaments then maybe you should reconsider why you're participating in a forum titled "Tournament Discussions."
cerbrus2 wrote: Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form.
Well if you can afford an airplane ticket and hotel accommodations etc you can afford Forgeworld models. tournaments always have and always will favor people with relatively unlimited resources to buy the latest and best stuff. This is true for many kinds of sports and hobbies that have a competitive element. That is just the way the world works.
Also, I dont think it is fair to say that all people who buy FW do it for the snob factor.
Since you brought it up, it is kind of funny though thinking about one neckbearded chubby/fat guy with a stained t-shirt being snobby to another one. Yeah I am being unfair and stereotyping but you cant deny this has probably happened.
Lol that made me chuckle, But I have to say that it does bring a snob factor in it, Or maybe snobby is a poor choice. Maybe the correct way of putting it was to say that by bringing FW models into tournaments is Model Peen, who ever has the biggest and most expensive wins. Not only for the size and cost of the model but because these more pricey models often have the best stats in the Imperial Armour books from which we draw there rules from.
And those Turning up to tournaments with just bog standard run of the mill GW models, because they cannot afford FW prices due to the fact they just had to sell their sole to get to a tournament, and end up leaving the tournament after loosing to an army with much larger model Peen.
I know in most cases people with FW who are commenting on here will be like "Pfft who cares i win with superior model Peen, not my fault they cant afford it." But it does ruin the spirit of the game in my opinion, but only because it is leaving people in a less fortunate position behind in terms of being able to field an effective force.
Lol that made me chuckle, But I have to say that it does bring a snob factor in it, Or maybe snobby is a poor choice. Maybe the correct way of putting it was to say that by bringing FW models into tournaments is Model Peen, who ever has the biggest and most expensive wins.
You appear to be completely ignorant of the facts. The Forgeworld models that are Good for tournament play are considerably less expensive than the models that are Good from the standard GW range. A FW thudd gun is $36 from the 2013 FW catalog, a vendetta is $66. A FW saber platform is $ 30, while a Helldrake is $74. Two tau FW$ tetras are $56, while two Piranha are $60. When add in Riptides and Wraithknights, there's really very little difference in cost between the GW line and the FW line.
Not only for the size and cost of the model but because these more pricey models often have the best stats in the Imperial Armour books from which we draw there rules from.
Actually, the really pricey FW models are typically underpowered in the games. It's the smaller FW stuff that ends up being good.
...to sell their sole...
You mean their shoes or a fish? Cheap shot, but there you go.
Ummm...thud guns did change they went from dying to a glance to making an entire unit of wounds T7... The biggest 2 arguments against FW inclusion IMO are:
1.) units in these books are not frequently updated and do not cycle with codex change. Meaning if something is op now it will not change with a new dex release. Furthermore something that is not op in one edition can be in the next and while this is true with codices they at least some day get updated FW not so much..
2.) Imbalance in army releases, imperial armies get an overwhelming number of the FW units, as well as getting most of the really good units.
I realise this is a few pages ago, but both these points apply to Allies too. Which Allies combos are powerful does not cycle with codex change, as only one of the two codecs has to change to unbalance the complete list. Also, some armies have much better and more varied allies options. So, I presume you also think that all allies should be banned??
cerbrus2 wrote: Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form.
Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.
As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of FW into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible? I go. I spend lots of money, make new friends and try to have some fun.
Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.
As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of FW into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible? I go. I spend lots of money, make new friends and try to have some fun.
I agree with this comment. This has become a 2 tier system, by allowing people to buy wins with Necron air forces (with allied in heldrakes for extra cheese). Its created a system of haves and have nots. It comes down to cost, I can't afford to buy 6/7 aircraft to have a shot at winnning a tournament, and no one else should be allowed to buy models if I cant afford to. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.
As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of Necrons or flyer heavy lists into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible by banning aircraft? I go. I spend lots of money, so I want to make new friends who agree with me and want to play the game like its 2010 again...
Gamers with more disposable incomes are always going to have an advantage in the arms race. but that doesn't equate to an auto win. Necrons aren't the newest codex, or the most expensive to collect (that honour goes to IG), but they are still the "top tier army" at the moment
Ummm...thud guns did change they went from dying to a glance to making an entire unit of wounds T7... The biggest 2 arguments against FW inclusion IMO are:
1.) units in these books are not frequently updated and do not cycle with codex change. Meaning if something is op now it will not change with a new dex release. Furthermore something that is not op in one edition can be in the next and while this is true with codices they at least some day get updated FW not so much..
2.) Imbalance in army releases, imperial armies get an overwhelming number of the FW units, as well as getting most of the really good units.
I realise this is a few pages ago, but both these points apply to Allies too. Which Allies combos are powerful does not cycle with codex change, as only one of the two codecs has to change to unbalance the complete list. Also, some armies have much better and more varied allies options. So, I presume you also think that all allies should be banned??
Ummm... What ally combos are powerful absolutely changes with the codex cycle. How any csm necron players did we see before the new csm book? How many more tau allies will we see with the new book, eldar? Point is as new books come out the balance changes, the FW books really don't change much.
Also you do realize that those codifies with the most allies have the most FW units. So adding to the problem is sure to help. FW also has ways for armies to essentially ally with themselves in some cases, if you allow FW army lists.
RiTides wrote: Agreed with this... about the variety of events being good, and allowing all but 5-6 FW units in a tourney allowing them being a good compromise. The theme players get to use their toys, and the competitive players don't have to deal with thudd guns- as mentioned even by the player who won the AdeptiCon team tourney with them, Target. Win-win!
I agree with this as long as a similar rule is applied to overpowered codex units. If you're going to ban thudd guns I expect to see Vendettas and Helldrakes on your banned list as well.
Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.
As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of FW into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible? I go. I spend lots of money, make new friends and try to have some fun.
I agree with this comment. This has become a 2 tier system, by allowing people to buy wins with Necron air forces (with allied in heldrakes for extra cheese). Its created a system of haves and have nots. It comes down to cost, I can't afford to buy 6/7 aircraft to have a shot at winnning a tournament, and no one else should be allowed to buy models if I cant afford to. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.
As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of Necrons or flyer heavy lists into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible by banning aircraft? I go. I spend lots of money, so I want to make new friends who agree with me and want to play the game like its 2010 again...
Gamers with more disposable incomes are always going to have an advantage in the arms race. but that doesn't equate to an auto win. Necrons aren't the newest codex, or the most expensive to collect (that honour goes to IG), but they are still the "top tier army" at the moment
First of all I can afford this game (got 35 grand wrapped up into this hobby and 25+ years) and its upgrades so the italic comments are not valid. Secondly please check on how the armies are being played in the major tournaments. Allies are the key to winning. Necron's which I own 4000 points I use as allies only as there are gaping holes that can be exploited. This is not about auto wins, this is about the health of 40K overall. Tournaments are included in this aspect. I don't think the overall heath of 40K is good. I do see some TO's trying to make that effort to make it as enjoyable as possible. Luckily some these TO are the more larger ones.
These are the people that are going to keep 40K alive by compromise so that Newcommers can enjoy the tournament experience, instead of being curb stomped into the ground by someone with an unfair advantage. Regardless of it being FW or not.
I have expressed similar opinions in the past and probably will continue to do so. Compromise is needed to keep the tournament scene healthy.
MVBrandt wrote: Also, it's known now that FW rules are not playtested, and not balanced at all with the GW primary rules. GW actual playtesters came out and said it flatly. That's fine, but can we stop claiming they're official, balanced, etc?
It's also well known that codex units aren't playtested. Remember the "playtesting" story a while back where they set up a cool (and unbalanced) scenario and then had a third player enter halfway through the game? That's not competitive playtesting, that's just screwing around. And it's not providing any useful information outside of "will casual 'fluff' players enjoy the game".
There's a reason GWHQ literally never uses them in store tournaments.
And GWHQ doesn't allow allies in their tournament. Do you advocate banning allies because that's what GWHQ does, or do GWHQ's tournament rules only matter when they say "no FW"?
Peregrine, you're the one who argued that GW has put forward Forgeworld as general-use, and equivalent to the codices. The fact that the events GW runs at their own HQ do not treat them that way is contrary evidence. Shifting the focus onto the other person's position is dodging the point.
You still haven't answered the question about what events you've attended. That's okay though. You don't have to.
Lol that made me chuckle, But I have to say that it does bring a snob factor in it, Or maybe snobby is a poor choice. Maybe the correct way of putting it was to say that by bringing FW models into tournaments is Model Peen, who ever has the biggest and most expensive wins.
You appear to be completely ignorant of the facts. The Forgeworld models that are Good for tournament play are considerably less expensive than the models that are Good from the standard GW range. A FW thudd gun is $36 from the 2013 FW catalog, a vendetta is $66. A FW saber platform is $ 30, while a Helldrake is $74. Two tau FW$ tetras are $56, while two Piranha are $60. When add in Riptides and Wraithknights, there's really very little difference in cost between the GW line and the FW line.
Not only for the size and cost of the model but because these more pricey models often have the best stats in the Imperial Armour books from which we draw there rules from.
Actually, the really pricey FW models are typically underpowered in the games. It's the smaller FW stuff that ends up being good.
...to sell their sole...
You mean their shoes or a fish? Cheap shot, but there you go.
Your price comparison is not very accurate because you forgot to add on the cost of the rule books which are very expensive. Perhaps if you are going to label someone completely ignorant of the facts you should get your relevant facts arranged in pretty straight line.
cerbrus2 wrote: It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules.
AdamLongWalker wrote: Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost.
Oaka beat me to this. Damn it. In addition, most of the other posters here appear to be far more eloquent than myself in expressing their thoughts, so this may not make much sense in comparison.
Anyway, I'm a CSM player. Have been for about 3 years, since I started playing. I don't own any of the following: Heldrakes or flyers. Why? The answer is quite simple, "pay to win". To make a competitive list with my "official" codex, I have to include a Heldrake. There's no doubt about it, and I challenge you to find me a CSM player who placed in the Top 10 of a tournament without using a Heldrake.
What does this mean? It means I need at least one (realistically, two to three) £45 model to have the advantage over my opponent. I must pay for the competitive edge over my opponent. And this is why l find your posts hilarious (please don't take offence). Games Workshop has just as much emphasis on paying for power as Forge World, to the extent that if I can't afford the Heldrake/Riptide/whatever, I'm going to be SOL for competitive play.
So on a smaller scale (I'm 15, I can't afford much), it comes down to the haves and have nots, as you said. If I can't afford a flyer, then I see snobbery, because I have NO WAY to remove them without paying more to outclass yours. It comes down to cost.
If I don't have flyers, what can I do? Allies. Oh yeah. Pay a &@^%-ton more than it would cost to buy flyers for my army.
I'm sorry, but the whole inclusion of flyers is significantly more "pay to win" than Forge World ever will be.
/long, rambling train of thought. Most of it probably doesn't make sense.
Anyway, I'm firmly pro-Forge World. I can't be bothered to properly quote this, so:
MVBrandt-"You want to see the REAL motives behind the FW push, ban sabres, thudds, redth, and maybe three others while freely legalizing the rest, and watch the results and response."
I can already imagine, because it's how I feel. Fine, ban those, so long as you also ban Necron Flyers, Annihilation Barges, Wraiths, Ulmeathi plasma siphon (sp?), Heldrakes, The Black Mace (seriously Kelly? I feel bad when I give it to a Daemon Prince. Having said that, I don't see it recommended much), Riptides, Vendettas, and the list goes on.
Both Forge World and Games Workshop are perfectly legal as far as I am concerned. FW say they should be considered official, and as it's from GW, that's good enough IMHO. What a TO decides is up to them, and I won't hold their decision against them.
Ultimately, I see it as two main groups of people, both of which bought little resin and plastic toys from the same company, and one of which is effectively being told by the other, "No, you can't play with your toys in the sandbox". There are a few people in the middle, trying to say that there could be two sandboxes, and that's basically how I feel.
Tl,dr: I'm firmly for FW, but at the end of the day, I won't force you to play the game how I want you to.
Mannahnin wrote: Peregrine, you're the one who argued that GW has put forward Forgeworld as general-use, and equivalent to the codices.
You're right, I am. It says it in the book in plain English. FW is official and part of standard 40k. This is not up for debate, the only question is whether "no FW" house rules are good for tournaments or not.
The fact that the events GW runs at their own HQ do not treat them that way is contrary evidence.
No it isn't, because the events GW run at their own HQ also have other non-standard rules. The ban on FW units doesn't mean FW isn't part of the game, just like the ban on allies doesn't mean that allies aren't part of the game.
And yes, this is an entirely relevant thing to mention when the only part of how GWHQ runs events that anyone cares about is the "no FW" line. Either GWHQ is the standard all other events need to meet or it isn't. You can't just selectively pull out one house rule they play under and ignore the others.
You still haven't answered the question about what events you've attended. That's okay though. You don't have to.
And I'm not going to, because it's a blatant attempt to dismiss what I'm saying because I don't have impressive enough credentials instead of addressing the substance of the argument.
No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're working from the perspective of a member and participant or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.
But as I said before, that's a bit of a sideline, and really anyone criticizing your arguments should be able to do so without knowing whether you actually play the game.
Mannahnin wrote: The fact that the events GW runs at their own HQ do not treat them that way is contrary evidence.
No it isn't, because the events GW run at their own HQ also have other non-standard rules. The ban on FW units doesn't mean FW isn't part of the game, just like the ban on allies doesn't mean that allies aren't part of the game.
And yes, this is an entirely relevant thing to mention when the only part of how GWHQ runs events that anyone cares about is the "no FW" line. Either GWHQ is the standard all other events need to meet or it isn't. You can't just selectively pull out one house rule they play under and ignore the others.
That's a legitimate argument. If said restrictions are imposed equally. You've linked one event (this year's Throne of Skulls packet) indicating that allies won't be permitted. A British poster has advised that no events at all at GWHQ allow Foregeworld/Imperial Armour units. Those aren't exactly equivalent, if they're accurate.
Forgeworld as general use? Hmm, so if I can find proof of FW promotion in a book (not WD) published by the GW Design Studio, would that satisfy any arguments?
Mannahnin wrote: A British poster has advised that no events at all at GWHQ allow Foregeworld/Imperial Armour units.
That's not true. If nothing else GWHQ runs the Heresy events in which onlyFW rules are allowed.
Plus, as I said before, there are a variety of possible reasons why FW stuff would be banned even though it's part of the game. It could be for simplicity (same reason they ban allies), it could be because GW's sales "experts" feel that events should promote "core" products, or it could be that GWHQ just got tired of people trying to bring pirated copies of FW books.
No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.
I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.
No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.
I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.
If an argument is valid on its own merit and logic then it really does not matter who makes it. You probably are not going to get a lot of good fitness tips from someone who hasnt exercised in ten years but that would not be an argument against good advice if they gave it.
Tournaments are just about impossible to compare with one another so I really dont see how anyones tournament record matters. I guess if you have NEVER been to a tournament you would not be very well informed on the nuts and bolts, but this whole tournament thing with Peregine is just a diversion.
Participating in tournaments and credentials are pretty silly things to put in the same paragraph. Credentials are degrees and certifications, tournaments are just pushing little plastic dollies around and taking it way too seriously, especially with 40k.
Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.
As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of FW into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible? I go. I spend lots of money, make new friends and try to have some fun.
I agree with this comment. This has become a 2 tier system, by allowing people to buy wins with Necron air forces (with allied in heldrakes for extra cheese). Its created a system of haves and have nots. It comes down to cost, I can't afford to buy 6/7 aircraft to have a shot at winnning a tournament, and no one else should be allowed to buy models if I cant afford to. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.
As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of Necrons or flyer heavy lists into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible by banning aircraft? I go. I spend lots of money, so I want to make new friends who agree with me and want to play the game like its 2010 again...
Gamers with more disposable incomes are always going to have an advantage in the arms race. but that doesn't equate to an auto win. Necrons aren't the newest codex, or the most expensive to collect (that honour goes to IG), but they are still the "top tier army" at the moment
First of all I can afford this game (got 35 grand wrapped up into this hobby and 25+ years) and its upgrades so the italic comments are not valid. Secondly please check on how the armies are being played in the major tournaments. Allies are the key to winning. Necron's which I own 4000 points I use as allies only as there are gaping holes that can be exploited. This is not about auto wins, this is about the health of 40K overall. Tournaments are included in this aspect. I don't think the overall heath of 40K is good. I do see some TO's trying to make that effort to make it as enjoyable as possible. Luckily some these TO are the more larger ones.
These are the people that are going to keep 40K alive by compromise so that Newcommers can enjoy the tournament experience, instead of being curb stomped into the ground by someone with an unfair advantage. Regardless of it being FW or not.
I have expressed similar opinions in the past and probably will continue to do so. Compromise is needed to keep the tournament scene healthy.
I'm sorry, but your argument was that people who have more money and can buy FW models have an unfair advantage over those who cannot, I turn that argument around and state that people who have more money and can buy fliers have an unfair advantage over those without, and you respond with "I have 35 grands worth of models so this argument doesn't apply to me"???
The system is devolving into FW haves and FW have nots, creating a two tiered system, as it allows some people to use their money to load up on broken FW units for an advantage, and this is a huge problem, which is not ok.
The system is devolving into FW aircraft haves and FW aircraft have nots, creating a two tiered system, as it allows some people to use their money to load up on broken FW aircraft units for an advantage, and this is not a problem at all, as you have the money/models to take advantage.
Does that not seem ever so slightly hypocritical to you? Would you have a problem with someone copying the adepticon list
Draigo....£15
10 Paladins....£56
3 Annihilation Barges....£67.50
3 Night Scythes.....£82.50
Necron Overlord.....£11
15 necron Warriors.....£44
Winning a tournament....priceless
and would it make a difference to you if they already had the models, or if they had to go out and buy them?
The problem with the "All codexes have broken units" argument is the amount of units that are broken.
For example: The Necron codex has 18 units in it (not counting HQs). So there are a few good units that you can choose from.
Now look at the Forge world books: How many units are in there?
It is like if you get to take the best units out of every codex and put them together for an army. You can say that the FW books have units for every army, but really they do not. For the most part they are all IG and a few
There are 2 arguments that go nowhere when you talk about forge world.
#1. They are official GW rules.
This can't really be proven one way or another.
#2. The cost
It costs a lot to buy the books and the best FW units which is always countered by this is an expensive hobby and that if you have an army you have already spent a ton of money.
No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.
I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.
If an argument is valid on its own merit and logic then it really does not matter who makes it. You probably are not going to get a lot of good fitness tips from someone who hasnt exercised in ten years but that would not be an argument against good advice if they gave it.
The reason why I ask is that if you do not play any tournaments you have no "skin in the game". It has no impact on you one way or another and you are just telling other people how they should play their games of 40k.
I would like to point out that most of the people who do not want FW at tournaments are tournament players, and the people who are for it are generally not.
Blackmoor wrote: The problem with the "All codexes have broken units" argument is the amount of units that are broken.
For example: The Necron codex has 18 units in it (not counting HQs). So there are a few good units that you can choose from.
Now look at the Forge world books: How many units are in there?
It is like if you get to take the best units out of every codex and put them together for an army.
Judging from the top 16 Adepticon lists, and if I didn't own the Necron codex, I'd assume there wasn't that many units in it, where the Necron Codex was the primary...
Annihilation Barges accounted for 22/23 heavy support choices
Night Scythes accounted for 24/26 dedicated transports
Wraith squads accounted for 15/16 fast attack choices
Where allies were taken they mainly consisted of Chaos Marines out of 4 allied forces we have
Cultists 7/7 and Heldrakes 3/4
Newsflash, people are already cherry picking the best units, and picking the best units out of two codexes and putting them together to make an army, and it doesn't matter if only the Annihilation barge, wraiths and night scythes are broken if thats all that people take in their army. The rest of the codex may be absolute gak, it only matters by how much the unit is overpower/undercosted.
Blackmoor wrote: I would like to point out that most of the people who do not want FW at tournaments are tournament players, and the people who are for it are generally not.
I'm not sure that's fair. I would say the biggest proponent for Forge World that I know of is Reecius, who is a veteran tournament player (and tournament organizer) himself. While I certainly disagree with him on some things, I would never claim that he is anything but a highly experienced tournament player.
Judging from the top 16 Adepticon lists, and if I didn't own the Necron codex, I'd assume there wasn't that many units in it, where the Necron Codex was the primary...
Annihilation Barges accounted for 22/23 heavy support choices
Night Scythes accounted for 24/26 dedicated transports
Wraith squads accounted for 15/16 fast attack choices
Where allies were taken they mainly consisted of Chaos Marines out of 4 allied forces we have
Cultists 7/7 and Heldrakes 3/4
Newsflash, people are already cherry picking the best units, and picking the best units out of two codexes and putting them together to make an army, and it doesn't matter if only the Annihilation barge, wraiths and night scythes are broken if thats all that people take in their army. The rest of the codex may be absolute gak, it only matters by how much the unit is overpower/undercosted.
edit:spelling
Again you can't look at the adepticon results and draw any meaningful conclusions from them since that was 3 codexes ago. If this was GWs prior release schedule that would have been 18 months worth of codexes ago, so that is like saying that what happened in a tournament back 2011 has some impact today.
BJ who is on the 40kUK podcast worked for GW and he said that they knew that 6th edition would be unbalanced when it first came out, but once they release the new codexes then everything will balance out. And you you know what? He was right.
That is why I made the post. The game has changed in the last year, and has also changed a lot since adepticon so that some of the prior arguments for Forge World are not longer valid.
And on the other side (not necessarily opposed to, but preferring non- or at least limited FW) I've seen Mannahnin, carlosthecraven, MVBrandt, and others. My quote from Target (not originally from this thread) apologized on behalf of the particular FW unit he used being allowed.
Imo, limited is a great compromise. People not considering that makes the theme/fluff argument less convincing. Your theme is all thudd guns? Heh
And as Blackmoor points out, there are tons of FW units. It's simply not the same as a single codex's worth of units, no matter how many times people make that comparison.
Blackmoor wrote: I would like to point out that most of the people who do not want FW at tournaments are tournament players, and the people who are for it are generally not.
I'm not sure that's fair. I would say the biggest proponent for Forge World that I know of is Reecius, who is a veteran tournament player (and tournament organizer) himself. While I certainly disagree with him on some things, I would never claim that he is anything but a highly experienced tournament player.
I was referring to this thread, and not in general. I would also like to point out that Reese does not play in FW tournaments and only runs them.
Until we are discussing a way to artificially rebalance codex units, the "unbalanced" reason is not worth addressing.
Either you are concerned that the game is unbalanced and want to rebalance it - including all codex or FW units, or that is not really the issue.
Hellturkies and vendettas are easily among the worst offenders, yet the opposition is not in their direction.
As for claims that FW units are not official, the books are quite explicit to the effect that they are - as others have quoted directly.
"Need" is too strong a term for a game. Especially given that the word "need" is used without a context of goal.
All needs are contextualized by a goal. In a vacuum, no one needs anything. We need air, but only with the goal of breathing.
Before we can answer if we "need" FW, you have to give a goal.
If you are looking for consensus on how tournaments should be run, you won't get it. There is no sport or activity that a consensus exists on organization. If all you want to do is use a thread to browbeat others to agree with you, this seems like a good start.
RiTides wrote: Imo, limited is a great compromise. People not considering that makes the theme/fluff argument less convincing. Your theme is all thudd guns? Heh
Agreed. I think that FW being a 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool FW stuff without causing problems for game speed (time needed to explain unfamiliar FW rules), army balance, etc.
Again you can't look at the adepticon results and draw any meaningful conclusions from them since that was 3 codexes ago. If this was GWs prior release schedule that would have been 18 months worth of codexes ago, so that is like saying that what happened in a tournament back 2011 has some impact today.
I'm so sorry, I thought I was discussing the lists used at Adepticon 2013, which happened about 40 days ago, oh wait I was. If you're going to make the argument that because a new codex has come out all prior tournament results are invalid then you don't have a leg to stand on. Unless, that is, there has been a major tournament completed today? No? ah well then.
Oh and by the way, where are you getting 3 codex releases from? It was at most 2 codexes ago, as tau came out the start of april, eldar came out today. Also, how quickly GW used to release codexes has no balance on what people are using today.
While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.
Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.
Dracos wrote: While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.
That's neither here nor there. FW stuff has "stood apart" from GW stuff for a long time, regardless of your thoughts on how official/part of GW Forge World rules are. Since there isn't yet a consensus on how to handle FW among the community, we have a much more significant opportunity to tailor the tournament ruleset to the wishes of the players. While some might certainly wish that Heldrakes were 0-1, the opportunity really isn't there in the same way.
Dracos wrote: Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.
Uh, game speed is IMO a very strong reason. I actually consider it a much more serious issue than balance concerns. Most FW units are more or less fine and I'm happy to play against them. I've had totally fun games against people with Sabre Defense Platforms, Mortis Contemptors, etc. But it's also always taken extra time before the game to go over the FW rules, make sure I understand what they do, and clear up any confusions or ambiguities. In a tournament environment, where time is a very important concern, if someone shows up with 5 or 6 different units that we will have to go over together before the game, that could very well mean we get one fewer turn in, which could in turn decide the outcome.
To be honest, I think the fact that there are tournaments where the majority of games do not finish on time is very bad for the game. People talk about balance issues, but games ending in a nonrandom fashion/before "lategame" pieces can have their full influence strikes me as really extremely bad from a balance perspective-- far worse than any specific balance issues or undercosted units in the Codexes. I would gladly be willing to play in an event that drops down to 1500 points if it meant all my games finished properly, and allowing lots of FW really exacerbates this problem.
Again you can't look at the adepticon results and draw any meaningful conclusions from them since that was 3 codexes ago. If this was GWs prior release schedule that would have been 18 months worth of codexes ago, so that is like saying that what happened in a tournament back 2011 has some impact today.
I'm so sorry, I thought I was discussing the lists used at Adepticon 2013, which happened about 40 days ago, oh wait I was. If you're going to make the argument that because a new codex has come out all prior tournament results are invalid then you don't have a leg to stand on. Unless, that is, there has been a major tournament completed today? No? ah well then.
That is exactly what I am saying. Are we all here talking about how overpowered the grey knights are because they won adepticon 2012 and that half of the armies in the final 16 were grey knights? If you do not understand that past events are meaningless because of codex releases this shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about tournaments and meta changes.
Oh and by the way, where are you getting 3 codex releases from? It was at most 2 codexes ago, as tau came out the start of april, eldar came out today. Also, how quickly GW used to release codexes has no balance on what people are using today.
Chronologically you are right because there have been 2 codexes released since adepticon but there is a lag between the codex releases and the armies showing up at tournaments (all of the prep work like buying and painting models and play testing wtc.) So really I would say that the last release that was well represented there was Chaos Space Marines.
Uh, game speed is IMO a very strong reason. I actually consider it a much more serious issue than balance concerns. Most FW units are more or less fine and I'm happy to play against them. I've had totally fun games against people with Sabre Defense Platforms, Mortis Contemptors, etc. But it's also always taken extra time before the game to go over the FW rules, make sure I understand what they do, and clear up any confusions or ambiguities. In a tournament environment, where time is a very important concern, if someone shows up with 5 or 6 different units that we will have to go over together before the game, that could very well mean we get one fewer turn in, which could in turn decide the outcome.
And if you turn up to a tournament with Tau, and I have never played them before and have you go through your 5-6 different units so that I can "understand what they do, and clear up any confusions or ambiguities" is this not a problem too? Tau have a lot of special rules and equipment that breaks the basic rules, if I have you explain these to me does that not also use up valuable time, resulting in the game possibly not reaching its natural conclusion? Unfamiliarity is not a good reason to disallow something, especially when new rules are being released every few months anyway.
Mannahnin wrote: Peregrine, you're the one who argued that GW has put forward Forgeworld as general-use, and equivalent to the codices.
You're right, I am. It says it in the book in plain English. FW is official and part of standard 40k. This is not up for debate, the only question is whether "no FW" house rules are good for tournaments or not.
The fact that the events GW runs at their own HQ do not treat them that way is contrary evidence.
No it isn't, because the events GW run at their own HQ also have other non-standard rules. The ban on FW units doesn't mean FW isn't part of the game, just like the ban on allies doesn't mean that allies aren't part of the game.
And yes, this is an entirely relevant thing to mention when the only part of how GWHQ runs events that anyone cares about is the "no FW" line. Either GWHQ is the standard all other events need to meet or it isn't. You can't just selectively pull out one house rule they play under and ignore the others.
You still haven't answered the question about what events you've attended. That's okay though. You don't have to.
And I'm not going to, because it's a blatant attempt to dismiss what I'm saying because I don't have impressive enough credentials instead of addressing the substance of the argument.
No one is asking for credentials. This isn't a job interview where you must supply proof of a Law Degree and passage of the Bar Exam.
I am not about to waltz over to a thread about Warmahordes tournaments or Fantasy tournaments and start lobbying for Deathclock only, or Named Character allowance respectively across the board. Why? Because I have no business doing that, I don't play in those tournaments so I am going to keep my nose out of it. I have an opinion on the topic(s) sure; but having an opinion does not mean I must, or even should, always voice it. Particularly when I have no real "skin in the game" as Blackmoor put it.
Breng77 wrote: So inside FW books counts as where outside FW books? Just saying? Also still says, make sure your opponent is ok playing against them. Language not contained in codices. But like I said I am not against events containing them (at my next event, FW will be allowed in one tournament and not in another.). I still think the biggest issue is the imbalance of units available to each army. If we assume (nothing backing this up) that say 1 in 5 units is broken. Then IG having like 30 new units is a big deal compared to say Eldar having 5 or 6 (numbers here are not accurate.)
I will answer this again. FW is part of GW. FW's books say that FW rules are official, therefore GW has said that FW rules are official. There are also instances where the BRB states that "make sure your opponent is okay with..." Just because an FW book includes this doesn't make it any less official, and it's based off of the fact that certain players may not be comfortable with it because they are unfamiliar with the units. In the same vein, again, it's like choosing not to play against someone because they play Necron, GK, or WD Daemons, or just because you don't like them.
I personally am proponent of just limiting the more powerful FW options, since if you limit FW units to 0-1, how about the people who field Forgeworld lists? Elysian Droptroops, Siege Regiment, Armoured Regiment anyone?
Kingsley wrote: While some might certainly wish that Heldrakes were 0-1, the opportunity really isn't there in the same way.
Of course the opportunity is there. If you're running a tournament you say "Helldrakes are 0-1" and that's the end of it. People either bring 0-1 Helldrake, or they don't play in your event.
It's just like how people ran comp-heavy tournaments in 5th with all kinds of restrictions on "overpowered" units. If you want a game in which the players veto parts of the rules that they don't like it's very easy to do so. The only question is how many people will attend your event.
In a tournament environment, where time is a very important concern, if someone shows up with 5 or 6 different units that we will have to go over together before the game, that could very well mean we get one fewer turn in, which could in turn decide the outcome.
So why don't you advocate banning all codices except C:SM? That would be the only way to ensure that nobody ever faces unfamiliar rules.
And yes, you could say "do the research" about unfamiliar codices, but you can also do the research about FW units. Even ignoring piracy (and let's be honest, most tournament players probably have a pdf of every codex) it's not exactly hard to figure out what the top-tier FW units are and get a good idea of what they do so that on tournament day you're just briefly confirming the exact details.
That is exactly what I am saying. Are we all here talking about how overpowered the grey knights are because they won adepticon 2012 and that half of the armies in the final 16 were grey knights? If you do not understand that past events are meaningless because of codex releases this shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about tournaments and meta changes.
So what tournaments are you basing your idea that we no longer "need" FW in a tournament upon?
Dracos wrote: While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.
Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.
Again you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the meta because of the release of the 6th edition codexes now have counters to Helldrakes and Vendettas. That is my point in the original post.
There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.
Blackmoor wrote: f you do not understand that past events are meaningless because of codex releases this shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about tournaments and meta changes.
I agree. This is why all past experience with FW rules is worthless and you can not declare that any of them are overpowered. After all, the metagame has changed since the last FW-legal event.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackmoor wrote: #1. They are official GW rules.
This can't really be proven one way or another.
Of course it can be proven. GW has said explicitly that they are official and part of the standard game. The question here is not whether FW is official, it's whether or not a "no FW" house rule is appropriate for tournaments.
Dracos wrote: While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.
Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.
Again you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the meta because of the release of the 6th edition codexes now have counters to Helldrakes and Vendettas. That is my point in the original post.
There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.
Yes there are. Deepstriking anti-tank and flyers. I'm pretty sure a whole bunch of them have minimum ranges, too. Heck, bring some of your own artillery too.
Dracos wrote: While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.
Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.
Again you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the meta because of the release of the 6th edition codexes now have counters to Helldrakes and Vendettas. That is my point in the original post.
There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.
poison would be the main one, such as used by pretty much every dark eldar unit, sternguard, etc
forcing a morale text via terrify, as artillery units usually have low leadership, psychic shriek also works as it gets around the high tougness and decent armour save.
eldar shuriken weapons now automatically wound on a 6 and ignore the armour.
Blackmoor wrote: There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.
Sure there are. There might not be counters that you want to have in your list in a no-FW metagame, but banning stuff because it might change the metagame is a terrible idea.
Taking one issue and extrapolating it out to the extreme doesn't make a convincing argument. Players will be more easily familiar with Tau, which will make for faster games.
The AdeptiCon team tourney method of making FW 0-1 was a good solution, imo (it was this way in 2012 when I played and faced 2 FW units without issue- I think it was the same in 2013?). All I'm saying is, disallow the few most egregious from the Hundreds of options, and call it done for an event like that.
I'd even be open to non-limited FW (ie not 0-1) in an event if the worst ones were banned. But it adds nothing to my experience to go to an event allowing FW if all the awesome units are at home because artillery is legal.
I know the response will be "Ban helldrakes then1!?" but it's just not the same. That's a single unit from a codex of how many units? Versus allowing ALL of FW. Giving IG a million more units (slightly exaggerated) and other armies just some. There is no way you can say that is the same as allowing a codex. It gives IG WAY more than a codex's worth of options. Banning the most broken is extremely reasonable.
If you can't consider that, it's hard to have this discussion. What ruleset would give one army That many more units than all the others? You've got to be willing to compromise to gain any traction on a FW discussion. AdeptiCon, again, does this nicely with the 0-1 restriction, imo. But if you banned the worst offenders, that could easily become 0-3 or the like.
But it never will at many of the non-FW events if people insist they absolutely must be allowed to use all hundred extra guard units FW gives, with no exceptions. I know a few events are OK with this, but many won't be. Compromise is needed, again, for any traction on this issue...
Can someone familiar with IG read the contents page for Volume One (2E) and answer the following:
How many non-apocalypse units are on that page that do not appear in the codex?
That will answer the problem of how many units STANDARD Imperial Guard get.
Uh, game speed is IMO a very strong reason. I actually consider it a much more serious issue than balance concerns. Most FW units are more or less fine and I'm happy to play against them. I've had totally fun games against people with Sabre Defense Platforms, Mortis Contemptors, etc. But it's also always taken extra time before the game to go over the FW rules, make sure I understand what they do, and clear up any confusions or ambiguities. In a tournament environment, where time is a very important concern, if someone shows up with 5 or 6 different units that we will have to go over together before the game, that could very well mean we get one fewer turn in, which could in turn decide the outcome.
And if you turn up to a tournament with Tau, and I have never played them before and have you go through your 5-6 different units so that I can "understand what they do, and clear up any confusions or ambiguities" is this not a problem too? Tau have a lot of special rules and equipment that breaks the basic rules, if I have you explain these to me does that not also use up valuable time, resulting in the game possibly not reaching its natural conclusion? Unfamiliarity is not a good reason to disallow something, especially when new rules are being released every few months anyway.
There's a reasonable expectation that people will know the basics of new armies. Knowing FW is much more complicated, since some FW units are published in multiple books, their updates are much less well-publicized than those of GW units, and so on. For instance when I played against a Hades Breaching Drill, I thought that I knew what it did but went over the rules to make sure-- and it was a good thing, too, since I had missed hearing about a new IA book that had changed its rules substantially. It's certainly possible that someone will not have heard about the latest Codex coming out, but it seems far less likely. Further, major tournaments already institute delays in what Codexes are allowed to prevent this very issue.
The Necron-heavy Adepticon results were in part caused by the new Tau not being allowed because people wouldn't have time to digest yet-- similarly, when I attended the Bay Area Open this year the new Daemons were not allowed, as they came out literally on the day of the tournament and would cause a lot of logistical problems for both players and organizers!
Peregrine wrote:
Kingsley wrote: While some might certainly wish that Heldrakes were 0-1, the opportunity really isn't there in the same way.
Of course the opportunity is there. If you're running a tournament you say "Helldrakes are 0-1" and that's the end of it. People either bring 0-1 Helldrake, or they don't play in your event.
That would be received extremely differently from "Forge World is 0-1." I speak as a frequent tournament player and sometime tournament organizer. If you don't believe me on this, that's fine, but I think I have more relevant experience than you and trust me when I say the community would not receive those two rulesets anywhere near the same way.
2 extra leman russ varients - a TL Lascannon turret and a small blast turret
Thunderer seige tank - a demolisher with a hull mounted cannon instead of a turret
Destroyer Tank Hunter
Salamanders - basically fast chimeras with no transport capacity
platform versions of some of the artillery tanks
the dreaded heavy artillery battery
tarantula sentry guns - which are outclassed by eaven a single HWT sabres
the rapier laser destroyer
the hades breaching drill - freshly nerfed
the atlas, trojan and sentinel power lifter - real fluff bunnies only
the tauros buggy
drop sentinel
centaur carrier
link for people looking for a list of FW units and where to find the up to date rules.
RiTides wrote: That's a single unit from a codex of how many units?
And, as we've already established, it doesn't matter how many units are available because people only play the best ones. Anything in the Helldrake's FOC slot that isn't a Helldrake might as well not exist.
It gives IG WAY more than a codex's worth of options.
Except most of them aren't worth playing. Who cares if IG get three new flyers if all three of them are worse than the Vendetta? Who cares if IG get a cargo hauler Sentinel that exists only for fluff reasons? Compare that to Tau, where there are fewer units total but every Tau player in a FW-legal tournament would replace all their codex flyers with Barracudas. The total number of units is irrelevant, what matters is how much benefit each army gets.
But it never will at many of the non-FW events if people insist they absolutely must be allowed to use all hundred extra guard units FW gives, with no exceptions. I know a few events are OK with this, but many won't be. Compromise is needed, again, for any traction on this issue...
Fine, just as long as we compromise on the Helldrake issue. I want them banned entirely, so we'll compromise at 0-1 Helldrake/Vendetta/Scythe (pick one, not one of each) for each army.
The AdeptiCon team tourney method of making FW 0-1 was a good solution, imo (it was this way in 2012 when I played and faced 2 FW units without issue- I think it was the same in 2013?). All I'm saying is, disallow the few most egregious from the Hundreds of options, and call it done for an event like that.
Its boggling me that people are using the terms "solution" and "need" without stating a goal or problem.
This is because as soon as you state either a problem that needs solving or a goal to fulfill, you immediately see its equally applicable to codex units and IA units alike.
I'm on board assuming equal application. The helldrake and Vendetta are two particularly egregious infractors with respect to undercosted units, so lets ban them in the same document since they fit the same reason.
I know the response will be "Ban helldrakes then1!?" but it's just not the same. That's a single unit from a codex of how many units? Versus allowing ALL of FW. Giving IG a million more units (slightly exaggerated) and other armies just some. There is no way you can say that is the same as allowing a codex. It gives IG WAY more than a codex's worth of options. Banning the most broken is extremely reasonable.
All I'm saying is that if balance is really that important and out of whack, why would you stop with just units appearing in IA material? I see no distinction that makes unbalanced units from a codex exempt from this approach.
Kingsley wrote: That would be received extremely differently from "Forge World is 0-1." I speak as a frequent tournament player and sometime tournament organizer. If you don't believe me on this, that's fine, but I think I have more relevant experience than you and trust me when I say the community would not receive those two rulesets anywhere near the same way.
Of course it would be received differently, and that's a problem. There's a ridiculous double standard where balance disasters like the Helldrake are sacred and untouchable, while FW must be banned unless none of it is good enough that you'd ever put it in a winning list.
The AdeptiCon team tourney method of making FW 0-1 was a good solution, imo (it was this way in 2012 when I played and faced 2 FW units without issue- I think it was the same in 2013?). All I'm saying is, disallow the few most egregious from the Hundreds of options, and call it done for an event like that.
Its boggling me that people are using the terms "solution" and "need" without stating a goal or problem.
This is because as soon as you state either a problem that needs solving or a goal to fulfill, you immediately see its equally applicable to codex units and IA units alike.
I'm on board assuming equal application. The helldrake and Vendetta are two particularly egregious infractors with respect to undercosted units, so lets ban them in the same document since they fit the same reason.
I know the response will be "Ban helldrakes then1!?" but it's just not the same. That's a single unit from a codex of how many units? Versus allowing ALL of FW. Giving IG a million more units (slightly exaggerated) and other armies just some. There is no way you can say that is the same as allowing a codex. It gives IG WAY more than a codex's worth of options. Banning the most broken is extremely reasonable.
All I'm saying is that if balance is really that important and out of whack, why would you stop with just units appearing in IA material? I see no distinction that makes unbalanced units from a codex exempt from this approach.
I think that quite sums up the issue of imbalance with units pretty well. Thank you.
cerbrus2 wrote: Now people can feel free to shot me down on this one. But by including FW models into a tournament based game, is only going to bring snobbery to game. It no longer becomes about using an army to its best in order to gain a win, and becomes more about who has the most amount of money to spend on the model with the most ridicules stat line and rules. And wile the codex's are not a complete balance. There is no army that cannot beat anougher in one way, shape, or form.
Agree with this comment. Especially the snobbery to the game. This becomes a 2 tier system. The haves and the have nots. It comes down to cost. This is why the game in general is dying. The cost to play this game.
As far as the tournament scene? Like everything else, I vote with my wallet. I want to have fun, winning or losing. If I see complete inclusion of FW into a tournament? I won't go. If I see that the TO has made a concerted effort on making a tournament as balanced as possible? I go. I spend lots of money, make new friends and try to have some fun.
So should we ban armies that have the most expensive GW models? Maybe we should just ban anything over a certain cost and call it all even.
Kingsley wrote: That would be received extremely differently from "Forge World is 0-1." I speak as a frequent tournament player and sometime tournament organizer. If you don't believe me on this, that's fine, but I think I have more relevant experience than you and trust me when I say the community would not receive those two rulesets anywhere near the same way.
Of course it would be received differently, and that's a problem. There's a ridiculous double standard where balance disasters like the Helldrake are sacred and untouchable, while FW must be banned unless none of it is good enough that you'd ever put it in a winning list.
These are the kind of pronouncements one is unlikely to hear from someone who plays in big events. In part because people who do have learned to deal with Helldrakes. Also because of their experiences, most of such people are less likely to use rhetoric like "sacred and untouchable", and are a bit more pragmatic.
Blackmoor wrote:The problem with the "All codexes have broken units" argument is the amount of units that are broken.
For example: The Necron codex has 18 units in it (not counting HQs). So there are a few good units that you can choose from.
Now look at the Forge world books: How many units are in there?
It is like if you get to take the best units out of every codex and put them together for an army. You can say that the FW books have units for every army, but really they do not. For the most part they are all IG and a few
You mean like allying necron flyers with GK bodies? Wow, it's like picking the best units out of two codexes and putting them together for an army...
There are a good number of FW units, although if you limit it to the non-apoc units only, that number drops substantially. But, when you consider allies, there are a huge number of possible choices even without FW, and the interactions between these seem far less intentional or tested than the FW ones. DA+Guard = 4++ blobs? You think that was playtested?
There are 2 arguments that go nowhere when you talk about forge world.
#1. They are official GW rules.
This can't really be proven one way or another.
The only way this can't be proven is if you're so stubborn as to ignore the fact that it's printed in the books that they're legal. Prove to me that Codex: Necrons is official. Or better yet, the Sisters Rules. The only way we know anything is legal is because it says it is, and it's published by GW. Any argument that you make to disqualify FW books as official will also disqualify other books.
No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.
I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.
If an argument is valid on its own merit and logic then it really does not matter who makes it. You probably are not going to get a lot of good fitness tips from someone who hasnt exercised in ten years but that would not be an argument against good advice if they gave it.
The reason why I ask is that if you do not play any tournaments you have no "skin in the game". It has no impact on you one way or another and you are just telling other people how they should play their games of 40k.
I would like to point out that most of the people who do not want FW at tournaments are tournament players, and the people who are for it are generally not.
That's a curious point, and one that I'm not sure I believe. Possibly, it is the case if you limit the discussion to people posting in your thread. The current 40k competitive scene bores me. Does that mean I'm not a tournament player? I've got a lot of top-ten finishes at GTs for a non-tournament player. But, is this chicken/egg question. I've gone out of my way to attend FW-allowed tournaments. If you take people who prefer to attend FW-allowed events, and then say they're not tournament players because they're not going to non-FW events, then of course you'll have an environment where the defined tournament players don't want it.
As for your skin-in-the-game comment, that too swings both ways. Your army is built for a metagame where there is no FW. In order for it to remain competitive in a FW environment, you may need to tweak it. It may fall from the ranks of competitive, forcing you to get an entirely new army. You've got a vested personal interest in keeping FW out of events, not because it's going to ruin the scene, but because it's going to force you to personally adjust your army and/or spend more money. And that's going to be true for anyone who built their army for a non-FW metagame. You can't be impartial about the actual impact of allowing FW on a philosophical level, because allowing it will hit your pocketbook.
-------------
JWhex wrote:
Your price comparison is not very accurate because you forgot to add on the cost of the rule books which are very expensive. Perhaps if you are going to label someone completely ignorant of the facts you should get your relevant facts arranged in pretty straight line.
My price comparison was not accurate because I did not include all possible things that someone might buy? Seriously, that's the argument you're making? Cerberus's point was that allowing 40k would mean fat wallets would rule the game. I was pointing out that the good FW units often cost less than the good codex units. As such, allowing FW is unlikely to cause budget concerns to dominate the game. Seriously, the number of tri-drake, tri-vendetta, or multi-riptide armies out there already beg the question, is this a game where wallets rule, and that's without questioning the cost of buying every $50 codex in order to stay on top of what our opponent might possibly run.
Dracos wrote: While we're at it, making Helldrakes and Vendettas 0-1 per primary detachment (just like fortifications) would allow people to use their cool GW stuff without causing problems for army balance.
Including "game speed" and "etc" is a joke there Kingsley, cause its obvious there is no etc and game speed is a pretty weak reason.
Again you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the meta because of the release of the 6th edition codexes now have counters to Helldrakes and Vendettas. That is my point in the original post.
There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.
poison would be the main one, such as used by pretty much every dark eldar unit, sternguard, etc
forcing a morale text via terrify, as artillery units usually have low leadership, psychic shriek also works as it gets around the high tougness and decent armour save.
eldar shuriken weapons now automatically wound on a 6 and ignore the armour.
theres 3 off the top of my head.
This is why you need practical experience with FW before you can comment on it because all of the counters that people think of have counters.
Leadership
IG takes a lord commissar with a standard so they have a re-rollable 10 leadership bubble.
Any psychic power
There are a couple of allied rune priests to stop it on a 4+ and a deny the witch roll
Deep strike/Outflank/reserve
The FW artillery is buried behind an aegis defense line and has a bubble wrap of a couple of blob squads so you are not shooting melta or rapid firing plasma, and remember that sabers have interceptor so they get a free shot at you before the blobs crush you. Also getting in their minimum range? Have you even played against this? There is no "minimum range" anymore with 6th edition. All it means is that they scatter now the full roll on the 2d6", but here is the kicker... you get to cast prescience on them so you get to re-roll the scatter dice to get a hit.
Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.
This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?
Again you also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the meta because of the release of the 6th edition codexes now have counters to Helldrakes and Vendettas. That is my point in the original post.
There are no counters to the FW artillery unlike fliers.
But again, your 'argument' is based upon a faulty premise. Imperial Armor should never be allowed or disallowed because it helps to balance anything nor should it be allowed or disallowed because they are 'too powerful'...GW never makes any claim that Imperial Armor is meant to balance ANYTHING, so anyone who is making that claim is building their argument on supposition.
Regardless of what codexes come out and counter this or that type of units, this SHOULD NOT AFFECT WHETHER IMPERIAL ARMOR IS USED OR NOT because the reason for allowing Imperial Armor is simply because they are rules put out by Games Workshop for the models they sell for the game of Warhammer 40k.
Why the hell shouldn't I be able to use my Tau Tetras because you happen to think Imperial Guard artillery is too powerful? Why do you get to make the decision that because you think some units are too powerful that all of a sudden I can't use my models in my tournament games?
Why is it that in every other regard we simply have to 'suck it up' and deal with over/underpowered units in codexes, but just because they happen to be in Imperial Armor suddenly its perfectly okay to play armchair rules designer and decide that in this case these units are just *too good* to allow?
And as for IG artillery having no counter...c'mon, that's total BS. Artillery always has a giant weakness, and that is being assaulted. Is it easy to capitalize on that weakness? Not particularly, but that weakness DOES exist.
I think the cost/durability ratio with FW artillery is way out of whack with the 6th ed change. I think that's pretty clear. Thudd Guns and Helios platforms make Helldrakes and Annihilation Barges look overpriced by comparison.
I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced, but I do think including those two units indisputably makes it more so.
This is why you need practical experience with FW before you can comment on it because all of the counters that people think of have counters.
Leadership
IG takes a lord commissar with a standard so they have a re-rollable 10 leadership bubble.
Any psychic power
There are a couple of allied rune priests to stop it on a 4+ and a deny the witch roll
Deep strike/Outflank/reserve
The FW artillery is buried behind an aegis defense line and has a bubble wrap of a couple of blob squads so you are not shooting melta or rapid firing plasma, and remember that sabers have interceptor so they get a free shot at you before the blobs crush you. Also getting in their minimum range? Have you even played against this? There is no "minimum range" anymore with 6th edition. All it means is that they scatter now the full roll on the 2d6", but here is the kicker... you get to cast prescience on them so you get to re-roll the scatter dice to get a hit.
Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.
This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?
But why do you get to make the decision that in this case these units are 'too good' to be allowed? Isn't that Games Workshop's job? And if you get to decide that these units are indeed 'too good' to be used, then why are you lobbying to ban all Imperial Armor units and not just artillery? And if you're going to get to make the decision to ban IA artillery (and the rest of IA along with it), then why aren't you looking to ban codex units that you judge to be 'too good'?
If Games Workshop believed that IA artillery was 'too good' they'd change it. Forgeworld is constantly updating their stuff, so if that's what they decide, then they'll change it. But for the time being, those artillery units get to run around being super good. Its just the nature of the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: I think the cost/durability ratio with FW artillery is way out of whack with the 6th ed change. I think that's pretty clear. Thudd Guns and Helios platforms make Helldrakes and Annihilation Barges look overpriced by comparison.
I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced, but I do think including those two units indisputably makes it more so.
But again, that's Games Workshop's call to make, not ours, unless we're making a decision as a community to start playing armchair games designer and allowing or disallowing certain units based on them being perceived as too good. And if we're doing that, then why is all of Imperial Armor being targeted because certain units are seen as being too good?
Again, the reality is that Forgeworld constantly updates their rules if they think something is too good. They've done it time and time again. So if those units exist for the time being as being super-good, then that's just the reality of the game currently. Its no different than it has ever been before and will be again. People that want to go crazy and buy a bunch of those units can do so knowing that in a year or two the rules will likely be revised making them nearly worthless. That's just how 40k is.
But it shouldn't be the players making the decisions about what things are just 'too good' unless we're really going ahead and looking at everything and deciding which things to include and which not to include.
But ALL of Imperial Armor is being thrown under the bus because people want to play armchair games designer and claim that certain units are simply too good to exist, when that is Games Workshop's call to make.
Blackmoor wrote:Leadership
IG takes a lord commissar with a standard so they have a re-rollable 10 leadership bubble.
Any psychic power
There are a couple of allied rune priests to stop it on a 4+ and a deny the witch roll
Deep strike/Outflank/reserve
The FW artillery is buried behind an aegis defense line and has a bubble wrap of a couple of blob squads so you are not shooting melta or rapid firing plasma, and remember that sabers have interceptor so they get a free shot at you before the blobs crush you. Also getting in their minimum range? Have you even played against this? There is no "minimum range" anymore with 6th edition. All it means is that they scatter now the full roll on the 2d6", but here is the kicker... you get to cast prescience on them so you get to re-roll the scatter dice to get a hit.
Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.
This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?
There are counters for everything. Guess what. You have you sacrifice other parts of your army (at varying levels) to do that. More points sunk into defensive counters = less points for your big guns. And let's be real, if the opponent is fielding that many artillery batteries, the size of the models will prevent them from all receiving the LC's bubble. And if you're going to field and LCas well as a CCS for your orders, that's a lot of points. IG bubble wraps also die to flamers. Ohai Helldrake.
Kingsley wrote: That would be received extremely differently from "Forge World is 0-1." I speak as a frequent tournament player and sometime tournament organizer. If you don't believe me on this, that's fine, but I think I have more relevant experience than you and trust me when I say the community would not receive those two rulesets anywhere near the same way.
Of course it would be received differently, and that's a problem. There's a ridiculous double standard where balance disasters like the Helldrake are sacred and untouchable, while FW must be banned unless none of it is good enough that you'd ever put it in a winning list.
These are the kind of pronouncements one is unlikely to hear from someone who plays in big events. In part because people who do have learned to deal with Helldrakes. Also because of their experiences, most of such people are less likely to use rhetoric like "sacred and untouchable", and are a bit more pragmatic.
In the same vein, if you introduce FW as mainstream to tournaments, players will learn to deal with FW.
yakface wrote:...
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Honestly, he has it spot on here. If you think you know how to build the game better than GW, you should find a job there as a designer and show them how it's done.
I'm not aware of this constant rebalancing, when did this occur? Further when did it happen quickly? Furthermore if Gw wanted this stuff to be in base 40k why isn't in the codices (there are examples of units they took from FW. ). As for why ban all IA more or less because its easier and balance of units is not the only reason to do so. It is far easier to draw the line at no FW than start pointing to specific units and banning those. Then again I'm in the camp that thinks the non-FW meta game with the new book releases is far more balanced than ig dominating the remainder of 6th Ed.
If you think you know how to build the game better than GW, you should find a job there as a designer and show them how it's done.
Or perhaps run events with your own rules/restrictions, and judge success by attendance and the critical feedback you receive. Such as that of the Bay Area Open, NOVA Open, and Adepticon Championships.
Blackmoor wrote:Leadership
IG takes a lord commissar with a standard so they have a re-rollable 10 leadership bubble.
Any psychic power
There are a couple of allied rune priests to stop it on a 4+ and a deny the witch roll
Deep strike/Outflank/reserve
The FW artillery is buried behind an aegis defense line and has a bubble wrap of a couple of blob squads so you are not shooting melta or rapid firing plasma, and remember that sabers have interceptor so they get a free shot at you before the blobs crush you. Also getting in their minimum range? Have you even played against this? There is no "minimum range" anymore with 6th edition. All it means is that they scatter now the full roll on the 2d6", but here is the kicker... you get to cast prescience on them so you get to re-roll the scatter dice to get a hit.
Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.
This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?
There are counters for everything. Guess what. You have you sacrifice other parts of your army (at varying levels) to do that. More points sunk into defensive counters = less points for your big guns. And let's be real, if the opponent is fielding that many artillery batteries, the size of the models will prevent them from all receiving the LC's bubble. And if you're going to field and LCas well as a CCS for your orders, that's a lot of points. IG bubble wraps also die to flamers. Ohai Helldrake.
Kingsley wrote: That would be received extremely differently from "Forge World is 0-1." I speak as a frequent tournament player and sometime tournament organizer. If you don't believe me on this, that's fine, but I think I have more relevant experience than you and trust me when I say the community would not receive those two rulesets anywhere near the same way.
Of course it would be received differently, and that's a problem. There's a ridiculous double standard where balance disasters like the Helldrake are sacred and untouchable, while FW must be banned unless none of it is good enough that you'd ever put it in a winning list.
These are the kind of pronouncements one is unlikely to hear from someone who plays in big events. In part because people who do have learned to deal with Helldrakes. Also because of their experiences, most of such people are less likely to use rhetoric like "sacred and untouchable", and are a bit more pragmatic.
In the same vein, if you introduce FW as mainstream to tournaments, players will learn to deal with FW.
yakface wrote:...
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Honestly, he has it spot on here. If you think you know how to build the game better than GW, you should find a job there as a designer and show them how it's done.
You can't be serious about getting a job at GW as a designer, that isn't really part of your argument is it?
While I appreciate that Yakface made, and has made in the past, some of if not the most convincing arguments for the inclusion of FW the response of "if you don't like the game get a job at GW and fix it" is ludicrous.
Breng77 wrote: Furthermore if Gw wanted this stuff to be in base 40k why isn't in the codices (there are examples of units they took from FW. )
I believe the reason for this is due to their business model. GW as a business needs to put out a regular schedule of products and releases, be they codices or models, and constantly update them army by army. FW allows them to explore the more creative (and less-popular) side of their business and hobby both in fluff and models. For example, FW counterparts to GW units (including the FW Baneblade and FW Valkyrie, before GW released them, and other models such as variants of power armor) tend to be higher quality and well-received by hobbyists. It also allows them to have an irregular release schedule, working on their own time. We have seen two IA books released one month after the other, and sometimes we go for almost year without any IA book releases, such as when HH was first released.
The best business analogy I can give to this is Google [X] Labs.
You can't be serious about getting a job at GW as a designer, that isn't really part of your argument is it?
While I appreciate that Yakface made, and has made in the past, some of if not the most convincing arguments for the inclusion of FW the response of "if you don't like the game get a job at GW and fix it" is ludicrous.
Yes, I can, and I will. If it's anything I've learned from serving in the army, it's easier when you're at the bottom looking up and criticizing everyone above you. It's a lot harder when you're actually the person doing the job.
There are counters for everything. Guess what. You have you sacrifice other parts of your army (at varying levels) to do that. More points sunk into defensive counters = less points for your big guns. And let's be real, if the opponent is fielding that many artillery batteries, the size of the models will prevent them from all receiving the LC's bubble. And if you're going to field and LCas well as a CCS for your orders, that's a lot of points. IG bubble wraps also die to flamers. Ohai Helldrake.
Again, there are no counters to the FW artillery, there are only counters to what everyone thinks are counters.
So again I ask you what are the counters?
Do you want me to show you the list that I played against that had everything that I mentioned in it to you can try to find a way to counter it? Here is a rough outline:
1850 points
CCS LC 2 Blob squads
Vets in Chimera
3 Lascannon sabers
3 Lascannon sabers
Vulture Gunship
Vendetta
2 Earthshaker batteries
2 Medusa batteries
ADL
2 Rune Priests
8 Grey Hunters w/Drop pod
And the LC+CCS is 120 points. Blob squads are dirt cheap. You still have plenty of points for your FW artillery and your SW allies.
Helldrakes eh? You forgot that the blob squads get to take lascannon saber defense platforms that have skyfire and interceptor and some of the best fliers in the game. And it's not like heldrakes are that big of a threat to cheap IG and T7 artillery anyways.
This is why you need practical experience with FW before you can comment on it because all of the counters that people think of have counters.
Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.
This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?
Maybe you should read the rules again yourself, the guns in an artillery unit cannot go to ground and so are stuck with a 4+ cover save. have you heard of focus fire? I pick 4+ and then you can choose not to go to ground with the squad and take 4+ coversaves on everybody, or go to ground and have the wounds resolved against the guns.
so to benefit thats pretty much your entire army, hidden behind an aegis in a corner of your deployment zone, clustered for an artillery strike. wow, thats er, "competitive". how are you going to take objectives?
Mannahnin wrote: I think the cost/durability ratio with FW artillery is way out of whack with the 6th ed change. I think that's pretty clear. Thudd Guns and Helios platforms make Helldrakes and Annihilation Barges look overpriced by comparison.
I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced, but I do think including those two units indisputably makes it more so.
Mannahnin wrote: I think the cost/durability ratio with FW artillery is way out of whack with the 6th ed change. I think that's pretty clear. Thudd Guns and Helios platforms make Helldrakes and Annihilation Barges look overpriced by comparison.
I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced, but I do think including those two units indisputably makes it more so.
These are my thoughts nicely summed up.
And long fangs were just as unbalanced when they were released, but we didn't ban them.
This is why you need practical experience with FW before you can comment on it because all of the counters that people think of have counters.
Poisoned/ranged shooting
When you go to ground behind the ADL you get a 2+ cover save so good luck killing much (remember artillery gets to buy a lot of crew to eat the wounds). Don't forget to use "get back in the fight" on your turn so you can still shoot.
This is too easy! What other bad ideas do people have that do not work in reality?
Maybe you should read the rules again yourself, the guns in an artillery unit cannot go to ground and so are stuck with a 4+ cover save. have you heard of focus fire? I pick 4+ and then you can choose not to go to ground with the squad and take 4+ coversaves on everybody, or go to ground and have the wounds resolved against the guns.
so to benefit thats pretty much your entire army, hidden behind an aegis in a corner of your deployment zone, clustered for an artillery strike. wow, thats er, "competitive". how are you going to take objectives?
Hmmmmm, no, I hadn't thought of that. What's the pg. #?
I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced
Exactly! GW has really done an amazing job this go-round. Its becoming more and more clear with each new codex.
Mannahnin wrote: I think the cost/durability ratio with FW artillery is way out of whack with the 6th ed change. I think that's pretty clear. Thudd Guns and Helios platforms make Helldrakes and Annihilation Barges look overpriced by comparison.
I don't think the non-FW tournament metagame is really unbalanced, but I do think including those two units indisputably makes it more so.
These are my thoughts nicely summed up.
And long fangs were just as unbalanced when they were released, but we didn't ban them.
Long Fangs were no where near as unbalanced. 15 krak/frag missiles a turn that requires LoS in 5th is no where near as bad as 12-24 indirect firing ordnance weapons a turn in 6th.
The "no skin in the game" argument against Peregrine participating in the debate is as full of fail as the credential diversion and for exactly the same reason.
It also fails on another level because tournaments can have an influence on how people play in the casual environment, thus he does have some skin in the game. By the way, I dont even agree with Peregrines stance completely because I think he is a bit over the top and over states the case.
@Redbeard, yes your analysis was flawed because you were comparing prices as part of your argument and you did not add on the significant cost of the FW book needed to field the units. Elsewhere in this thread and in others I have said explicitly that if you want to compete in warhammer or practically anything else you will face off against people who will spend the maximum amount of money possible for any gain. I have not said FW should be disallowed on the basis of expense, quite the contrary in fact.
The idea that "GW" knows best does not hold up to close scrutiny or a historical examination of the rules they have produced for fantasy and 40k. Indeed out of their own mouth(s) comes all kinds of nonsense lately about how the games dont need to be nor do they even try to balance units among or within codexes and army books.
RiTides wrote: yak, it's every TO's call to make. There is no "right" imo, which makes it worth discussing (and discussing compromises / common ground).
Note that the official GW tournaments do *not* allow forgeworld.
Breng77 wrote: Furthermore if Gw wanted this stuff to be in base 40k why isn't in the codices (there are examples of units they took from FW. ).
GW does not do it anymore, because they figured out it's much better to just invent new codex units and sell both the new unit and the FW one. It has nothing to do with balance or game design reasons, it's purely a business decision based on maximizing sales.
It is far easier to draw the line at no FW than start pointing to specific units and banning those.
It would also be far easier to ban the entire CSM codex than to fix Helldrakes. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Mannahnin wrote: These are the kind of pronouncements one is unlikely to hear from someone who plays in big events.
But exactly the kind of pronouncements you'd hear from someone who has read this thread. Just look at what people are posting, banning Helldrakes (or even limiting them to 0-1) is absolutely unacceptable despite them being clearly unbalanced (and having an incredibly stupid FAQ to make them even more powerful). I don't see how anyone can read this thread and fail to notice that there's a blatant double standard for balance between codex and FW units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BryllCream wrote: Note that the official GW tournaments do *not* allow forgeworld.
The official GW tournament also doesn't allow allies, but I don't see any crusade to ban allies just because it's what GWHQ does.
Nevertheless it sets a precedence. You're claiming that there's no reason to disallow forgeworld because it's a ruleset made by gw to be played in games of 40k...when gw themselves don't allow it in tournaments.
There is no one flavour of 40k. For some forgeworld may be completely legit,others prefer anything goes. Both are equally valid.
Only if it also sets a precedent that allies should be banned because GW's tournament doesn't allow them.
You're claiming that there's no reason to disallow forgeworld because it's a ruleset made by gw to be played in games of 40k...when gw themselves don't allow it in tournaments.
Except GW tournaments exist for the sole purpose of selling models, and it's easy to imagine the sales "experts" saying that GWHQ events should focus on "core" products.
There is no one flavour of 40k. For some forgeworld may be completely legit,others prefer anything goes. Both are equally valid.
You're right, but there is only one standard game as published by GW. Everything else is house rules, including events played at GWHQ (which very obviously use house rules like banning allies and requiring painted models).
The bottom line is its the decision of the TO whether or not to allow the use of Forge World. Each TO must decide if they think they can draw the number of players they wish to attend if Forge World is allowed. If they think they can meet that number there is no reason not to allow Forge World. Personally I am glad to see more and more big tournaments allowing it. I have not seen any good arguments here against its inclusion... Basically they all boil down to as the OP said "I don't want to play against it." for whatever reason. To me that's not a good a reason.
JWhex wrote: The "no skin in the game" argument against Peregrine participating in the debate is as full of fail as the credential diversion and for exactly the same reason.
It also fails on another level because tournaments can have an influence on how people play in the casual environment, thus he does have some skin in the game. By the way, I dont even agree with Peregrines stance completely because I think he is a bit over the top and over states the case.
.
Can you give some examples of how tournament play influenced casual play?
It often influences what point sizes and restrictions people use in local pickup games, as players who play in tournaments, or may want to play in tournaments, may want to use those guidelines for practice games. Which is why I said that Peregrine doesn't have to tell us whether he participates in large tournaments (he obviously doesn't); because they may still impact his local play metagame and the expectations for pickup games in his area.
Mannahnin wrote: These are the kind of pronouncements one is unlikely to hear from someone who plays in big events.
But exactly the kind of pronouncements you'd hear from someone who has read this thread. Just look at what people are posting, banning Helldrakes (or even limiting them to 0-1) is absolutely unacceptable despite them being clearly unbalanced (and having an incredibly stupid FAQ to make them even more powerful).
No one's said that banning them would be absolutely unacceptable. They've said that any given event can make whatever restrictions it wants. But they've opined that limiting units in a codex unit isn't as easy or likely to be accepted by the general player populace as limiting Forgeworld units. Which is true.
Heldrakes are a very strong unit in some matchups. And pretty useless in others. Trying to argue that they're as bad as cheap spammable Interceptor heavy weapons and Thudd Guns is just silly and makes you look ignorant.
Peregrine wrote: I don't see how anyone can read this thread and fail to notice that there's a blatant double standard for balance between codex and FW units.
The fact that you feel so strongly about it as to get angry about it and berate people, as opposed to just recognizing it as a fact, and a product of Forgeworld's historically more limited nature and availability, and taking that information in context, is a product of your ignorance about the national tournament scene and its history. Of how GW has consistently treated Forgeworld by comparison to codices and codex units. And how players have established practices and expectations over time. You can make reasonable arguments as to why those practices should be changed (and some have, including you at points), but a lot of the time you seem more focused on lecturing to and harping on others about events you don't even participate in. You catch more flies with honey, man.
Mannahnin wrote: Heldrakes are a very strong unit in some matchups. And pretty useless in others. Trying to argue that they're as bad as cheap spammable Interceptor heavy weapons and Thudd Guns is just silly and makes you look ignorant.
But that's not the point. I'm not saying that the Helldrake is or isn't as bad as a certain FW unit, or that Helldrakes need to be banned. The point is that Helldrakes and Vendettas are obvious balance mistakes that make a joke out of any claim that codex units are thoroughly playtested and balanced. So it's ridiculous to insist that FW can't be allowed as long as it has balance problems while obvious (and easy to fix) balance problems with codex units are ignored.
The fact that you feel so strongly about it as to get angry about it and berate people, as opposed to just recognizing it as a fact, and a product of Forgeworld's historically more limited nature and availability, and taking that information in context, is a product of your ignorance about the national tournament scene and its history. Of how GW has consistently treated Forgeworld by comparison to codices and codex units. And how players have established practices and expectations over time. You can make reasonable arguments as to why those practices should be changed (and some have, including you at points), but a lot of the time you seem more focused on lecturing to and harping on others about events you don't even participate in. You catch more flies with honey, man.
And you could say the exact same things about comp-heavy tournaments in 5th edition. There were reasons it started, the players had established practices and expecations, etc. But that didn't do anything to stop the endless lectures about how comp is bad and "real" competitive tournaments allow everything.
Composition is a different subject. It got phased out when 40k itself became more balanced. Primarily by 5th ed's removal of VPs as a common means of determining victory, and that being replaced by objective holding with Troops. What changed was the core rules and the "need" for Comp, or lack thereof.
Mannahnin wrote: Composition is a different subject. It got phased out when 40k itself became more balanced. Primarily by 5th ed's removal of VPs as a common means of determining victory, and that being replaced by objective holding with Troops. What changed was the core rules and the "need" for Comp, or lack thereof.
I'm not saying it was a good idea in 5th (the kind I'm thinking of certainly wasn't, with harsh penalties for transport spam and any other "netlist" the TO didn't like), it's just funny to look at the differences in attitude here. In 5th there were endless rants about how comp was horrible, "real" competitive events would never use it, and comp-heavy events were good for nothing but mocking. But now in 6th certain people want comp restrictions back and the attitude is all about compromise. So what changed? Why do the players suddenly know more than GW about what should and shouldn't be in the game? Why are balance issues suddenly something to fix with house rules instead of just part of the game that everyone has to adapt to?
While some people think that this topic has been done to death, I think it is a relevant topic for discussion that has fairly far reaching implications in tournament play. I've written a fairly detailed post in the blog listed in my signature (shameless plug!) but basically I'm in the camp of no FW until you hit 1750 points and after that it should be a 0-1 option, or no more than one of each unit. If you are having issues against fliers, there is your 0-1. If you need something to help you with close combat, here is your 0-1 etc. The correct models MUST be used, or I'm just going to glue some eyes on a coke can and call it a Contemptor Dread. The same people using 3 Helldrakes or 6 Croissants in their lists are now using 9 Sabre Platforms and 4 artillery pieces.
JWhex wrote: The "no skin in the game" argument against Peregrine participating in the debate is as full of fail as the credential diversion and for exactly the same reason.
It also fails on another level because tournaments can have an influence on how people play in the casual environment, thus he does have some skin in the game. By the way, I dont even agree with Peregrines stance completely because I think he is a bit over the top and over states the case.
.
Can you give some examples of how tournament play influenced casual play?
A lot of european players use the etc rules in regular games according to many posts in the warhammer forums.
From first hand experience my local group never allowed allies in 5th edition fantasy or 2 edition 40k even though by the book it was possible. In recent editions the pick up games usually have been with tournament rules that are prominent as well as the point values commonly used at tournaments. Special characters were excluded from local play for the most part, especially in fantasy because they were banned in all local tournaments.
Most players that I game with go to local and regional tournaments of which there are a fair number in a days drive in the midwest and practically all the games I play are tournament practice games. The last 3 games I played were to help a friend prepare for the bugeater tournament so naturally we were playing at that point level. Likewise others in town for both fantasy and 40k that are at Bugeater right this moment have been playing at that point level.
I hardly can believe our local group is different than anywhere else in this regard.
Peregrine wrote:
But exactly the kind of pronouncements you'd hear from someone who has read this thread. Just look at what people are posting, banning Helldrakes (or even limiting them to 0-1) is absolutely unacceptable despite them being clearly unbalanced (and having an incredibly stupid FAQ to make them even more powerful).
No one's said that banning them would be absolutely unacceptable. They've said that any given event can make whatever restrictions it wants. But they've opined that limiting units in a codex unit isn't as easy or likely to be accepted by the general player populace as limiting Forgeworld units. Which is true.
The problem I have is that the issue is being twisted around and the WRONG questions are being asked and discussed.
Just look at the title of this thread and the premises put forth in the OP.
What I want is for all the BS smokescreen arguments to be thrown out the window and the real issues discussed. THEN, if a TO wants to disallow using all Imperial Armor, then so be it. But the reasons typically thrown out as the reasons why Imperial Armor needs to be disallowed are NOT the real reasons.
So let's start of with the basic premises of what exactly Imperial Armor represents:
1) Imperial Armor is an official expansion for Warhammer 40k, made by the company who produces the game allowing players to purchase and play with additional models that aren't in their codex. Or to put it another way, Imperial Armor gives players additional choices of units to include in their armies.
That begs the question: Do we need more models/units available? Based on the reaction you see when a new codex is released that only contains a few new units, I would posit that the *vast* majority of players continually prefer to have additional unit choices available to them...as people seem to believe that more variety of choice is a positive thing and of course cool looking models with interesting fluff behind them always seems to be welcome.
So in conclusion, Imperial Armor provides what most players generally speaking want: more variety of models and units to use in their armies.
2) Although imperial Armor is an 'expansion' to 40k, unlike other expansions (such as Cities of Death, Planetstrike, etc) much of this expansion is designed to be played in 'standard' games of 40k. Therefore, given that at its core, Imperial Armor provides something that most players think is a good thing (more variety of choices and more cool models), and that it is designed to be used in standard 40k games, the 'default' option for whether or not to allow Imperial Armor in a tournament (considering just what I've presented so far) seems like it should be a no-brainer: yes.
3) Now, obviously there have been LOTS of reasons posited as to why actually allowing Imperial Armor in tournaments is a bad thing. But the truth is that all but one of these reasons is just a smokescreen. The reason you know this to be the case is this premise:
What if every single Imperial Armor unit was completely and totally over-pointed and had crap rules. If that were the case, do you think anyone would complain about how much money Forgeworld models cost? Do you think anyone would complain about the time it takes to learn about the IA units their opponent has before each game? Do you think anyone would complain about having to buy all the IA books to keep up with every IA unit rules. Of course not. If IA was completely and totally crap, then nobody would have ANY issues at all with them being allowed in every tournament.
The ONLY TRUE reason that drives people to lobby for IA to not be included is because they think some of those units are just 'too good'. If we could just cut all the other ancillary crap and discuss that one true issue, then we would be so much better off.
4) If we can focus on that REAL issue and ask ourselves: are there really a few units in Imperial Armor really so powerful that they cannot possibly be countered? And if that is the case, is that really a reason to completely disallow all of Imperial Armor in its entirety instead of just targeting the units that are the issue?
The reason this issue needs to be discussed is because it cuts back to the heart of what role players and TOs are willing to have in order to create that concept of a 'balanced' or 'fun' game/tournament experience. If Games Workshop were to put out a codex or army book that was legitimately so powerful that it had NO counters, would the same people be making the same arguments to ban that entire codex/army book? If no, why is this situation different?
Or if that situation were to arise, would people just argue that we have to suck it up and deal with it for as long as GW allows it to exist? Or if people DID feel something had to be done, then would they maybe argue to just alter the worst offending units to 'fix' the issue without completely disallowing the faction?
5) I know the argument is that the situation is 'different' because IA is an expansion and a codex/army book is a 'core' part of the game.
But Games Workshop has never made any claims about Imperial Armor being something that is designed to balance or imbalance the 'core' game. As explained in the preface of their IA books, they are an expansion to include additional models/units in the game for reasons I explained above (because players like more choice and more cool models).
So to make the decision about whether or not to allow or disallow Imperial Armor is being made for any other reason (such as deciding that they are imbalanced) is NOT banning them BECAUSE they are an expansion, it is using the fact that they're an expansion as an excuse for players to address the perceived imbalance in the game.
If imbalance is really a core issue to the point of banning Imperial Armor, then it should be core enough to worry about banning codexes/army books or even units within those books to help maintain that theoretical balance. Or at least there should be discussion about implementing comp of some sort back into tournaments.
6) Because if IA is being banned because people think a few units are imbalanced, ultimately what is happening is player controlled composition restrictions...we're saying that, despite what the authors of the game think is balanced, IA can't be taken because we as players and TOs think it is just too powerful.
And if we can make that decision above and beyond the Games' authors, then there's no reason we shouldn't be able to instead restrict the individual IA units that are the perceived issue, as we're already playing 'game designer' at that point and making a judgement that the Games Designers have written completely imbalanced rules despite the fact that the authors believe that they are fine.
yakface wrote: 4) If we can focus on that REAL issue and ask ourselves: are there really a few units in Imperial Armor really so powerful that they cannot possibly be countered?
I think this comes off as hyperbole and exaggeration. "Cannot possibly be countered" is an exceedingly high bar, and I don't think that any unit has ever yet reached it. That being said, some have been really over the top and disproportionately damaging to balanced play. One of the reasons that WHFB has kept comp or comp restrictions has been because that game has had more broken stuff in the core books (including the entire Daemons army book throughout 7th edition and 8th ed up until this Spring) during the period of relative balance that 40k enjoyed.
yakface wrote: And if that is the case, is that really a reason to completely disallow all of Imperial Armor in its entirety instead of just targeting the units that are the issue?
I tend to concur that limiting Imperial Armour units or banning specific ones is probably a better approach then disallowing IA completely.
yakface wrote: So to make the decision about whether or not to allow or disallow Imperial Armor is being made for any other reason (such as deciding that they are imbalanced) is NOT banning them BECAUSE they are an expansion, it is using the fact that they're an expansion as an excuse for players to address the perceived imbalance in the game.
If imbalance is really a core issue to the point of banning Imperial Armor, then it should be core enough to worry about banning codexes/army books or even units within those books to help maintain that theoretical balance. Or at least there should be discussion about implementing comp of some sort back into tournaments.
I agree that the perceived imbalance of some IA units is what mostly drives the impetus to ban or restrict them. I'd say that the fact that they're in an expansion is less an excuse for then to be restricted than it is a convenient dividing line. And one which has some historic continuity.
I for one wouldn't be reflexively opposed to the re-introduction of Comp. I was one of its last and longest champions, as far as I can recall. That being said, IMO the (sans-IA) 40k 6th ed metagame has been surprisingly balanced so far. Blackmoor's got a point, however, that with the recent rapid introduction of several codices, it's really impossible for any of us to give an informed opinion about how balanced it is or isn't right now. Because there simply hasn't been time to see yet.
The breakdown of units/codices which made the finals at Adepticon are a bit worrying, but they're also representative of a particular metagame, time period, and set of available codices which has now changed. And we still saw Tyranids, Orks, Dark Eldar/Eldar, and no-allies GK place, and seed highly.
I think we can all agree that people who use FW in tournaments are clearly power-mad, cheesy, TFG's while those who want to ban FW are clearly whiny, butthurt babies.
OK here are some reasons that I believe as a TO it would be valid to not allow FW units that are not addressed in yak's post. First I will address smaller local tournaments and treat them separate than larger tournaments.
Small Local Tournaments 20-50 participants, 1 day
One purpose of these tournaments is to build and maintain a local community. This means you are catering to not only advanced but also intermediate and beginner players.
FW books are expensive, you cant buy them locally and I bet a lot of people dont even know someone that actually owns a forge world expansion. This means it is very hard to get info about the units ahead of time because you cant look in a friends codex like you can easily for all the other armies.
So, the general group is not going to be familiar with the rules at the same level as the regular codexes, which can lead to problems and arguments.
Perception can be as important as reality and many people perceive FW as being full of broken units even if that is not an accurate representation of the books.
There are more than sufficient units in the various codexes that the FW rules are not really needed. So for me, if I could be bothered to run tournaments again, the decision is easy, no FW allowed, fewer headaches, problem solved.
For larger tournaments:(No way i would ever submit to that madness and kudos to those that do)
As shown by this thread there are people that hold strong opinions pro and con about FW. All this will just be magnified at a big tournament. This would make decision even easier. No FW, no drama about FW during the event, many problems solved by avoidance.
I do know from helping run big martial art tournaments that any little problem is magnified by 1000x during the tournament. I cannot believe this is less the case in a huge warhammer tournament because at closed martial art tournaments people are usually on their best behavior and there is a uniform and rather rigid code of behavior that everyone has agreed to follow. The kind of bad sportsmanship you see at warhammer tournaments with people throwing dice or losing their temper would result in being shown the door, immediately. In countless matches as a referee I have disqualified quite a few men and women of all ages from a sparring match but never for unsportsmanlike conduct and never came remotely close to kicking them out of a tournament, not ever.
Anything that could cause disruption or drama of any kind I would just cut out. That is the result of my own experience of dealing with large numbers of people in a high state of anxiety and tension, which you see a lot of at small and large tournaments. Now other people may feel passionately about the inclusion of FW so it is worth any downside to them.
I think that is fine but I am just pointing out there are reasons beyond what Yak wrote about that could lead to the dismissal of FW from a tournament.
JWhex wrote: FW books are expensive, you cant buy them locally and I bet a lot of people dont even know someone that actually owns a forge world expansion. This means it is very hard to get info about the units ahead of time because you cant look in a friends codex like you can easily for all the other armies.
And this is going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If events don't allow FW then the local players are a lot less likely to invest money in something they can't use, and continue to be uninformed.
Also, if you're talking about a small local event then the people playing in it are probably all part of the same community and familiar with all the FW units (and non-FW units) in the group.
This would make decision even easier. No FW, no drama about FW during the event, many problems solved by avoidance.
It's the easiest solution, but the easiest solution isn't always the best answer. After all, it would be very easy to solve all the complaints about overpowered flyers if you just banned IG, CSM and Necrons entirely. Sure, the IG/CSM/Necron players might be unhappy about being banned from your event, but so are the FW players who are banned from your event.
This is the kind of thing I was talking about earlier, Peregrine. You have an excellent argument talking about the self-fulfilling prophecy, then you throw in that stuff referring to "FW players" and equating them to IG/CSM/Necron players. It's such an obvious false equivalency that it detracts from your better arguments.
Mannahnin wrote: This is the kind of thing I was talking about earlier, Peregrine. You have an excellent argument talking about the self-fulfilling prophecy, then you throw in that stuff referring to "FW players" and equating them to IG/CSM/Necron players. It's such an obvious false equivalency that it detracts from your better arguments.
How is it a false equivalency? All of them are playing legal armies according to the rules as published by GW, and I don't think you can make a plausible argument that one person has any more right to play in a tournament than another. The IG/CSM/Necron group may be larger, but it's still the same principle of banning an excessively large group of people as the "easiest" solution to a problem.
But that's not the point. I'm not saying that the Helldrake is or isn't as bad as a certain FW unit, or that Helldrakes need to be banned. The point is that Helldrakes and Vendettas are obvious balance mistakes that make a joke out of any claim that codex units are thoroughly playtested and balanced. So it's ridiculous to insist that FW can't be allowed as long as it has balance problems while obvious (and easy to fix) balance problems with codex units are ignored.
I really don't see the logic behind "there is already some imbalance, therefore it's okay to add a huge amount of extra inbalance".
But that's not the point. I'm not saying that the Helldrake is or isn't as bad as a certain FW unit, or that Helldrakes need to be banned. The point is that Helldrakes and Vendettas are obvious balance mistakes that make a joke out of any claim that codex units are thoroughly playtested and balanced. So it's ridiculous to insist that FW can't be allowed as long as it has balance problems while obvious (and easy to fix) balance problems with codex units are ignored.
I really don't see the logic behind "there is already some imbalance, therefore it's okay to add a huge amount of extra inbalance".
So let's stop releasing codices then? I fail to see where you're going with this argument, sorry. FW has its own fair share of balanced and imbalanced units like any other codex.
Mannahnin wrote: This is the kind of thing I was talking about earlier, Peregrine. You have an excellent argument talking about the self-fulfilling prophecy, then you throw in that stuff referring to "FW players" and equating them to IG/CSM/Necron players. It's such an obvious false equivalency that it detracts from your better arguments.
How is it a false equivalency? All of them are playing legal armies according to the rules as published by GW, and I don't think you can make a plausible argument that one person has any more right to play in a tournament than another. The IG/CSM/Necron group may be larger, but it's still the same principle of banning an excessively large group of people as the "easiest" solution to a problem.
There is no excessively large group of FW players and its not a self fullfilling prophecy. I simply gave some reasons why as a TO I would ban FW at small tournaments and hypothetically why I would do it a larger tournament if I was the TO. It doesnt have anything to do with arguments about legality or balance, or discrimination against FW players.
Its up to GW not me to get their specialty products in wider circulation, but I am not sure GW even has a great desire to do so. GW has disavowed themselves from the entire USA tournament scene so that leaves it to the TO to correct their mistakes and there are other measures I would take as well. I probably will run a fantasy tournament(s) in the future but not bother with 40k because there are plenty of people doing it locally.
Dumping FW is probably one of the least painful changes I would make to a 40k tournament environment.
People keep saying you cant ban FW units unless you also ban overpowered codex units. Missing the major point.
Forge world units are NOT play tested, at all, by public record. Moreover, the powerful and undercosted FW units are uniformly and exclusively IG and perhaps 2 SM (Redth, at any rate).
Codices are both play tested and across the board inclusive of their own perceived-as-OP units.
Adding a high concentration of IG untested units to the game is not at all even remotely similar to every stock dex having superior unit choices. Neither is the notion of a ban list similar for either.
Banning 4-6 key FW units that are all non play tested and exclusively IG/1sm is not even remotely analogous to cherry picking bans across every play tested codex.
More importantly, it's not about deleting OP units, but preventing the cherry picking of a dense addition of untested new OP units by a rules-restricted % of your attendees (imperials). Money has nothing to do with it: instead it's, "If you aren't willing to conform and play IG primary or secondary, we just weakened you at this event."
Why not simplify, and simultaneously highlight the new vocals simply seeking whatever competitive advantage they can get by deleting access to this small, untested, not-evenly-distributed set of units while allowing all other FW?
Finally, "stop with the FW is official in all games because of the 40k approved" argument. That very 40k approved quote states you should make sure your opponent is OK playing against FW rules. To follow the 40k approved stamp to the letter in a tournament setting would be to give every opponent the right to say you cannot use your FW in THAT round because they aren't comfy/familiar with it. The FE rulers/permissions haven't really changed much from the past. Untested, not mixed with codices by gw at their own events, and still opponent-permission-based. Simplify by banning the small # of units that create the conflicts in the first place.
The problem I have is that the issue is being twisted around and the WRONG questions are being asked and discussed.
Just look at the title of this thread and the premises put
What I want is for all the BS smokescreen arguments to be thrown out the window and the real issues discussed. THEN, if a TO wants to disallow using all Imperial Armor, then so be it. But the reasons typically thrown out as the reasons why Imperial Armor needs to be disallowed are NOT the real reasons.
So let's start of with the basic premises of what exactly Imperial Armor represents:
1) Imperial Armor is an official expansion for Warhammer 40k, made by the company who produces the game allowing players to purchase and play with additional models that aren't in their codex. Or to put it another way, Imperial Armor gives players additional choices of units to include in their armies.
That begs the question: Do we need more models/units available? Based on the reaction you see when a new codex is released that only contains a few new units, I would posit that the *vast* majority of players continually prefer to have additional unit choices available to them...as people seem to believe that more variety of choice is a positive thing and of course cool looking models with interesting fluff behind them always seems to be welcome.
So in conclusion, Imperial Armor provides what most players generally speaking want: more variety of models and units to use in their armies.
2) Although imperial Armor is an 'expansion' to 40k, unlike other expansions (such as Cities of Death, Planetstrike, etc) much of this expansion is designed to be played in 'standard' games of 40k. Therefore, given that at its core, Imperial Armor provides something that most players think is a good thing (more variety of choices and more cool models), and that it is designed to be used in standard 40k games, the 'default' option for whether or not to allow Imperial Armor in a tournament (considering just what I've presented so far) seems like it should be a no-brainer: yes.
3) Now, obviously there have been LOTS of reasons posited as to why actually allowing Imperial Armor in tournaments is a bad thing. But the truth is that all but one of these reasons is just a smokescreen. The reason you know this to be the case is this premise:
What if every single Imperial Armor unit was completely and totally over-pointed and had crap rules. If that were the case, do you think anyone would complain about how much money Forgeworld models cost? Do you think anyone would complain about the time it takes to learn about the IA units their opponent has before each game? Do you think anyone would complain about having to buy all the IA books to keep up with every IA unit rules. Of course not. If IA was completely and totally crap, then nobody would have ANY issues at all with them being allowed in every tournament.
The ONLY TRUE reason that drives people to lobby for IA to not be included is because they think some of those units are just 'too good'. If we could just cut all the other ancillary crap and discuss that one true issue, then we would be so much better off.
4) If we can focus on that REAL issue and ask ourselves: are there really a few units in Imperial Armor really so powerful that they cannot possibly be countered? And if that is the case, is that really a reason to completely disallow all of Imperial Armor in its entirety instead of just targeting the units that are the issue?
The reason this issue needs to be discussed is because it cuts back to the heart of what role players and TOs are willing to have in order to create that concept of a 'balanced' or 'fun' game/tournament experience. If Games Workshop were to put out a codex or army book that was legitimately so powerful that it had NO counters, would the same people be making the same arguments to ban that entire codex/army book? If no, why is this situation different?
Or if that situation were to arise, would people just argue that we have to suck it up and deal with it for as long as GW allows it to exist? Or if people DID feel something had to be done, then would they maybe argue to just alter the worst offending units to 'fix' the issue without completely disallowing the faction?
5) I know the argument is that the situation is 'different' because IA is an expansion and a codex/army book is a 'core' part of the game.
But Games Workshop has never made any claims about Imperial Armor being something that is designed to balance or imbalance the 'core' game. As explained in the preface of their IA books, they are an expansion to include additional models/units in the game for reasons I explained above (because players like more choice and more cool models).
So to make the decision about whether or not to allow or disallow Imperial Armor is being made for any other reason (such as deciding that they are imbalanced) is NOT banning them BECAUSE they are an expansion, it is using the fact that they're an expansion as an excuse for players to address the perceived imbalance in the game.
If imbalance is really a core issue to the point of banning Imperial Armor, then it should be core enough to worry about banning codexes/army books or even units within those books to help maintain that theoretical balance. Or at least there should be discussion about implementing comp of some sort back into tournaments.
6) Because if IA is being banned because people think a few units are imbalanced, ultimately what is happening is player controlled composition restrictions...we're saying that, despite what the authors of the game think is balanced, IA can't be taken because we as players and TOs think it is just too powerful.
And if we can make that decision above and beyond the Games' authors, then there's no reason we shouldn't be able to instead restrict the individual IA units that are the perceived issue, as we're already playing 'game designer' at that point and making a judgement that the Games Designers have written completely imbalanced rules despite the fact that the authors believe that they are fine.
I completely disagree with OP units being the only real reason people want FW banned in events. As a TO it ranks maybe 4th or 5th on my list of reasons for not including it in all my events (and I am trying to do so In some cases) so here are my biggest reasons.
1.) I am not familiar with all of the options. As a judge not being familiar with the rules makes it difficult to make rules calls when they arise.
2.) Time limits in events, everyone says that FW players should explain units to their opponents, when I already have players struggling to finish games I see anything slowing down that process is bad.
3.) my players don't want it. I've asked and really only 1 player in my area even owns FW stuff, which means my players don't know all the rules, which again leads to more lost time and rules calls. Furthermore if players don't show up I have no event.
4.) so this might be op units, and I would believe in comp instead of banning ia entirely but again see #1 and #3, I am not familiar with nor do I play against FW so anything I banned would simply be based on Internet hearsay.
5.) unbalance of options presented/options not being updated etc. this is why my solution may eventually be allowing use of the newest x IA books for each army. But again I need to learn more before I decide to do anything of the sort.
MVBrandt wrote: Forge world units are NOT play tested, at all, by public record.
Huh, that's strange, guess I just imagined the acknowledgements in Horus Heresy Betrayal where they list playtesters. Oh wait, I didn't. Alan Bligh even thanks them in the afterword. [I know this book is not intended to be used with standard 40k in the same way, it was balanced primarily with itself. It's different to other FW books in this respect. And I'm only using this as an example because I don't have access to the others at the moment.]
I guess I must also have imagined experimental rules. Where FW releases rules as a PDF, then they change them before publishing in a book based on the feedback they receive. That sounds like community playtesting to me.
MVBrandt wrote: To follow the 40k approved stamp to the letter in a tournament setting would be to give every opponent the right to say you cannot use your FW in THAT round because they aren't comfy/familiar with it.
To follow the 40k approved stamp to the letter:
"owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using FW models before you start."
"It's best" is not a direct order, and nowhere does it say they must be familiar with it in order to play. And in a FW tournament, I thought that by signing up, that would be an act of permission to use FW against you.
Totally agree with Mannahnin's and MVBrandt's posts above. Just because 40k, relative to fantasy, has not needed restrictions* (*Believe me, I have played both for the last 2 editions and DE/VC/Daemons in 7th ed fantasy make 40k balance look perfect) in the latest editions as much, does not mean there is somehow a blanket "no restrictions" clause on the game.
TOs can run events with their own interpretations of the rules, and own restrictions. Custom missions do this. Consistent terrain layouts. Bracketing. Previously, the INATFAQ, which yak worked so much on. All of these are outside the "core" rules, to make the game work at a tourney.
TOs absolutely have the discretion to block 5-6 of IG/SM's FW toys and allow all the rest, and doing so is Not analogous to banning one of CSM's best codex units. CSM isn't winning events as a primary army that I can see, and taking them as allies restricts how many helldrakes can be taken already.
It's an obvious compromise and drawing a line in the sane saying "No restrictions, ever!" puts you at odds with what TOs actually already do, and always have. IG/SM have a plethora of FW options, meaning more powerful ones out of that, and it exacerbates that already existing issue. Saying it already exists doesn't mean you can't address it when adding in FW. That's just ignoring the reality of it.
Oh, and by the way, most fantasy events still use a handful of restrictions- even if it's the barebones "No Kairos, Teclis, or folding fortress". Once you accept that restrictions aren't the end of the world, the discussion becomes more relevant. And absolutely, restricting some IGFW is not the same as restricting a powerful unit from an Okay codex. That's the discussion that should be taking place, imo. Restricting the top 5-6 FW units would be a no-brainer to most tourney players, I believe.
MVBrandt wrote: People keep saying you cant ban FW units unless you also ban overpowered codex units. Missing the major point.
Forge world units are NOT play tested, at all, by public record.
Neither are the codex units, by standards that any other gaming company would consider play testing.
Finally, "stop with the FW is official in all games because of the 40k approved" argument. That very 40k approved quote states you should make sure your opponent is OK playing against FW rules. To follow the 40k approved stamp to the letter in a tournament setting would be to give every opponent the right to say you cannot use your FW in THAT round because they aren't comfy/familiar with it. The FE rulers/permissions haven't really changed much from the past. Untested, not mixed with codices by gw at their own events, and still opponent-permission-based. Simplify by banning the small # of units that create the conflicts in the first place.
I go to play a casual game and bring three helldrakes, my opponent is quite likely to tell me that he doesn't want to play against that sort of list. The quote in the FW book actually applies to all games of 40k - you should talk to your opponent and make sure they're cool with the sort of game you're about to play. All games of 40k are, in fact, opponent-permission-based.
Tournaments universally waive this in favour of what the TO has decided is okay. By signing into the tournament, you agree that you're willing to play any list deemed legal by the TO.
Also, if you look at the old threads in this forum you'll see that I, like Mannahnin, have never been screaming for zero restrictions. TOs do this, all the time, in many ways. If you want FW, it's an easy compromise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Quoting my post over which I meant the above as an edit onto:
RiTides wrote: Totally agree with Mannahnin's and MVBrandt's posts above. Just because 40k, relative to fantasy, has not needed restrictions* (*Believe me, I have played both for the last 2 editions and DE/VC/Daemons in 7th ed fantasy make 40k balance look perfect) in the latest editions as much, does not mean there is somehow a blanket "no restrictions" clause on the game.
TOs can run events with their own interpretations of the rules, and own restrictions. Custom missions do this. Consistent terrain layouts. Bracketing. Previously, the INATFAQ, which yak worked so much on. All of these are outside the "core" rules, to make the game work at a tourney.
TOs absolutely have the discretion to block 5-6 of IG/SM's FW toys and allow all the rest, and doing so is Not analogous to banning one of CSM's best codex units. CSM isn't winning events as a primary army that I can see, and taking them as allies restricts how many helldrakes can be taken already.
It's an obvious compromise and drawing a line in the sane saying "No restrictions, ever!" puts you at odds with what TOs actually already do, and always have. IG/SM have a plethora of FW options, meaning more powerful ones out of that, and it exacerbates that already existing issue. Saying it already exists doesn't mean you can't address it when adding in FW. That's just ignoring the reality of it.
Oh, and by the way, most fantasy events still use a handful of restrictions- even if it's the barebones "No Kairos, Teclis, or folding fortress". Once you accept that restrictions aren't the end of the world, the discussion becomes more relevant. And absolutely, restricting some IGFW is not the same as restricting a powerful unit from an Okay codex. That's the discussion that should be taking place, imo. Restricting the top 5-6 FW units would be a no-brainer to most tourney players, I believe.
MVBrandt wrote: Forge world units are NOT play tested, at all, by public record.
Huh, that's strange, guess I just imagined the acknowledgements in Horus Heresy Betrayal where they list playtesters. Oh wait, I didn't. Alan Bligh even thanks them in the afterword. [I know this book is not intended to be used with standard 40k in the same way, it was balanced primarily with itself. It's different to other FW books in this respect. And I'm only using this as an example because I don't have access to the others at the moment.]
I guess I must also have imagined experimental rules. Where FW releases rules as a PDF, then they change them before publishing in a book based on the feedback they receive. That sounds like community playtesting to me.
MVBrandt wrote: To follow the 40k approved stamp to the letter in a tournament setting would be to give every opponent the right to say you cannot use your FW in THAT round because they aren't comfy/familiar with it.
To follow the 40k approved stamp to the letter:
"owing to the fact they may be unknown to your opponent, it's best to make sure they are happy to play a game using FW models before you start."
"It's best" is not a direct order, and nowhere does it say they must be familiar with it in order to play. And in a FW tournament, I thought that by signing up, that would be an act of permission to use FW against you.
40k playtesters for GW have come out on podcasts and elsewise and blatantly stated there is 0 playtest or balance interaction b/tween FW and GW. That they are mutually owned does not infer they house the same design studio or are inherently interactive, same as Fantasy and 40k aren't inherently interactive (even if FW put a stamp on a Fantasy unit that said "also can be used officially in 40k!").
With re: your ruling, that's generally the point - a tournament that says you MUST agree to play with FW is the same as a tournament that says you may NOT use FW - in that both are violating the printed rules with permutations to allow or disallow its legality. So, claiming the 40k approved stamp is the "rule" and should be followed is inherently a pointless argument, since no tournament follows the stamp to the letter anyway. Also, let me caveat that at NOVA, where we have 4 x 40k tournaments of various sort over the weekend, 2 allow FW and 2 do not - I'm certainly not closed minded on it, just occasionally frustrated by a lot of bogus arguments (i.e., players not being ok with 5-6 non-balanced non-tested-with-40k units being disallowed, all of which are concentrated in IG). Restatement of above post by me is also an addition here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Shrike- wrote: Just thought of something else:
Even if FW rules weren't playtested, why should they be banned and not an equally overpowered codex unit?
OP Codex units are evenly spaced across codices, at the least every codex has overpowered and/or underpriced selections that were balanced and tested by GW playtesters. Adding FW without restricting the 5-6 IG/1-SM unit (Redth) that are absurd, when we know they were at best only internally playtested and NOT crossed through the playtesters of the codices and main rulebook *at all* is not unreasonable, given this. It's also completely NOT analogus to compare banning every unit from every codex you think is OP, with preventing it from being a case where ONLY players willing to have an IG primary/ally detachment from getting major advantages.
Additional note, besides the fact I allow FW in half our 4 40k tourneys at the NOVA each year, I play IG and absolutely love abusing these units when allowed; thudd guns, and Redth most especially, are absurdly broken and undercosted. The lack of cross-playtesting shows (i.e., Redth giving all combat tactics for Infiltrate, which people who tout his Shroud psy power don't even notice). The fact that they're so patently good and useful, both on their own and in synergy with various builds that otherwise wouldn't even exist, is a big part of it ... FW doesn't just sprinkle new OP units into codices that already have them. It dumps a concentration of OP units into a certain couple builds that many people do NOT have access to (no matter how much money they have) unless they want to conform to a spammy, IG-centric "new" meta. You can prevent this by legalizing 40k-approved FW while rendering the IGop concentration invalid, and keep things steady by NOT screwing with the even spacing of "OP" units balanced by GW across all the existing stock codices. As a result, hundreds of perfectly fine (by hook or crook) FW units are legalized for variety and fun, without totally borking the meta and saying "Screw you" to any player who doesn't want to play an IG primary or allied.
There was a thread a while back where someone kept claiming Redth was BSOP and should be banned from everything, without knowing his rules. I'll try and find the community consensus on him in a minute.
Infiltrating / outflanking / shrouded guard blobs, infiltrating thunderfires (advantage going first!), infiltrating terminators (yup, add a techmarine or character, lovely rules oversight by unbalanced / untested writing), and a million other hinky tricks that are only exacerbated by the 5-IC, BB-optioned status of SM in an ally environment. He is, having used him to pretty devastating effect in GT-level settings, I feel pretty fair saying that. That's besides re-rolling initiative, re-rolling failed psychic tests, having a power that's shroud/disordered-to-charge while also getting either Null Zone or Prescience, etc., all for 160 points.
And that's just the weeds detraction from the overall point.
PS - Continued caveat from anyone "end-reading" only ... big fan of FW rules, think they're fun to play, allow them in 2 of 4 40k tourneys at NOVA, but also realize they aren't playtested with GW primary rules, and are being heavily pushed NOW because a concnetration of IG units that many players can take due to allies are actually absurdly good, and they want to take them to beat face more effectively at tournaments. That's the biggest reason you get tons of flak about preventing ONE codex (+ redth) from getting a concentration of OP units, and the reason you get silly detractor arguments that aren't analogous like "well then why don't you ban OP units from every regular codex?!" (agian, because every codex has them evenly distributed, and GW actually tests their rules from codex to codex, whether you like the results of that testing or not)
Herpaderp herp derp herpa derpa derp. Read the current edition rules kids, it helps.
Also, his shrouded power only works on the unit he's in, and he only gets one re-roll for psychic tests per turn.
And he's 165 points.
Ummm...you do realize everything he stated is legit right...l
Infiltrate confers from ics to their unit so even though the terminators don't have infiltrate if you add an IC with infiltrate they can infiltrate, same with it blobs. It also says all infantry models not infantry units, so again that model confers infiltrate to its unit. So again buy transport for squad attach IC infiltrate transport...etc... So you can see the not play tested for 6th all over this guy
Given that MVBrandt stated he has used Redth thusly in a GT setting, I believe he knows what he's talking about regarding his rules.
And agreed with his above post. It's an easy compromise, and keeps FW-inclusion from dumping a plethora of absurd units for IG and just a sprinkling for everyone else. Everyone wins, and honestly I think you'll see more TOs who are considering FW take that route in the future. It's completely the call of the TO, but it's a good compromise and some common ground!
Also: Note it's the tourney players themselves pointing this out, as I quoted Target telling the 2nd place AdeptiCon team tourney players he was so sorry Thudd guns were legal. There's easily room in the tourney landscape to allow more FW but disallow these egregious units, as the tourney players themselves who are using them are saying, ie Target and MVBrandt here.
Given that ForgeWorld as a design studio are far more responsive to the community than GW's designers, I'm actually curious to know what their input would be on a thread like this...
As you can see, RiTides and Breng77, I already realised my mistake about Infiltrate. But it is worth pointing out that he got the points cost and one of the other rules wrong.
Breng77: I don't get what you mean by "not playtested for 6th all over this guy". You do realise that the book was written in 2010?
-Shrike- wrote: My god, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Redth forces SPACE MARINE INFANTRY UNITS to lose combat tactics and gain infiltrate. IT DOES NOT WORK FOR TERMINATORS OR DEDICATED TRANSPORTS! Also, his shrouded power only works on the unit he's in, and he only gets one re-roll for psychic tests per turn.
And he's 165 points.
MVBrandt wrote: having used him to pretty devastating effect in GT-level settings
I can't believe it. If you did half of the things you just mentioned, you have cheated at GT-level. You just lost all credibility in my eyes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahh... I see what you did. Ignore the part about Infiltrate, because I just realised 6th Ed. gives it to the unit if an IC has the rule.
This rant makes me so happy we decided to further muddy the switch to 6th edition by throwing in several more books of rules by allowing FW in more and more tournaments.
Yet, your original reaction shows exactly the problem MVBrandt is referring to. As a pretty hardcore GT organizer and player, he found and used that FW model in a way that was extremely effective and likely not intended. Players such as him, Mannahnin, Target, etc who regularly compete at the highest level are pointing out how these units benefit IG/SM disproportionately to other armies, two armies that are already in great shape in 6th ed. Allowing FW but restricting those few choices makes extreme sense from a competitive standpoint. It's truly win-win, and avoids unnecessarily drawing a line in the sand, to the detriment of the event.
-Shrike- wrote: As you can see, RiTides and Breng77, I already realised my mistake about Infiltrate. But it is worth pointing out that he got the points cost and one of the other rules wrong.
Breng77: I don't get what you mean by "not playtested for 6th all over this guy". You do realise that the book was written in 2010?
And so could have been updated troth FAQ into balance for the edition and was not at all. They also gave him access to a psychic discipline otherwise not allowed to codex marines. We have people on here claiming that FW fixes their rules consistently...
RiTides wrote: Yet, your original reaction shows exactly the problem MVBrandt is referring to. As a pretty hardcore GT organizer and player, he found and used that FW model in a way that was extremely effective and likely not intended. Players such as him, Mannahnin, Target, etc who regularly compete at the highest level are pointing out how these units benefit IG/SM disproportionately to other armies, two armies that are already in great shape in 6th ed. Allowing FW but restricting those few choices makes extreme sense from a competitive standpoint. It's truly win-win, and avoids unnecessarily drawing a line in the sand, to the detriment of the event.
While I do agree that a few FW units are indeed imbalanced (and not intentionally so, they were released in 2010 when 6th Ed was years in coming) with the changes in 6th Ed, to be fair, I think Forge World is slowly getting their act together with their more recent releases as well. I can't speak for IA12, but in IA3E2, the imbalanced 9-flyer Elysian list with tons of deepstriking multi-melta Sentinels is gone due to points increases and FOC shifts, and a number of the changes to the Tau units make them fairly competitive and balanced options too.
-Shrike- wrote: As you can see, RiTides and Breng77, I already realised my mistake about Infiltrate. But it is worth pointing out that he got the points cost and one of the other rules wrong.
Breng77: I don't get what you mean by "not playtested for 6th all over this guy". You do realise that the book was written in 2010?
And so could have been updated troth FAQ into balance for the edition and was not at all. They also gave him access to a psychic discipline otherwise not allowed to codex marines. We have people on here claiming that FW fixes their rules consistently...
Not everyone gets it right the first time round. Does anyone else remember the Draigowing with wound-allocation shenanigans? That happened for a fair bit until GWFAQ'd it such that they were no longer characters. Playtesting that happens doesn't always catch everything 100% of the time. How often do videogames get released with bugs? EA Games is notorious for terrible launches, SimCity being their latest debacle, but that doesn't stop them from putting out high-quality games that get fixed in due time, and they never seem to learn their lesson either. The point is, give FW a chance to fix themselves.
Edit 2: Also, quick pause for me to celebrate my 500th post! *claps self on back*
Gw is currently doing a good job of quickly updating for 6th (this may change) however, FW books don't update, thus anything that they don FAQ will stay broken for the entire edition. Perhaps it would be fair to only allow FW units release d during the current edition of the game? But I'm sure people will say that we don't do this for other codices.
RiTides wrote: Yet, your original reaction shows exactly the problem MVBrandt is referring to. As a pretty hardcore GT organizer and player, he found and used that FW model in a way that was extremely effective and likely not intended. Players such as him, Mannahnin, Target, etc who regularly compete at the highest level are pointing out how these units benefit IG/SM disproportionately to other armies, two armies that are already in great shape in 6th ed. Allowing FW but restricting those few choices makes extreme sense from a competitive standpoint. It's truly win-win, and avoids unnecessarily drawing a line in the sand, to the detriment of the event.
The next step is the problem of accessible rules aka only allow 100% original, entire IA books at tournaments. The most important thing would be informing everyone ahead of time, long before the tournament, that FW would be allowed in order to allow everyone to alter the lists andgiving everyone ample to...get...the books on their own and have a look at the rules.
RiTides wrote: Yet, your original reaction shows exactly the problem MVBrandt is referring to. As a pretty hardcore GT organizer and player, he found and used that FW model in a way that was extremely effective and likely not intended. Players such as him, Mannahnin, Target, etc who regularly compete at the highest level are pointing out how these units benefit IG/SM disproportionately to other armies, two armies that are already in great shape in 6th ed. Allowing FW but restricting those few choices makes extreme sense from a competitive standpoint. It's truly win-win, and avoids unnecessarily drawing a line in the sand, to the detriment of the event.
Can I exalt twice please?
I'm in favor of this too. I feel like this is the line where we can all agree to say "Yes, this is a compromise!", no?
Hypothetically speaking, which units would you like to see either banned or limited?
I'm guessing it begins with:
Ahazra Redth - banned.
As a sidenote, I sent an e-mail to FW pointing out the problem with his Infiltrate/Chapter Tactics rule (more specifically, you can infiltrate Thunderfire cannons and anything you can attach an IC to, including transports, none of which was originally intended), so I might get something back from them within the next few days.
-Shrike- wrote: Hypothetically speaking, which units would you like to see either banned or limited?
I'm guessing it begins with:
Ahazra Redth - banned.
As a sidenote, I sent an e-mail to FW pointing out the problem with his Infiltrate/Chapter Tactics rule (more specifically, you can infiltrate Thunderfire cannons and anything you can attach an IC to, including transports, none of which was originally intended), so I might get something back from them within the next few days.
Limit artillery batteries, simply because of the way 6th ed made them pretty hard to kill.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ahh... I see what you did. Ignore the part about Infiltrate, because I just realised 6th Ed. gives it to the unit if an IC has the rule.
Myself and others voiced the same concerns in that thread only to be shouted down by yourself and others like Peregrine when it turns out we were pretty much right. How about that?
The point is we're all arguing over a few forgeworld units that have been ably demonstrated by Blackmoor and MVB to harmful to the tournament scene. A ban list would be ideal I think but brings the problem of accessibility for local level GT organizers like Breng77. Having these books spread across multiple books from multiple editions and not locally available makes it difficult for our local tournament organizers to allow it. Furthermore GW does not give much if any retail discount to FLGS for Forgeworld limiting their accessibility and preventing us from supporting our FLGS if we wanted FW. We play our tournaments in our FLGS and its nice to reward him by playing with models that we purchased in his store.
Agreed on the suggested list Enigwolf/Shrike, and I think you'd get a pretty strong consensus on both of those (Artillery and Redth). Beyond that, I would like to hear those more experienced with FW weigh in on whether they think anything else would be necessary.
-Shrike- wrote: Hypothetically speaking, which units would you like to see either banned or limited?
I'm guessing it begins with:
Ahazra Redth - banned.
Sabres and Medusa (?) platforms, limited.
Two examples for limiting them:
1. At the BAO, one opponent had two platforms of LasCan sabres. His was a BA/IG list with Corbulo and not at all a cut-throat WAAC tourney stomping list. With my 3 Drop Pods I got to the sabres and eliminated their threat, although they bagged one of my Vendettas. Good close game until the end.
2. Also at the BAO, last opponent had spammed the medusa (checks FW website for the correct name), well that's not right; it's the platform that is a krak missile launcher. Anyway, surrounded by IG blobs, I never did get to assault them. He had a line of 8 of them, making my Long Fangs quite jealous. They did all the damage and shrugged off my efforts to hurt 'em. I think I bagged *one* with shooting. My two Vendettas, 3 Long Fang crews and all else were quickly neutralized and I was decently spanked.
And the "assault of out it on arrival" drop pod (Lucius?). Banned. Let people pay through the nose for Vanguard or take Ymgarls for an "Assault on Arrival" unit.
edit: I typed this while the last 3 posts were submitted, so it wasn't a bandwagon post, just slightly ninja'd.
MVBrandt wrote: 40k playtesters for GW have come out on podcasts and elsewise and blatantly stated there is 0 playtest or balance interaction b/tween FW and GW.
Which doesn't matter because there is zero playtesting done by GW at all. Compare MTG's professional playtesting to GW's "we played a cool scenario once". If you can show evidence of MTG-level playtesting I'll concede that you might have a point about FW/GW interaction, but until then I don't really see how whether or not FW participates directly in GW's laughably minimal "playtesting" attempts should be relevant.
infiltrating terminators
Doesn't work. See all the Shadowsun threads, by the time you're allowed to attach an IC to a unit it's already on the table and it's too late to infiltrate it. The only benefit you could get would be outflanking the unit, and you can already outflank terminators with a pure codex list (along with vehicles).
Also, do you feel that Shadowsun should be banned (or banned from C:SM armies) for giving out even better cover bonuses and allowing terminators to outflank?
-Shrike- wrote: Hypothetically speaking, which units would you like to see either banned or limited?
Quad launcher, for time reasons (resolving a 12-shot barrage weapon in 6th is a nightmare, you need more templates than anyone has and several people to hold them all in place).
Nothing else should be banned, because nothing else has established dominance at a level that would justify a ban. So far the entire anti-FW case is purely speculation about what might happen, rushing to ban it makes about as much sense as banning something out of the new Eldar codex based on theoretical analysis of what it might be capable of. I hate to keep saying it, but learn from MTG, a real competitive game: cards are only banned after clearly dominating multiple high-level tournaments and establishing beyond any doubt that they need to be banned for the overall health of the format. You will never see WOTC banning something because some people on a forum decided it's too powerful.
Except mtg has far more big events and costs far less money. So what you suggest is having players go out, spend a ton of money on an army, paint it, then have those lists create an ig dominated meta for what half an edition, then invalidate those units? I'm pretty sure that will be more harmful to the game than anything else might be. Also the first mtg cards to be banned had nothing to do with winning events, they were simply banned for the perceived health of the game. CCGs ar simply not a good comparison to miniatures games because they are far too different on a core level.
Peregrine, you are the one who argues for trusting the designers, and they DO playtest. You and Redbeard (who I like and know and respect) saying WELL IT DOESN'T MATTER B/C GW'S PLAYTESTING IS STUPID ANYWAY basically invalidates any and all arguments about playing FW b/c it's "legal" ... because you're calling them amateurs, acknowledging they do things wrong, and saying it's OK to overrule and/or ignore them as a result (aka - it doesn't matter that there's no playtest or balancing interaction, b/c their playtest is bad anyway). This is also a simple assertion of opinion, as opposed to an attempt at a reasonable solution, by a guy who apparently won't even go to the tournaments unless they're 100% his way anyway (unless I mis-read what you wrote).
I am not in favor of banning ANY Codex armies, b/c "overpowered" (or, in my opinion, simply superior cost/effect) units are present in EVERY codex. My problem with a small # of FW units is they ONLY are superior cost/effect for basically one SMHQ, and people who want to play IG Primary or Allied detachments. And, they are good enough that, when given the option, hardcore GT players uniformly choose FW options over codex options within their army lists' competing FOC slots.
My only issue is allowing ONE codex worth of primary/allied detachment to be buffed competitively, and no other ones, which is what full legalization of 40k approved does to a GT.
It is much more analogous to going in and banning every OP unit in the regular codices EXCEPT Heldrakes. "All people with CSM rejoice, everyone else sorry they're going to have an advantage."
A further reiteration - there's NOTHING WRONG with allowing FW in your tournament. At NOVA, half our 4 x 40k events use FW. My only issue is the MAJOR freak-out when you try to prevent people gaining an IG-centric competitive advantage while NOBODY ELSE gets one, when you try to ban a small # of FW units. It pretty much highlights the issue. THOSE people are getting in the way of broad FW allowance at every major GT. Because while FW rules are generally unprofessional, not playtested with codex rules, etc., MOST of their units are fine.
#1 - Adding FW - IG gets boosted, a little SM gets boosted, NOBODY ELSE DOES. Coupled w/ known fact that GW does not balance or playtest FW with Codices.
#2 - Adding FW sans known spammed IG-centric units - everyone gets more variety, no codex really gets any kind of a boost.
It sounds like the concern over imbalance is at the highest competitive level, while those in favor of allowing the variety that Forgeworld offers would like to see them at local tournaments.
It follows, then, that while Forgeworld should be considered legal by default, it should be banned at the highest level. That should make everyone happy.
Mannahnin wrote: No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're working from the perspective of a member and participant or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.
But as I said before, that's a bit of a sideline, and really anyone criticizing your arguments should be able to do so without knowing whether you actually play the game.
It's more of a cheap shot and people should stop using that line as an angle of argument because it only discredits themselves.
Dakka is a larger part of the 40k community then any single tournament, and as Peregin already has over 5500 posts in around 6 months it's just as easy to say he is more involved in the community then you are with ~23000 in 8 years.
It's also worth noting that most of the people arguing against FW and relying on their tournament "credentials" have severely limited experience with FW at said events since most of the "major" events disallow it already.
Dakka is a larger part of the 40k community then any single tournament, and as Peregin already has over 5500 posts in around 6 months it's just as easy to say he is more involved in the community then you are with ~23000 in 8 years.
No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.
I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.
I really like the elitist attitude in the 40k community that says your arguments only gain merit if you've ever attended adepticon and Nova. It's so incredibly snobbish it isn't funny. If I were to use my own experience in tournaments held in my neck of the woods (Maine) that draw 30-45 players that are not main stream on the web then my experience as a gamer may as well be invalid.
While I certainly don't think FW as a whole should be banned because there are some units that are prone for abuse, I'm completely open to the idea of a restricted or banned list of units - as long as it applies to codex units and IA units alike.
Just to put it out there, what does everyone think should qualify a unit for an appearence on a banned list (none at all) and a restricted list (0-1).
What I'm meaning is a test/idea/quality that merits action. A generic idea that can be applied to units to see if they fit.
If we had a basis for evaluating units to see if a unit should be banned/restricted, it would go a long way to eiminating a fear of bias.
I think equal application is very important to eliminate bias, and the starting point of equal application is an articulated basis for the ban/restriction.
#1 - Adding FW - IG gets boosted, a little SM gets boosted, NOBODY ELSE DOES. Coupled w/ known fact that GW does not balance or playtest FW with Codices.
#2 - Adding FW sans known spammed IG-centric units - everyone gets more variety, no codex really gets any kind of a boost.
Why not just go with option #2?
#1 is the main problem, correct, and given the discussion in most forums (incl. Dakka, e.g. Peregrine), the main pro-FW people tend to be WAACIG players...for obvious reasons.
#1 - Adding FW - IG gets boosted, a little SM gets boosted, NOBODY ELSE DOES. Coupled w/ known fact that GW does not balance or playtest FW with Codices.
#2 - Adding FW sans known spammed IG-centric units - everyone gets more variety, no codex really gets any kind of a boost.
Why not just go with option #2?
#1 is the main problem, correct, and given the discussion in most forums (incl. Dakka, e.g. Peregrine), the main pro-FW people tend to be WAACIG players...for obvious reasons.
...But I want Contemptor and Stormeagles for my CSM army. :(
(I'm very, very, very pro-FW, but I'm not a WAACIG player, to prove a point.)
#1 - Adding FW - IG gets boosted, a little SM gets boosted, NOBODY ELSE DOES. Coupled w/ known fact that GW does not balance or playtest FW with Codices.
#2 - Adding FW sans known spammed IG-centric units - everyone gets more variety, no codex really gets any kind of a boost.
Why not just go with option #2?
#1 is the main problem, correct, and given the discussion in most forums (incl. Dakka, e.g. Peregrine), the main pro-FW people tend to be WAACIG players...for obvious reasons.
Plenty of other people get boosts with FW. Necrons, Tau, and Eldar get some nice units available to them.
I think this is a bit of a generalization, I'm pro-FW and I don't play IG.
I had quite a bit to post, but Dracos basically beat me to it. I think the only reason for banning or limiting the Thudd Gun is time, and that's fair enough. Nobody likes 12 Barrage Blasts. Even if you're firing them.
But if you start actually limiting units in the interests of game balance, then I think an equivalent system should be imposed for the codices. After all, they are equally legal.
No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're coming from the perspective of a member or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.
I really like reading the arguments from the people in the latter camp. Its like getting motorcycle advice from everyone I know who doesn't ride a bike or being given fitness tips from people who havn't done any exercise since they were made to at school.
I really like the elitist attitude in the 40k community that says your arguments only gain merit if you've ever attended adepticon and Nova. It's so incredibly snobbish it isn't funny. If I were to use my own experience in tournaments held in my neck of the woods (Maine) that draw 30-45 players that are not main stream on the web then my experience as a gamer may as well be invalid.
Well, Red Corsair, you whom I respect from here on Dakka, this thread is about the high level competitiveness of GTs & RTTs and FW units effecting it. So, I think some opinions *do* carry less weight. And this is a discussion of opinions.
... perhaps the following example might address the 'elitist' angle of some of the guys who are basically saying, "We're tourney goers, so you non-RTT hayseeds don't have as authoritative a say."
Let's say Tiger Woods, Chi Chi Rodriguez, Ben Hogan and which ever other golfing legends/masters are debating about some new driver or iron or ball that is really giving an edge, an OverPowered edge, at their level of play. Let's call it a ForgeWorld Driver and costs a lot.
You and I, being weekend guys who hold beers longer than we hold clubs and spend more time flirting with the cocktail girl driving the golf-cart-bar than paying attention to the 'lay' of Hole 6's approach ... well, we might have reasonably informed opinions on said OverPowered equipment, the ForgeWorld Driver; we've read the magazine articles and paid attention/watched the important games. And you and I are joining the discussion with these high level guys.
But at some point, one of us is bound to make an assertion or observation that just won't jibe with their experiences. Chi Chi or Arnold Palmer will look over and say, "Um, where did you place in the last Masters?"
You and I look at each other and admit, "Never played in one."
They'll be nice, but anything else we posit will promptly be ignored. Being casual players doesn't necessarily invalidate our opinions, but it does take away *some* weight of authority when contributing to the discussion.
Snobbish? Yep.
It is, but it's a level of *earned* merit that makes me, (using TheEverliving's example) a non-motorcycle rider someone who ought to keep his mouth closed when discussing rice-rockets versus cruisers or anything else about riding motorcycles.
And for *regular* tourney attendees, like MVBrandt, Blackmoor, HulkSmash, etc, some of those FW units do alter a player's approach to a list (edit: man, this onel line needs a whole post in of itself!)
So, non-tourney players might just want to admit that they don't play/attend and that their opinions can be weighed accordingly.
For the record: *my* opinion/expertise on this topic is a light one, having only a couple GTs under my belt, and a mostly losing record in a couple years of monthly RTTs.
Dakka is a larger part of the 40k community then any single tournament, and as Peregin already has over 5500 posts in around 6 months it's just as easy to say he is more involved in the community then you are with ~23000 in 8 years.
<- My reaction. That's a lot of posting.
A lot of posting. How much playing? How much playing in tournaments? Brothererekose hit it on the head with his post on that topic.
Enigwolf- Which is why, the more I see this discussion, the more convinced I am #2 is a great compromise. Lets Enigwolf use his contemptor, doesn't force competitive players to have to use/face tons of FWIG artillery. Even Peregrine agrees
I think this is a bit of a generalization, I'm pro-FW and I don't play IG.
Oh, it wasn't my intention to claim all IG players in favor of FW being WAAC gamers. It's just that it has always been, and still is, the situation that some of the most vocal pro-FW people are WAACIG players looking for another (completely unnecessary) power spike to their army. There certainly are people looking for cool models as well, but there's a very vocal group. The "can of worms" thingy is my main worry about allowing FW - the "Balance is already bad, what would FW do worse?" argument is a really weak argument. If sth. has major balance problems, what good is there to dump more terribly balanced stuff in the mix? 2nd argument is spreading FW / the word / knowledge about it.
That's why I'd favor restrictions on FW stuff, but those need careful evaluation and time to work out...time most TO obviously do not want to invest, I, currently, do not see the potential gains outweighting the potential problems either, not by a long shot.
FW's inclusion was never as a "need", and it certainly hasn't overturned the metagame or been overrunning tournaments and majorly shifting standings. It was always a "welp, here's this mess of an edition, and with these allies rules there no longer any pretence of a balance reason to keep FW out, there's a small handful of units that can be abused but it's no different than what happens with normal codex stuff...why were we banning it again?"
As noted earlier, Codex Necrons has done more to affect tournament standings and tournament events in general than Forgeworld has. Allowing it for a bit and then pulling back just because "well there's more flyers for everyone now" is a an evasion for someone who has a bias and just doesn't want to openly admit it, nothing more.
I'm also wondering when suddenly everyone got their panties in a twist over Thudd Guns, they've been around since 2006 and not a word until the last couple weeks...
Vaktathi wrote: I'm also wondering when suddenly everyone got their panties in a twist over Thudd Guns, they've been around since 2006 and not a word until the last couple weeks...
... because 6e made artillery so much better?
... and it's taken someone until the last six weeks to finally dig 'em up and implement them? Not totally unthinkable in 6e's 11 month existence (holy crap, it's been almost a year! release date June 23rd, '12). There's a lot of permutations to this game, continually evolving, too.
Mannahnin wrote: No, it's not about your credentials. It's about your participation in the community, and whether you're working from the perspective of a member and participant or someone stridently arguing from an external perspective.
But as I said before, that's a bit of a sideline, and really anyone criticizing your arguments should be able to do so without knowing whether you actually play the game.
It's more of a cheap shot and people should stop using that line as an angle of argument because it only discredits themselves.
I was defending his right to participate in the discussion. And no, it's not a cheap shot. Think it through. A person's perspective and priorities shape their position. Peregrine does not attend any large tournaments, and may not even attend local ones. This is largely an academic argument for him, as participating in tournaments is not part of his hobby. His army is Death Korps of Krieg, one which is not presently allowed at nearly any tournament. If he wishes to use this under the DKoK rules as opposed to regular IG, he has a vested interest in seeing them treated like a regular codex army. His perspective clearly shapes his arguments. Including his inaccurate assessments of the level of imbalance among regular codices, and what units are overpowered. Ask folks who play in the big events how balanced the current play environment is, and you'll hear a lot of pretty positive comments.
Several of the participants who post in this thread do regularly attend tournaments, including national ones. Traveling to and attending these events around the country is a major part of their hobby, and so how and whether those events are balanced and organized is a substantial concern to them. It's relevant to their real-world expenditures of time, energy, money and vacation hours. They're also the folks who are spending their time learning to counter stuff like Helldrakes and Wraithspam, and can speak in an informed way about whether any of the IA units go above and beyond those codex units in terms of power and difficulty to counter. If you think Peregrine is a better source of info on that sort of thing than Carlosthecraven, Target, MVBrandt, TheEverliving, or me, than we're never going to find common ground.
Red Corsair wrote: Dakka is a larger part of the 40k community then any single tournament, and as Peregin already has over 5500 posts in around 6 months it's just as easy to say he is more involved in the community then you are with ~23000 in 8 years.
I have a lot more posts than that, and it's over 14 years. Dakka's had a couple of site resets. And they're irrelevant to my point. I'm talking about the real world community of players who actually attend events. Of which (as far as I can tell) Peregrine is not actually a member, and can't legitimately speak with the kind of authority he habitually assumes.
Attempting to close off the conversation of which units are more overpowered than others based on "GT experience" is a wonderful way to insulate your position from criticism and opposing points of view.
I'm not sure there is anyone saying "Peregrin is a better source of info on (...) than (...)". Even if you can find one person who said something to that effect, its a strawman.
You are using a strawman to make your appeal to authority more powerful. This is a weak tactic.
Instead of trying to be right by virtue of deriving a position of authority, maybe you could actually try to articulate what makes some particular units in FW more OP than particular units in a given codex.
That would hold a lot more weight than your fallacious arguments Mannahnin
Get over yourself, Dracos. I specifically argued in Peregrine's defense and asserted that questioning his level of participation is a sideline. That he's perfectly welcome to participate in the discussion and his lack of participation in tournaments should not be a barrier to do so. It does need to be taken in context, however, when evaluating the accuracy of his expressed opinions on GW's playtesting, on the overall balance of the game or of individual units like Helldrakes and Vendettas. He does make some reasonable and valid arguments. but he tends to mix them in with plainly inaccurate statements of opinion expressed with the exact same lecturing tone and attitude of authority.
MVBrandt wrote: 40k playtesters for GW have come out on podcasts and elsewise and blatantly stated there is 0 playtest or balance interaction b/tween FW and GW.
Which doesn't matter because there is zero playtesting done by GW at all. Compare MTG's professional playtesting to GW's "we played a cool scenario once". If you can show evidence of MTG-level playtesting I'll concede that you might have a point about FW/GW interaction, but until then I don't really see how whether or not FW participates directly in GW's laughably minimal "playtesting" attempts should be relevant.
Here's a great example of goalpost-shifting, of term-redefining, and of talking down to MVBrandt in a way which makes everyone in this thread who's participated in discussions about competitive play with MVBrandt and with Peregrine make us laugh out loud or shake our heads in disbelief.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm also wondering when suddenly everyone got their panties in a twist over Thudd Guns, they've been around since 2006 and not a word until the last couple weeks...
... because 6e made artillery so much better?
... and it's taken someone until the last six weeks to finally dig 'em up and implement them? Not totally unthinkable in 6e's 11 month existence (holy crap, it's been almost a year! release date June 23rd, '12). There's a lot of permutations to this game, continually evolving, too.
No sarcasm or malice intended.
Artillery is better in 6E true (though it was also awful in previous editions), but it's still odd to me that *that* particular artillery unit is one people get upset about, immobile Ld7 artillery platforms that, while having a high damage potential, have a huge whiff potential and thoroughly mediocre average damage output against anything that isn't a T3 5+sv unit in the open and clumped up *real* nicely. . Likewise there's the Heavy Mortar in the same entry that doesn't seem to be getting complained about, which is a much more reliable weapon.
S5 small blasts with no scatter reduction, that whiffs entirely if the first shot badly whiffs never seemed quite so ridiculous to me
Dracos wrote: Attempting to close off the conversation of which units are more overpowered than others based on "GT experience" is a wonderful way to insulate your position from criticism and opposing points of view.
I'm not sure there is anyone saying "Peregrin is a better source of info on (...) than (...)". Even if you can find one person who said something to that effect, its a strawman.
No, he used no Strawman Fallacy. Care to point it out?
Dracos wrote: You are using a strawman to make your appeal to authority more powerful. This is a weak tactic.
Someone is showing off his Debate Class notes!
Dracos wrote: Instead of trying to be right by virtue of deriving a position of authority, maybe you could actually try to articulate what makes some particular units in FW more OP than particular units in a given codex.
Let's say my wife complains about Sabres (she doesn't play 40k). Hulksmash complains about them. Both say the same thing. Exact same thing.
Still, I think Brad's opinion carries the day.
Now *that* is a Strawman Fallacy on Appeals To Authority!
Mannahnin wrote: Get over yourself, Dracos. I specifically argued in Peregrine's defense and asserted that questioning his level of participation is a sideline. That he's perfectly welcome to participate in the discussion and his lack of participation in tournaments should not be a barrier to do so. It does need to be taken in context, however, when evaluating the accuracy of his expressed opinions on GW's playtesting, on the overall balance of the game or of individual units like Helldrakes and Vendettas. He does make some reasonable and valid arguments. but he tends to mix them in with plainly inaccurate statements of opinion expressed with the exact same lecturing tone and attitude of authority.
Coming from a mod the attack "get over yourself" is somewhat surprising...
In what way am I in need of "getting over myself"?
You sir, are the one making an authoritative argument.
You are the one patronizing others by attempting to marginalize opinions based on a white/black "has or has not participated in a GT".
MVBrandt wrote:Peregrine, you are the one who argues for trusting the designers, and they DO playtest. You and Redbeard (who I like and know and respect) saying WELL IT DOESN'T MATTER B/C GW'S PLAYTESTING IS STUPID ANYWAY basically invalidates any and all arguments about playing FW b/c it's "legal" ... because you're calling them amateurs, acknowledging they do things wrong, and saying it's OK to overrule and/or ignore them as a result (aka - it doesn't matter that there's no playtest or balancing interaction, b/c their playtest is bad anyway). This is also a simple assertion of opinion, as opposed to an attempt at a reasonable solution, by a guy who apparently won't even go to the tournaments unless they're 100% his way anyway (unless I mis-read what you wrote).
My argument, which may well be different from Peregrins, is not that it doesn't matter because GW's playtesting is poor, but rather, arguing that FW should be banned because their playtesting is poor infers a level of playtest quality that simply doesnt' exist at GW, and is somewhat hypocritical.
In debate terms, I'm not making an argument for including Forgeworld, I am refuting your argument for banning FW.
Does that make sense?
I believe that the default state, across the board, should be that any book published should be valid for play, and that denying any book should require a strong argument. The quality of playtesting at FW is not that strong argument.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm also wondering when suddenly everyone got their panties in a twist over Thudd Guns, they've been around since 2006 and not a word until the last couple weeks...
... because 6e made artillery so much better?
... and it's taken someone until the last six weeks to finally dig 'em up and implement them? Not totally unthinkable in 6e's 11 month existence (holy crap, it's been almost a year! release date June 23rd, '12). There's a lot of permutations to this game, continually evolving, too.
No sarcasm or malice intended.
Artillery is better in 6E true (though it was also awful in previous editions), but it's still odd to me that *that* particular artillery unit is one people get upset about, immobile Ld7 artillery platforms that, while having a high damage potential, have a huge whiff potential and thoroughly mediocre average damage output against anything that isn't a T3 5+sv unit in the open and clumped up *real* nicely. . Likewise there's the Heavy Mortar in the same entry that doesn't seem to be getting complained about, which is a much more reliable weapon.
S5 small blasts with no scatter reduction, that whiffs entirely if the first shot badly whiffs never seemed quite so ridiculous to me
Two or so pages ago there is a comprehensive scenario listing how a Thudd Gun battery can be properly abused.
Anyway, Vakthathi, it's not how OP it is, it's trying to resolve 12 barrage blasts using 6th Ed. rules. As even Peregrine said, he would probably limit it because of the timed nature of tournaments, and that takes up a lot of time. But that should only really be for very competitive environments where every minute matters; I wouldn't like to see that enforced at a normal tournament, and (personally) I would never do anything like that because timing is a very odd argument to make.
Because this is now coming up a lot, I will point out that I am arguing from the detached viewpoint of an external observer, who does not regularly compete in tournaments. Feel free to attack me based on my lack of credentials/experience/fallacies.
FW's inclusion was never as a "need", and it certainly hasn't overturned the metagame or been overrunning tournaments and majorly shifting standings. It was always a "welp, here's this mess of an edition, and with these allies rules there no longer any pretence of a balance reason to keep FW out, there's a small handful of units that can be abused but it's no different than what happens with normal codex stuff...why were we banning it again?"
As noted earlier, Codex Necrons has done more to affect tournament standings and tournament events in general than Forgeworld has. Allowing it for a bit and then pulling back just because "well there's more flyers for everyone now" is a an evasion for someone who has a bias and just doesn't want to openly admit it, nothing more.
Simply saying 6thed sucks and GW is bad at rules is not a valid argument. Sure when it launched it was a mess but the ruleset is getting tighter with every codex and FAQ released and many people like myself are really enjoying it. How on earth do you balance something in less than a year when your have 14 or so factions and infinite number of possible army lists? These arguments are coming from the same people who dislike flyers, hull points, and oher 6th ed changes and instead of adapting as so many of us have done they are sticking their heads in the sand.
Artillery is better in 6E true (though it was also awful in previous editions), but it's still odd to me that *that* particular artillery unit is one people get upset about, immobile Ld7 artillery platforms that, while having a high damage potential, have a huge whiff potential and thoroughly mediocre average damage output against anything that isn't a T3 5+sv unit in the open and clumped up *real* nicely. . Likewise there's the Heavy Mortar in the same entry that doesn't seem to be getting complained about, which is a much more reliable weapon.
S5 small blasts with no scatter reduction, that whiffs entirely if the first shot badly whiffs never seemed quite so ridiculous to me
You're not arguing the actual rules of multiple barrage honestly. Yes you can scatter on the first shot, but with 12 shots (4 HIT!) in total you can literally walk back the template to hit the unit your shooting for. Using Prescience your getting even more hits. Multiple Barrage is very potent and since wounds are allocated from each template placed you can literally pick out specific models in units and snipe them out.
Dracos wrote: While I certainly don't think FW as a whole should be banned because there are some units that are prone for abuse, I'm completely open to the idea of a restricted or banned list of units - as long as it applies to codex units and IA units alike.
This is an interesting thought, but I think there are multiple legitimate reasons to treat them differently. Ease of access to the rules is one. Another is the time factor, where being introduced to/reading the rules for IA units adds another time demand to events already tight on time.
But one of the pro-FW folks' real points was that unfamiliarity breeds unfamiliarity. That introducing IA units to events will tend to create more knowledge of them and greater comfort with them in the player base. So I do think it's worth allowing them in general. The question of exactly what criteria should be used to decide which ones to exclude is a good one. And I suspect that it's going to come down to individual TOs.
Mannahnin wrote: Get over yourself, Dracos. I specifically argued in Peregrine's defense and asserted that questioning his level of participation is a sideline. That he's perfectly welcome to participate in the discussion and his lack of participation in tournaments should not be a barrier to do so. It does need to be taken in context, however, when evaluating the accuracy of his expressed opinions on GW's playtesting, on the overall balance of the game or of individual units like Helldrakes and Vendettas. He does make some reasonable and valid arguments. but he tends to mix them in with plainly inaccurate statements of opinion expressed with the exact same lecturing tone and attitude of authority.
Coming from a mod the attack "get over yourself" is somewhat surprising...
In what way am I in need of "getting over myself"?
You sir, are the one making an authoritative argument.
You are the one patronizing others by attempting to marginalize opinions based on a white/black "has or has not participated in a GT".
What attack? The one you made on me by repeatedly accusing me of things I obviously wasn't doing? Accusing me of using Strawman arguments or attempting to close off debate? You can and should do better. You're escalating this discussion into a less friendly disagreement . Knock it off, please.
The question of whether a given unit is overpowered, abusive, or an actual problem that needs to be addressed within the context of competitive play is an inherently subjective one. Whether a person can make a good assessment of that is going to be dependent on their base of knowledge and experience. Some of the folks speaking authoritatively in this discussion have no or very little experience on which to make those judgments.
Right so you tell me to "get over" myself, and I'm the one escalating. If its not an attack, what meaning could that phrase possibly have?
You obviously were stating that the opinions of certain posters had more merit than the opinions of a poster you believe to be someone who has not attended a GT (edit) on that basis alone.
Dracos wrote: Right so you tell me to "get over" myself, and I'm the one escalating. If its not an attack, what meaning could that phrase possibly have?
What would you prefer? That when you insult and attack me I tell you to "get over it' and "knock it off', or some other response? I'm treating you like a peer and a friend. Kindly do me the same courtesy. I never attacked or insulted you. You insulted me, and I told you to stop.
Dracos wrote: You obviously were stating that the opinions of certain posters had more merit than the opinions of a poster you believe to be someone who has not attended a GT (edit) on that basis alone.
Yes. Of course. When judging a subjective situation whose opinion do you trust? If I'm asking a medical question I give a doctor's input more credence than a plumber's. If I'm trying to figure out a wiring diagram, an electrician gets more credit if his thoughts conflict with those of a dentist. When I'm curious whether a Helldrake is unstoppable and unbalanced, do I ask the guys who regularly face them in tournaments and beat them, or do I take the word of someone who's speaking hypothetically? In point of fact I personally KNOW that they're not unbeatable, and relatively easy to take out for several top armies, so I don't need to ask a third party whether the guy claiming that they're super-broken knows what he's talking about. I'm well aware that he doesn't.
I never insulted or attacked you personally. I responded to your false arguments and pointed out why they are false. You then attacked me personally my insinuating I have some personal issue that makes me need to "get over" myself.
You seriously can't see the difference between refuting the basis for an argument and a personal attack?
So what criteria are you using to determine that codex units that are more powerful than others are actually less powerful relatively than a few units in all the IA books?
You are simply using the authority from a few posters. You have no objective basis for saying one is worse.
The problem is that you are trying to make this subjective, when it should be objective. If you can't come up with an objective reason, maybe you need to concede that you are really just going on what a very good player you know told you.
Simply saying 6thed sucks and GW is bad at rules is not a valid argument.
The fundamental point is that the Warhammer 40,000 was not designed nor intended to be a tournament ruleset, the studio staff came right out and said so at their Open Day event last year, and the fundamental balance reasons for not allowing Forgeworld units are rather baseless when the game isn't designed for that type of play in the first place and with the inclusion of the allies rules allowing certain armies to allies with others on no consistent basis and allowing units in armies they were never (and still aren't) designed to work with/have access to, the balance aspect for arguing against allowing Forgeworld falls out the window.
Sure when it launched it was a mess but the ruleset is getting tighter with every codex and FAQ released and many people like myself are really enjoying it. How on earth do you balance something in less than a year when your have 14 or so factions and infinite number of possible army lists? These arguments are coming from the same people who dislike flyers, hull points, and oher 6th ed changes and instead of adapting as so many of us have done they are sticking their heads in the sand.
I don't dislike the concept of flyers, rather their implementation and the scale at which they're represented. Hull Points are an issue that is plain to see on tables with light/medium vehicles becoming increasingly rare unless stupendously cheap, and with the Eldar codex allows wargear that downgrades Penetrating hits to Glances on a 2+ seems just fine to most players because penetrations simply aren't necessary since vehicles now act as T6-10 models with a W characteristic and no armor saves. But those are other threads altogether. Fundamentally, 6E is not a tournament designed ruleset, if you're going to play it and disallow some thing just because they're in different books, that's rather silly.
You're not arguing the actual rules of multiple barrage honestly. Yes you can scatter on the first shot, but with 12 shots (4 HIT!) in total you can literally walk back the template to hit the unit your shooting for.
Depends on how well you roll but yes, in theory that's possible...but there's nothing new about that, that's been possible under every single iteration of the Thudd Gun's existence going back to 2nd Edition and was possible when re-introduced in 4E (and would have in 3E had it been around).
Using Prescience your getting even more hits.
This requires an allied psyker likely costing ~100+pts sitting there in the backfield babysitting the guns, so you're talking about something costing more than a Land Raider in total to pull that off.
Multiple Barrage is very potent and since wounds are allocated from each template placed you can literally pick out specific models in units and snipe them out.
This is about the only thing I can really see being an issue. That said, Between squads of 10 BS5 48" sniper drones, lots of eldar units able to allocate on 5's or even every shot, nob biker units often forcing 6-8 allocating hits, etc, such allocation gimmicks are quickly becoming rather commonplace and it's about the only time you'll really see it from most IG armies.
-Shrike- wrote: I never understand all of this fallacy stuff.
Anyway, Vakthathi, it's not how OP it is, it's trying to resolve 12 barrage blasts using 6th Ed. rules. As even Peregrine said, he would probably limit it because of the timed nature of tournaments, and that takes up a lot of time.
That could make sense, but then, if we followed that to its logical conclusion, we'd have nothing but Deathwing and Draigowing lists at GT's, certainly no Ork Hordes and the like
Dracos wrote: Right so you tell me to "get over" myself, and I'm the one escalating. If its not an attack, what meaning could that phrase possibly have?
You obviously were stating that the opinions of certain posters had more merit than the opinions of a poster you believe to be someone who has not attended a GT (edit) on that basis alone.
I value the opinion more in this thread from those that play in tournaments including the big GTs. The argument for collateral damage is weak considering in a 'friendly' environment you can just decide not to play a game and you lose absolutely nothing.
And what objective argument does anyone have for how powerful something is? Math hammer? Tournament results? None of that is objective. So what we have is player experience. Therefore when we are trying to determine what experience holds more weight, in the opinion of many it is going to be that of top tournament players. That does not mean other people don't get a say in the matter though. One thin I think many people fail to realize is that top tournament players are playing a different game than more casual tournament players, who are playing a differen game than guys playing in their personal game room. I'll say right now that I am in the middle category of hose I'm a casual tournament player, as such I'll defer tithe experience of those top players when it comes down to how something will effect top tournament play.
Mannahnin wrote: Ease of access to the rules is one. Another is the time factor, where being introduced to/reading the rules for IA units adds another time demand to events already tight on time.
The issue with this line of thinking is that it should then also apply to units/armies found in WD's.
One can't walk into a shop and pick up the rules for Sisters of Battle, one can't order them from GW or download them without resorting to piracy or buying the rules off Ebay 2nd hand. Yet nobody would suggest banning them. Dark Eldar were in the same situation for years for a while there and they never had such complaints. Dakkajet rules are only available from a direct-order online store just like FW rules as well, yet this line of thinking isn't extended to such units.
It's a rather muddled situation there as a result.
I think that 98% of forge world is fine and I would be ok playing with it.
The problem lies with the other 2%. This part is what breaks the game by being unbalanced and what a lot of players would gladly take to a tournament.
Here is the problem:
#1, You will never get anyone to agree on what units are broken.
#2. There are so many units in all of the FW books that every FW-allowed tournament a new broken unit rears its head so a banned list would be reactive until after there is a problem.
That is why I am against FW at tournaments because unfortunately would I rather penalize the good 98% then have the bad 2%.
Mannahnin wrote: Dracos, please give examples of what objective criteria we can use.
I can think of two approaches. I find it likely there are additional ways of analyzing that I did not think of.
1) Mathematical analysis of the unit overall. There are many different ways to approach this, but picking one and offering an explanation would help.
For example, if two heavy support options available to a particular army are near identical but one is 50% of the cost, it would be obvious that they are not appropriately costed.
2) Comparison of how many times a particular unit is selected by high finishing armies versus selected overall.
For example, if every player brings a particular unit scores particularly well, it is evidence that the unit has some sort of inherent advantage.
There are certainly problems with both approaches. For instance, a mathematical breakdown of the unit suffers from being done in isolation, and a performance evaluation suffers from a bias in the individuals selecting it.
However, both approaches are leagues more appropriate than simply citing some authority who agrees with your position.
Blackmoor wrote: I think that 98% of forge world is fine and I would be ok playing with it.
The problem lies with the other 2%. This part is what breaks the game by being unbalanced and what a lot of players would gladly take to a tournament.
Here is the problem:
#1, You will never get anyone to agree on what units are broken.
#2. There are so many units in all of the FW books that every FW-allowed tournament a new broken unit rears its head so a banned list would be reactive until after there is a problem.
That is why I am against FW at tournaments because unfortunately would I rather penalize the good 98% then have the bad 2%.
Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.
I think the issue is less with it being more broken than x unit and more that ig for instance with FW can now take broken units in multiple slots, fast, heavy, troops, that are all under costed in a way that lets them be spammed more than equivalent broken units.
Vaktathi wrote: Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.
I can build a list from almost every codex that I can bring to a tournament that can counter almost everything that you think is overpowered in the other codexes. The list might be at a disadvantage in some of the match-ups, and it will have to rely of strategy and tactics to win, but it will have a chance.
I can't build anything that can counter what FWIG can bring.
If you look at all of the posters here that are tournament regulars most think that 6th edition is close to balanced. FW throws off this balance.
Vaktathi wrote: Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.
I can build a list from almost every codex that I can bring to a tournament that can counter almost everything that you think is overpowered in the other codexes. The list might be at a disadvantage in some of the match-ups, and it will have to rely of strategy and tactics to win, but it will have a chance.
I can't build anything that can counter what FWIG can bring.
Like what just out of curiosity, the aforementioned Thudd Guns? Anything that attacks Ld will see them running off the table in short order, anything that makes it into CC will practically auto-terminate them. Poisoned weapons and snipers are very effective against them, a couple of venoms can force a morale test every turn on a full sized thudd gun unit. The Telepathy Primaris Power is absolute murder on them.
Vaktathi wrote: Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.
I can build a list from almost every codex that I can bring to a tournament that can counter almost everything that you think is overpowered in the other codexes. The list might be at a disadvantage in some of the match-ups, and it will have to rely of strategy and tactics to win, but it will have a chance.
I can't build anything that can counter what FWIG can bring.
Like what just out of curiosity, the aforementioned Thudd Guns? Anything that attacks Ld will see them running off the table in short order, anything that makes it into CC will practically auto-terminate them. Poisoned weapons and snipers are very effective against them, a couple of venoms can force a morale test every turn on a full sized thudd gun unit. The Telepathy Primaris Power is absolute murder on them.
I once again refer you to the army list that was built a few pages ago with bubblewrap, CCS, LC, Aegis Defence Line, etc. which basically saw itself camping in a corner and bombarding everything else to pieces. I have to admit, it's a pretty OP list except for the fact that they basically won't be able to capture anything. But why bother when you can just table your opponent?
Vaktathi wrote: Like what just out of curiosity, the aforementioned Thudd Guns? Anything that attacks Ld will see them running off the table in short order, anything that makes it into CC will practically auto-terminate them. Poisoned weapons and snipers are very effective against them, a couple of venoms can force a morale test every turn on a full sized thudd gun unit. The Telepathy Primaris Power is absolute murder on them.
The problem with the thudd guns isn't their power (heavy mortars are usually better), it's the incredible difficulty of resolving a 12-shot barrage weapon according to the rules in 6th. It was bad enough in 5th that I always used my thudd guns as heavy mortars just to simplify the resolution, and now in 6th you have to keep track of all 12 template locations AND resolve 12 sets of "closest model" for wound allocation purposes. And then you probably have to argue over 12 sets of how many models are under the template, or whether shot #7 was slightly closer to the melta gun or the random bolter marine. So you have a 150 point unit that does more than an entire green tide army to slow the game down, and the only limit on how many you can bring is whether you're willing to give up all your heavy support slots. It's quite easy to imagine an IG army that just camps on the objectives and uses thudd guns to stall long enough that the game ends before anyone can kill the blobs.
And it's not really out of nowhere, I've been using thudd guns as an example of "why 6th sucks" since I first read the new barrage rules. People have just started being more aware of it since it's been a subject of discussion outside of "why 6th sucks" threads.
Breng77 wrote: Therefore when we are trying to determine what experience holds more weight, in the opinion of many it is going to be that of top tournament players.
The problem here is that nobody has experience. Nobody has ever played in a high-level competitive metagame where FW rules are legal and have been legal enough for the metagame to adapt to them. Every single comment about how FW units are overpowered and will ruin the game is based on nothing more than speculation and theoretical analysis about what might happen.
(This of course is why WOTC never bans cards without extensive tournament experience proving that they need to be banned.)
Mannahnin wrote: Peregrine does not attend any large tournaments, and may not even attend local ones. This is largely an academic argument for him, as participating in tournaments is not part of his hobby. His army is Death Korps of Krieg, one which is not presently allowed at nearly any tournament.
Except here's the problem with that: I love competitive games (of all kinds), and I want to play in large tournaments. This is not just an academic argument, I have a personal stake in the debate over whether people should adopt house rules that effectively ban me from participating. If tournament gaming is not part of my hobby it is only because other people are stubbornly saying "you are not welcome here".
Vaktathi wrote: Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.
I can build a list from almost every codex that I can bring to a tournament that can counter almost everything that you think is overpowered in the other codexes. The list might be at a disadvantage in some of the match-ups, and it will have to rely of strategy and tactics to win, but it will have a chance.
I can't build anything that can counter what FWIG can bring.
Like what just out of curiosity, the aforementioned Thudd Guns? Anything that attacks Ld will see them running off the table in short order, anything that makes it into CC will practically auto-terminate them. Poisoned weapons and snipers are very effective against them, a couple of venoms can force a morale test every turn on a full sized thudd gun unit. The Telepathy Primaris Power is absolute murder on them.
I once again refer you to the army list that was built a few pages ago with bubblewrap, CCS, LC, Aegis Defence Line, etc. which basically saw itself camping in a corner and bombarding everything else to pieces. I have to admit, it's a pretty OP list except for the fact that they basically won't be able to capture anything. But why bother when you can just table your opponent?
I acknowledge all of that but it won't defend against everything and means squat to half the stuff I mentioned. Bubble-wrap and aegis up all you want, a Heldrake won't care, Terrify and/or Psychic Shriek won't either. Poisoned weapons ignore the T7 and the cover won't matter unless the unit goes to ground in which case it isn't shooting the next round and the guns don't benefit. CCS orders fail 42% of the time on an Ld7 thudd gun battery. Bubblewrap likewise won't last forever and likely is made up of one's scoring units. Tabling an opponent is easier said than done, and the Thudd Guns aren't exactly capable at taking out vehicles, while unless you roll exceptionally well they also aren't going to be particularly effective against stuff like Terminators, Wraights, Nob Bikers, Wraithguard, etc.
Vaktathi wrote: Like what just out of curiosity, the aforementioned Thudd Guns? Anything that attacks Ld will see them running off the table in short order, anything that makes it into CC will practically auto-terminate them. Poisoned weapons and snipers are very effective against them, a couple of venoms can force a morale test every turn on a full sized thudd gun unit. The Telepathy Primaris Power is absolute murder on them.
The problem with the thudd guns isn't their power (heavy mortars are usually better), it's the incredible difficulty of resolving a 12-shot barrage weapon according to the rules in 6th. It was bad enough in 5th that I always used my thudd guns as heavy mortars just to simplify the resolution, and now in 6th you have to keep track of all 12 template locations AND resolve 12 sets of "closest model" for wound allocation purposes. And then you probably have to argue over 12 sets of how many models are under the template, or whether shot #7 was slightly closer to the melta gun or the random bolter marine. So you have a 150 point unit that does more than an entire green tide army to slow the game down, and the only limit on how many you can bring is whether you're willing to give up all your heavy support slots. It's quite easy to imagine an IG army that just camps on the objectives and uses thudd guns to stall long enough that the game ends before anyone can kill the blobs.
And it's not really out of nowhere, I've been using thudd guns as an example of "why 6th sucks" since I first read the new barrage rules. People have just started being more aware of it since it's been a subject of discussion outside of "why 6th sucks" threads.
That's really an issue of fiddlyness rather than the unit being broken itself however. But the method of laying down and placing the templates is no different than it was 2 editions and 7 years ago, only the wound allocation has really changed which, while fiddly and potentially time consuming, isn't an issue with it being broken. If we're going to get into issues why units shouldn't be allowed because of time constraints, lets talk about Ork Hordes moving and shooting and running and piling in during CC steps and whatnot.
One has to remember, this is a unit that came out almost the exact same time as the last Eldar codex did, and people are just now starting to complain that it's awkward and fiddly and overpowered? It's kinda odd to just see that all of a sudden.
Vaktathi wrote: One has to remember, this is a unit that came out almost the exact same time as the last Eldar codex did, and people are just now starting to complain that it's awkward and fiddly and overpowered? It's kinda odd to just see that all of a sudden.
No, it's not new at all. Like I said, I've been counting my thudd guns (bought because they're a cool model) as heavy mortars since 5th edition because the barrage rules were such a pain to deal with, and I've been using thudd guns as an example of why the 6th edition barrage rules are stupid since the day I got my 6th edition rulebook.
If we're going to get into issues why units shouldn't be allowed because of time constraints, lets talk about Ork Hordes moving and shooting and running and piling in during CC steps and whatnot.
The difference is that horde orks are an entire army archetype, and arguably the most fluffy one. You can't really take them out of the game without a lot of unhappy ork players. Thudd guns, on the other hand, are barely (if at all) better or fluffier than heavy mortars at the cost of a huge increase in time and complexity. Banning them has a negligible effect on IG players (as long as you let them count the models as heavy mortars) while removing a lot of potential for TFGs to deliberately slow play their way to victory.
I just have never heard/read/seen anything about people having issues with them until the last couple weeks so it's been rather odd. If they were there, I certainly missed them, overwhelmingly people preferred the Heavy Mortars, and, as least as far as I can see, usually still do as they have a high Strength, better AP and larger blast.
That said, I still think banning a unit just because it's fiddly and/or time consuming, especially when the suggestion wouldn't even be dreamt of if the unit came from a book that said "Codex" on it instead of "Imperial Armour", is a rather weak justification and a slippery slope. Certain nobody suggested banning wound-allocation gimmicking multiwound units in 5E for such shennanigans.
Vaktathi wrote: That said, I still think banning a unit just because it's fiddly and/or time consuming, especially when the suggestion wouldn't even be dreamt of if the unit came from a book that said "Codex" on it instead of "Imperial Armour", is a rather weak justification and a slippery slope. Certain nobody suggested banning wound-allocation gimmicking multiwound units in 5E for such shennanigans.
I think people would be arguing to ban it if it was in a codex. Try resolving a full three-gun barrage strictly according to the 6th edition rules and then ask yourself if you ever want to do it again. I'm guessing the answer will be no.
And 5th edition wound allocation wasn't bad (complexity-wise), once you learned the rules correctly. Most of the "problems" only happened when you were dealing with someone who didn't quite understand how it worked, as long as both players knew the rules it was very straightforward. Compare that to the thudd guns where two people MUST break the rules because you can't hold all of the templates in position simultaneously and there's endless room for argument over exact positions of models and/or templates.
Peregrine I find it funny that you keep bring up wotc seeing as their tournament system is equivalent of having separate fw and non fw events. Given that they have legacy (allowing more or less everything) and standard limited to fewer cards. So sayin your excluded from events because you choose not to play without fw is equivalent to me complaining that every mtg tournament in my area is standard and I don't want to play with the new sets. If you wanted to play fw in a big event those events exist, and for those that don't want them non-fw exist.
Vaktathi wrote: Why the differenatiation here however between FW and normal codex stuff. Certainly there are issues with codex units/combinations that nobody is going to stand up and say "you can't bring this", why do it to FW? I don't think there's any hard evidence that anything FW's packing is measurably more "broken" than similar codex stuff really.
I can build a list from almost every codex that I can bring to a tournament that can counter almost everything that you think is overpowered in the other codexes. The list might be at a disadvantage in some of the match-ups, and it will have to rely of strategy and tactics to win, but it will have a chance.
I can't build anything that can counter what FWIG can bring.
If you look at all of the posters here that are tournament regulars most think that 6th edition is close to balanced. FW throws off this balance.
This is not a knock against you, simply a counter point to what you said. Sure the new sixth edition codices look very balanced with maybe Tau as a possible exception. The thing is there are still some fifth edition codices (Grey Knights, Imperial Guard and Space Wolves) that some still view as not balanced. Some say that sixth edition has inherently brought these three armies in line - I am not going to argue that but on the other hand I don't necessarily believe that to be true. So for those that do think they are over powered and under costed should they be banned as well? Basically you are supporting the re introduction of wide spread comp for 40k. How would you feel if you found out that a big event you were planning to attend banned Grey Knights because the TOs felt they don't belong in a competitive environment?
Vaktathi wrote: That said, I still think banning a unit just because it's fiddly and/or time consuming, especially when the suggestion wouldn't even be dreamt of if the unit came from a book that said "Codex" on it instead of "Imperial Armour", is a rather weak justification and a slippery slope. Certain nobody suggested banning wound-allocation gimmicking multiwound units in 5E for such shennanigans.
I think people would be arguing to ban it if it was in a codex. Try resolving a full three-gun barrage strictly according to the 6th edition rules and then ask yourself if you ever want to do it again. I'm guessing the answer will be no.
And 5th edition wound allocation wasn't bad (complexity-wise), once you learned the rules correctly. Most of the "problems" only happened when you were dealing with someone who didn't quite understand how it worked, as long as both players knew the rules it was very straightforward. Compare that to the thudd guns where two people MUST break the rules because you can't hold all of the templates in position simultaneously and there's endless room for argument over exact positions of models and/or templates.
I've been avoiding this thread, because well, the sidelines are safer and have popcorn, but I have to chime in a bit . You keep lamenting thudd guns you say because of how hard/slow they are to resolve.
They arent.
Use them a couple times, and they're just like anything else, they don't take much time, and you get used to it. Providing you don't argue with your opponent about the minutia of every scatter direction (roll close to where you're at!) they resolve very, very quickly. Heck, if you miss they get even faster since all scatters resolve off the first hit. You roll a scatter, you just roll again and move on, you roll a hit, you put a template touching it and pick up the first and keep going. You just need 2 templates to do this, and if you can buy 3 thudd guns from FW, you can probably afford 2 small blasts.
I used thudd guns at the Adepti-Team event as RITIDES mentioned, and though I was semi-joking when I apolgized to Nate about using them, they are very abuseable/too good for their points. That match unfortunately was just bad for Nate's team based on the lists outside of the thudd guns, which he mentioned as well. After all, only one team member (me) could have thudd guns, and both of our tables won with basically the same score. Heck, though we won teams I was on dropped the most points throughout the event! I think if you let something like FW in you 0-1 a choice from FW, and you probably also restrict players to 1 forgeworld choice period. 1 Unit of thudd guns isn't that bad - it's like a thunderfire or two, or shadowweavers, etc., but 9 is silly.
Vaktathi wrote: That said, I still think banning a unit just because it's fiddly and/or time consuming, especially when the suggestion wouldn't even be dreamt of if the unit came from a book that said "Codex" on it instead of "Imperial Armour", is a rather weak justification and a slippery slope. Certain nobody suggested banning wound-allocation gimmicking multiwound units in 5E for such shennanigans.
I think people would be arguing to ban it if it was in a codex.
Personally, I'd be very surprised, if they haven't after the Vendetta, the Heldrake, the gimmicky paladins and nob bikers, etc, I just don't see it, especially with the concerted effort to extirpate comp scores/rules in 40k events over the last few years.
Try resolving a full three-gun barrage strictly according to the 6th edition rules and then ask yourself if you ever want to do it again.
I really haven't ever had much of an issue on either side (shooting them or being shot at by them), though admittedly I haven't seen them played in a large tournament yet. I have however dealt with all sorts of other sillyness like CC engagement radii, wound allocation, etc and I just don't see it being that much worse aside from the aspect of nearest-model wound allocation.
Instead of banning the unit outright it could also be much easier resolved by a relatively simple unit FAQ for the event saying that for the sake of time just use the original hit location for wound allocation only or something like that.
And 5th edition wound allocation wasn't bad (complexity-wise), once you learned the rules correctly. Most of the "problems" only happened when you were dealing with someone who didn't quite understand how it worked, as long as both players knew the rules it was very straightforward.
Not in my experience, especially when it came to multi-AP application and the opponent figuring out the best order/allocation for themselves, it wasn't uncommmon for even experienced players to take a couple minutes trying to game it.
Compare that to the thudd guns where two people MUST break the rules because you can't hold all of the templates in position simultaneously and there's endless room for argument over exact positions of models and/or templates.
Most of the time people don't even do a single scatter right, so if the multiple barrage is messed up a bit because it's fiddly, I don't think most people will complain. At worst just set a rule saying "should any issue arise with template placement, defer to your opponent's judgement" really should suffice.
Target wrote: You roll a scatter, you just roll again and move on, you roll a hit, you put a template touching it and pick up the first and keep going. You just need 2 templates to do this, and if you can buy 3 thudd guns from FW, you can probably afford 2 small blasts.
No, you have that completely wrong. A "hit" on the scatter die can be placed touching ANY previous template, which means you must keep all of them on the table after they're placed. And then you need to keep them there while resolving wounds, since each template will have a different location for determining the closest model to allocate wounds to. So you need a full 12x small blast templates and some way of holding them all simultaneously (good luck with only two sets of hands in a typical game).
The only situation where you can get away with only using two templates is if the initial shot scatters off into empty space with absolutely no other models close enough that you care about where those shots are landing. And when deciding whether to allow something you have to consider the common worst-case scenario, not the most optimistic one.
Breng77 wrote: Given that they have legacy (allowing more or less everything) and standard limited to fewer cards.
The difference is that:
1) MTG was designed from day one with the set rotation mechanic, while 40k is designed to be played with everything included at once. The better comparison would be if most high-level events banned blue entirely, while WOTC continued to print blue cards as part of the game.
2) Legacy and Standard (and other formats) are both played frequently at every level of competition. No matter what format you want to play you'll have plenty of opportunities to do so.
9 pages of arguing over yes or no. As a GT player I don't really care if they are there or not. There has never been 1 unit in any game (except fateweaver in 5th) that has made me lose a game. You take your pieces, and push them towards his pieces and you roll dice. You either win or lose based upon your strategy compaired to his, luck of dice, etc.
MVB is absolutely true in my opinion that the "top players" who support FW units see another "bow in the quiver", "bullet in the gun" to use. I will take whatever I feel to be the best prepared list for my playstyle against the meta and mission packet. If that involves "thudd guns" so be it. If that involves 5 landraiders and that fits my playstyle so be it.
LISTS ONLY MATTER IN A GAME WHEN YOU ARE PLAYING SOMEONE CLOSE TO or EQUAL TALENT, OR ARE HAVING BAD DICE LUCK.
So let them in or don't, players will still see what is on the other side of the table and have to respond.
Vaktathi wrote: Personally, I'd be very surprised, if they haven't after the Vendetta, the Heldrake, the gimmicky paladins and nob bikers, etc, I just don't see it, especially with the concerted effort to extirpate comp scores/rules in 40k events over the last few years.
Again, it's not about power level, it's about the difficulty and complexity involved. Vendettas are powerful but they don't take a completely disproportionate amount of time to resolve their actions.
Instead of banning the unit outright it could also be much easier resolved by a relatively simple unit FAQ for the event saying that for the sake of time just use the original hit location for wound allocation only or something like that.
That would be the other option. I'd be ok with allowing them if you changed their rules to fix the time/complexity problem, my point is that as-printed thudd guns don't belong in timed events.
At worst just set a rule saying "should any issue arise with template placement, defer to your opponent's judgement" really should suffice.
Of course then you have the opposite problem, where TFG maliciously objects to everything and you can't argue back.
Peregrine wrote:
But exactly the kind of pronouncements you'd hear from someone who has read this thread. Just look at what people are posting, banning Helldrakes (or even limiting them to 0-1) is absolutely unacceptable despite them being clearly unbalanced (and having an incredibly stupid FAQ to make them even more powerful).
No one's said that banning them would be absolutely unacceptable. They've said that any given event can make whatever restrictions it wants. But they've opined that limiting units in a codex unit isn't as easy or likely to be accepted by the general player populace as limiting Forgeworld units. Which is true.
The problem I have is that the issue is being twisted around and the WRONG questions are being asked and discussed.
Just look at the title of this thread and the premises put forth in the OP.
What I want is for all the BS smokescreen arguments to be thrown out the window and the real issues discussed. THEN, if a TO wants to disallow using all Imperial Armor, then so be it. But the reasons typically thrown out as the reasons why Imperial Armor needs to be disallowed are NOT the real reasons.
So let's start of with the basic premises of what exactly Imperial Armor represents:
1) Imperial Armor is an official expansion for Warhammer 40k, made by the company who produces the game allowing players to purchase and play with additional models that aren't in their codex. Or to put it another way, Imperial Armor gives players additional choices of units to include in their armies.
That begs the question: Do we need more models/units available? Based on the reaction you see when a new codex is released that only contains a few new units, I would posit that the *vast* majority of players continually prefer to have additional unit choices available to them...as people seem to believe that more variety of choice is a positive thing and of course cool looking models with interesting fluff behind them always seems to be welcome.
So in conclusion, Imperial Armor provides what most players generally speaking want: more variety of models and units to use in their armies.
2) Although imperial Armor is an 'expansion' to 40k, unlike other expansions (such as Cities of Death, Planetstrike, etc) much of this expansion is designed to be played in 'standard' games of 40k. Therefore, given that at its core, Imperial Armor provides something that most players think is a good thing (more variety of choices and more cool models), and that it is designed to be used in standard 40k games, the 'default' option for whether or not to allow Imperial Armor in a tournament (considering just what I've presented so far) seems like it should be a no-brainer: yes.
3) Now, obviously there have been LOTS of reasons posited as to why actually allowing Imperial Armor in tournaments is a bad thing. But the truth is that all but one of these reasons is just a smokescreen. The reason you know this to be the case is this premise:
What if every single Imperial Armor unit was completely and totally over-pointed and had crap rules. If that were the case, do you think anyone would complain about how much money Forgeworld models cost? Do you think anyone would complain about the time it takes to learn about the IA units their opponent has before each game? Do you think anyone would complain about having to buy all the IA books to keep up with every IA unit rules. Of course not. If IA was completely and totally crap, then nobody would have ANY issues at all with them being allowed in every tournament.
The ONLY TRUE reason that drives people to lobby for IA to not be included is because they think some of those units are just 'too good'. If we could just cut all the other ancillary crap and discuss that one true issue, then we would be so much better off.
4) If we can focus on that REAL issue and ask ourselves: are there really a few units in Imperial Armor really so powerful that they cannot possibly be countered? And if that is the case, is that really a reason to completely disallow all of Imperial Armor in its entirety instead of just targeting the units that are the issue?
The reason this issue needs to be discussed is because it cuts back to the heart of what role players and TOs are willing to have in order to create that concept of a 'balanced' or 'fun' game/tournament experience. If Games Workshop were to put out a codex or army book that was legitimately so powerful that it had NO counters, would the same people be making the same arguments to ban that entire codex/army book? If no, why is this situation different?
Or if that situation were to arise, would people just argue that we have to suck it up and deal with it for as long as GW allows it to exist? Or if people DID feel something had to be done, then would they maybe argue to just alter the worst offending units to 'fix' the issue without completely disallowing the faction?
5) I know the argument is that the situation is 'different' because IA is an expansion and a codex/army book is a 'core' part of the game.
But Games Workshop has never made any claims about Imperial Armor being something that is designed to balance or imbalance the 'core' game. As explained in the preface of their IA books, they are an expansion to include additional models/units in the game for reasons I explained above (because players like more choice and more cool models).
So to make the decision about whether or not to allow or disallow Imperial Armor is being made for any other reason (such as deciding that they are imbalanced) is NOT banning them BECAUSE they are an expansion, it is using the fact that they're an expansion as an excuse for players to address the perceived imbalance in the game.
If imbalance is really a core issue to the point of banning Imperial Armor, then it should be core enough to worry about banning codexes/army books or even units within those books to help maintain that theoretical balance. Or at least there should be discussion about implementing comp of some sort back into tournaments.
6) Because if IA is being banned because people think a few units are imbalanced, ultimately what is happening is player controlled composition restrictions...we're saying that, despite what the authors of the game think is balanced, IA can't be taken because we as players and TOs think it is just too powerful.
And if we can make that decision above and beyond the Games' authors, then there's no reason we shouldn't be able to instead restrict the individual IA units that are the perceived issue, as we're already playing 'game designer' at that point and making a judgement that the Games Designers have written completely imbalanced rules despite the fact that the authors believe that they are fine.
Here's the problem: when GW playtests their codices for internal/external balance, FW is not taken into consideration. AT ALL.
And if it isn't obvious to you yet, GW is actually taking balance and playtesting a little more seriously this go around. Yes, it was hard to see when 6th first came out, but with each new release GW's vision for the core rules of the game are increasingly coming to light.
It would be extremely hard to argue that FW is doing the same thing. FW makes cool sculpts and spends the minimum amount of time required to give you some semblance of rules with which to actually use them. Don't believe me? Look at the amount of FAQing that was necessary from the latest indy-tourney faq to make half of the units even USEABLE with the current ruleset.
Vaktathi wrote: Personally, I'd be very surprised, if they haven't after the Vendetta, the Heldrake, the gimmicky paladins and nob bikers, etc, I just don't see it, especially with the concerted effort to extirpate comp scores/rules in 40k events over the last few years.
Again, it's not about power level, it's about the difficulty and complexity involved. Vendettas are powerful but they don't take a completely disproportionate amount of time to resolve their actions.
While true, we're also talking about a game that in no way, shape or form even pretends to be a game designed for tournament/timed play, and artificially forcing a timed aspect on it for the sake
That would be the other option. I'd be ok with allowing them if you changed their rules to fix the time/complexity problem, my point is that as-printed thudd guns don't belong in timed events.
Another possibility would be to just reduce it to say, 1 or 2 blasts per gun and quadruple/double each hit. It'd certainly shift it much more toward the "whiff completely or score huge" side of things, but it would clean it up in terms of complexity/speed purposes.
Of course then you have the opposite problem, where TFG maliciously objects to everything and you can't argue back.
True, but that's why Sportsmanship exists (and why I prefer events that weigh that heavier than winning games)
Vaktathi wrote: acknowledge all of that but it won't defend against everything and means squat to half the stuff I mentioned. Bubble-wrap and aegis up all you want, a Heldrake won't care, Terrify and/or Psychic Shriek won't either. Poisoned weapons ignore the T7 and the cover won't matter unless the unit goes to ground in which case it isn't shooting the next round and the guns don't benefit. CCS orders fail 42% of the time on an Ld7 thudd gun battery. Bubblewrap likewise won't last forever and likely is made up of one's scoring units. Tabling an opponent is easier said than done, and the Thudd Guns aren't exactly capable at taking out vehicles, while unless you roll exceptionally well they also aren't going to be particularly effective against stuff like Terminators, Wraights, Nob Bikers, Wraithguard, etc.
Your not taking your argument that extra step that I know you would as a skilled player if you were putting it on the tabletop. The simple solution is to add the Lord Commissar. And/or add a CCS with Banner. Remember the incredible range on it. You can deploy back corner (Hammer and Anvil your really in business) Wrap with said bubble, wrap that with an Aegis or if you really want to protect it use Azarel. It's so easy to make it a nearly impregnable unit and it puts out so much firepower across the entire table regardless of LOS.
Codices like Sisters and Templars are long suffering granted but how many left their ranks just this year with GWs release schedule. Its a very good possiblity if the rumors are close to being true each of these armie will be included in a codex within the next year.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Problem with condensing blasts is that it would really benefit from Prescience. Being able to land just a few shots would multiply quickly and might be even more broken.
Breng77 wrote: Given that they have legacy (allowing more or less everything) and standard limited to fewer cards.
The difference is that:
1) MTG was designed from day one with the set rotation mechanic, while 40k is designed to be played with everything included at once. The better comparison would be if most high-level events banned blue entirely, while WOTC continued to print blue cards as part of the game.
2) Legacy and Standard (and other formats) are both played frequently at every level of competition. No matter what format you want to play you'll have plenty of opportunities to do so.
1. No, of course it wasn't. "Standard", formerly known as Type II, didn't get invented until several years into Magic's existence, after WotC realized that the play environment had become degenerate, and the barrier to entry for original-style (everything included except ante cards) play was too high, because of the cost for new players to acquire long out of print power cards, like the moxen and Black Lotus.
2. It's mostly Standard and Draft, although Legacy does get some play.
Target wrote: You roll a scatter, you just roll again and move on, you roll a hit, you put a template touching it and pick up the first and keep going. You just need 2 templates to do this, and if you can buy 3 thudd guns from FW, you can probably afford 2 small blasts.
No, you have that completely wrong. A "hit" on the scatter die can be placed touching ANY previous template, which means you must keep all of them on the table after they're placed. And then you need to keep them there while resolving wounds, since each template will have a different location for determining the closest model to allocate wounds to. So you need a full 12x small blast templates and some way of holding them all simultaneously (good luck with only two sets of hands in a typical game).
The only situation where you can get away with only using two templates is if the initial shot scatters off into empty space with absolutely no other models close enough that you care about where those shots are landing. And when deciding whether to allow something you have to consider the common worst-case scenario, not the most optimistic one.
Breng77 wrote: Given that they have legacy (allowing more or less everything) and standard limited to fewer cards.
The difference is that:
1) MTG was designed from day one with the set rotation mechanic, while 40k is designed to be played with everything included at once. The better comparison would be if most high-level events banned blue entirely, while WOTC continued to print blue cards as part of the game.
2) Legacy and Standard (and other formats) are both played frequently at every level of competition. No matter what format you want to play you'll have plenty of opportunities to do so.
Neither of these are true there was no set rotation in original magic unit there were several sets released, the base set rotated the same way codices do now and in my area only standard is frequently played. Furthermore they have changed format rules several times jow.Currently 40k has as many major FW events as non-FW. So I fail to see the difference.
Mannahnin wrote: 1. No, of course it wasn't. "Standard", formerly known as Type II, didn't get invented until several years into Magic's existence, after WotC realized that the play environment had become degenerate, and the barrier to entry for original-style (everything included except ante cards) play was too high, because of the cost for new players to acquire long out of print power cards, like the moxen and Black Lotus.
Actually it was. The original concept for the game was that each new expansion would be an entirely different game (that's where the "the gathering" part of MTG comes from, originally each new expansion would have a new name and new card backs), and it was only a very late decision that made playing an 'everything ever printed' format possible at all.
And of course even if the original 1993 idea of format rotation and the "modern" concept aren't identical the current rotation mechanic has been around for 15+ years now and is a fundamental part of the game. That's entirely different from the FW/no-FW split, where it's an argument over a house rule invented by the players.
2. It's mostly Standard and Draft, although Legacy does get some play.
Maybe it's just my area, but at least one of the local stores has weekly legacy tournaments, and http://www.starcitygames.com/pages/scgop/schedule has plenty of legacy events with thousands of dollars in prizes for the hardcore competitive players.
Mannahnin wrote: 1. No, of course it wasn't. "Standard", formerly known as Type II, didn't get invented until several years into Magic's existence, after WotC realized that the play environment had become degenerate, and the barrier to entry for original-style (everything included except ante cards) play was too high, because of the cost for new players to acquire long out of print power cards, like the moxen and Black Lotus.
Actually it was. The original concept for the game was that each new expansion would be an entirely different game (that's where the "the gathering" part of MTG comes from, originally each new expansion would have a new name and new card backs), and it was only a very late decision that made playing an 'everything ever printed' format possible at all.
And of course even if the original 1993 idea of format rotation and the "modern" concept aren't identical the current rotation mechanic has been around for 15+ years now and is a fundamental part of the game. That's entirely different from the FW/no-FW split, where it's an argument over a house rule invented by the players.
2. It's mostly Standard and Draft, although Legacy does get some play.
Maybe it's just my area, but at least one of the local stores has weekly legacy tournaments, and http://www.starcitygames.com/pages/scgop/schedule has plenty of legacy events with thousands of dollars in prizes for the hardcore competitive players.
By that argument non-FW tournaments have been around for years, so the idea to include them is new. I still see no difference with having 2 separate formats. Essentially non-FW40k has been a fundamental part of the game for most people for about those same 15 years.
Your not taking your argument that extra step that I know you would as a skilled player if you were putting it on the tabletop. The simple solution is to add the Lord Commissar. And/or add a CCS with Banner. Remember the incredible range on it. You can deploy back corner (Hammer and Anvil your really in business) Wrap with said bubble, wrap that with an Aegis or if you really want to protect it use Azarel. It's so easy to make it a nearly impregnable unit and it puts out so much firepower across the entire table regardless of LOS.
Yes, if I built the entire army around those thudd guns and allied in HQ's form outside the IG codex, I could make it harder to remove. I wasn't assuming we were dumping 1000pts into buying and protecting the thudd guns though, and fundamentally all it really does is add one more step to the process, which is kill the LC.
There's a lot of counters to a list like this, I play such a list routinely (albeit with the Heavy Mortars and not the Thudd Guns). DS'ing and outflanking units are an issue, and the Thudd Guns aren't very effective against MC's or vehicles (a couple riptides can really put the hurt on a list like this), anything that can target out the LC/Company Command is huge issue and increasingly common. Cover ignoring weapons are also increasingly common. Focusing fire on the CCS/LC will remove them in short order, there's only so much you can do to stop that, fundamentally they are T3 5+ (4+ at best)sv models and not T4 3+sv heroes. Once the Ld reinforcement is gone, then the weapons are vulnerable to Ld attack. A chaos list with 2 or 3 heldrakes and a Telepathy Sorcerer or two will really take a dump on a list like this.
Problem with condensing blasts is that it would really benefit from Prescience. Being able to land just a few shots would multiply quickly and might be even more broken.
Probably true, though again we're talking about solutions to fixing time-related issues in a game where time plays no factor in the creation of the rules or how the game is intended to play.
There's a lot of counters to a list like this, I play such a list routinely (albeit with the Heavy Mortars and not the Thudd Guns). DS'ing and outflanking units are an issue, and the Thudd Guns aren't very effective against MC's or vehicles (a couple riptides can really put the hurt on a list like this), anything that can target out the LC/Company Command is huge issue and increasingly common. Cover ignoring weapons are also increasingly common. Focusing fire on the CCS/LC will remove them in short order, there's only so much you can do to stop that, fundamentally they are T3 5+ (4+ at best)sv models and not T4 3+sv heroes. Once the Ld reinforcement is gone, then the weapons are vulnerable to Ld attack. A chaos list with 2 or 3 heldrakes and a Telepathy Sorcerer or two will really take a dump on a list like this.
Your answer shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how an army of FWIG is played and it discredits anything you have to say.
Target wrote: You roll a scatter, you just roll again and move on, you roll a hit, you put a template touching it and pick up the first and keep going. You just need 2 templates to do this, and if you can buy 3 thudd guns from FW, you can probably afford 2 small blasts.
No, you have that completely wrong. A "hit" on the scatter die can be placed touching ANY previous template, which means you must keep all of them on the table after they're placed. And then you need to keep them there while resolving wounds, since each template will have a different location for determining the closest model to allocate wounds to. So you need a full 12x small blast templates and some way of holding them all simultaneously (good luck with only two sets of hands in a typical game).
The only situation where you can get away with only using two templates is if the initial shot scatters off into empty space with absolutely no other models close enough that you care about where those shots are landing. And when deciding whether to allow something you have to consider the common worst-case scenario, not the most optimistic one.
Except in my post I was talking about when a shot scatters off into nowhere, which you knew, as you stated i was talking about the most optimistic scenario - so I'm not "completely wrong". I'm just giving you the real world short hand that still follows the rules.
You do not need 12 small blasts under any circumstance however, that's just plain silly. It's like claiming that moving a 30 man ork boy unit is impossible because you need 30 tactical templates or tape measurers to do so.
When actually playing with the thudd gun's, here's how it generally goes:
-First shot hits: Yay! Place template, proceeding templates will either flip (place second template, check number under, move on), or you'll get another hit and place it somewhere touching the first that gives you more guys. Yes, you could walk further from here, but it's never once been the case when I've played that I've needed to. So you need the 1 original, and the one for your second, more optimal not over a base, hit. Any further hits you just add in the number that you should remember from the "optimal" one you did, and any flips are done with your second small blast.
-First shot scatters, too far from anything for scatters to matter: You need the original template to be placed, then you need one more template to walk it back. Place the first one, roll scatter die until you get a hit, when you do, place the new template, pick up the original (since you don't need it and will be now placing off the new one, and scatters cant get anyone), and repeat until you get back to your target/get to another target
-First shot scatters, flips matter: You do exactly as above, but "need" ideally 3 small blasts so you can have the original stay in place to check flips on.
In general, every set of 2 players should contain 2 small blasts - at a GT, it's flat out a requirement to come with all templates and dice. So unless your opponent is stingy, you'll only need one extra. Given that you were willing to afford the trip, the armies, and the thudd guns, I think another 99 cents for a second small blast off ebay is reasonable, and something most players who bring thudd guns will (and do) think of...since they've used the unit before and realize the convenience of having an extra one or two small blasts.
My point was that:
1) In reality, resolving these with reasonable people does not take much time at all
2) Once you play them a few times, resolving them becomes quick and easy due to practice
3) Stating the time it takes to resolve something as even a possible valid reasonable to not allow it in organized play (in which you do not participate as you've said, which is fine) is silly, as you don't actually know whether it does take extra time in organized play (specifically organized as in GTs, which keep tighter schedules then most local events). Folks at GTs are typically fairly well practiced with their armies and the rules, and can be expected to know how to efficiently resolve their own units. Stating the time as an issue to ban it is akin to the silliness of putting a model count cap on armies due to the time it takes to move them "sorry guys, nothing over 60 models, it just takes too long!"
If you want to get rid of them, or of FW, or of specific forgeworld units, do it for the right reasons (or what an event/organizer feels are the right reasons).
Target wrote: When actually playing with the thudd gun's, here's how it generally goes:
What you're missing is that the direction wounds come from in 6th matters. You have to keep all those templates in place because each shot (other than 'hit' results that you place on the exact same spot) will have a different set of "closest model" to allocate wounds to. If you only have two templates and place one over and over again for each "flip" you won't be keeping track of this properly.
Also, your third case requires more than three templates. Let's say you scatter 5", far enough that you're not doing very much damage with the initial shot but not off the target unit completely. Now let's say you roll two scatter results in two different directions, each hitting models but still not in such an ideal position that you want to stack 'hit' results exactly on that spot. Then finally you get a hit with the fourth shot. The hit can be placed in contact with any of the three previous shots, which are in three different locations. You need to mark each of those locations so you know where you can legally place the hit
Stating the time as an issue to ban it is akin to the silliness of putting a model count cap on armies due to the time it takes to move them "sorry guys, nothing over 60 models, it just takes too long!"
The difference is that a high model count army can't be fixed without completely changing the army. A green tide orks list capped at 60 models isn't a green tide orks list anymore. A thudd gun, on the other hand, can be turned into a heavy mortar (much faster to resolve, equal or better in firepower in most cases) without really losing anything. So there's a legitimate argument for just accepting the slower games as the price of allowing a wide range of high model count armies, but there isn't really a similar argument that thudd guns are an irreplaceable part of an IG list.
So, in ten pages I've seen the same thing. Peregrine has some thread stamina, I'll give him that.
Anyworld, I've said it once and I'll say it again; don't play against it if you don't want to.
If I spend over $100 on any model, regardless of source, I expect to use it. If you buy a FW model and don't expect to use it, you either like painting and modelling a lot or insane.
I don't attend tournaments. I've only played a few games in 6th, since I have other priorities and the people I play with have different schedules. However, I'm not sure that excludes me or anyone in a similar situation from delivering advice. If I spend my money on something, I expect to get the full use out of it. If you get your panties in a bunch because a Mortis Contemptor is somehow more OP than a Heldrake or Riptide with Prescience on it, fine, just don't expect me to play against you.
Every codex and every IA has units that are better than others. It has been that way for quite a while. We know for a fact that GW and FW don't playtest in a competitive environment, so I'm not sure why everyone and their grandmother is so upset about how OP certain units are. This was a point made on page 1 of this thread, yet somehow it has been ignored or something.
There's a lot of counters to a list like this, I play such a list routinely (albeit with the Heavy Mortars and not the Thudd Guns). DS'ing and outflanking units are an issue, and the Thudd Guns aren't very effective against MC's or vehicles (a couple riptides can really put the hurt on a list like this), anything that can target out the LC/Company Command is huge issue and increasingly common. Cover ignoring weapons are also increasingly common. Focusing fire on the CCS/LC will remove them in short order, there's only so much you can do to stop that, fundamentally they are T3 5+ (4+ at best)sv models and not T4 3+sv heroes. Once the Ld reinforcement is gone, then the weapons are vulnerable to Ld attack. A chaos list with 2 or 3 heldrakes and a Telepathy Sorcerer or two will really take a dump on a list like this.
Your answer shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how an army of FWIG is played and it discredits anything you have to say.
So, instead of offering a counter-argument, instead of pointing out where I'm wrong, instead of pointing out some flaw in my analysis or experience anywhere (despite the fact that I play an army like this and have been taken apart as such)...
You are unable to actually defend your stance and instead resort to a personal attack that's the equivalent of calling me a poopy-head, taking your toys, and going home.
Three things become clear now. 1: you've got a bug up your butt about FW for some reason. 2: The entire purpose of this thread is basically to feed that bug up there. 3: You really don't like it when it comes out that Forgeworld really doesn't upset anything any more than anything else GW releases does and is basically just more stuff for people to use.
If you don't like hearing then, don't make threads on it. Either way, I think now that the thread's purpose has become clear it is time to close it.
There's a lot of counters to a list like this, I play such a list routinely (albeit with the Heavy Mortars and not the Thudd Guns). DS'ing and outflanking units are an issue, and the Thudd Guns aren't very effective against MC's or vehicles (a couple riptides can really put the hurt on a list like this), anything that can target out the LC/Company Command is huge issue and increasingly common. Cover ignoring weapons are also increasingly common. Focusing fire on the CCS/LC will remove them in short order, there's only so much you can do to stop that, fundamentally they are T3 5+ (4+ at best)sv models and not T4 3+sv heroes. Once the Ld reinforcement is gone, then the weapons are vulnerable to Ld attack. A chaos list with 2 or 3 heldrakes and a Telepathy Sorcerer or two will really take a dump on a list like this.
Your answer shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how an army of FWIG is played and it discredits anything you have to say.
So, instead of offering a counter-argument, instead of pointing out where I'm wrong, instead of pointing out some flaw in my analysis or experience anywhere (despite the fact that I play an army like this and have been taken apart as such)...
You are unable to actually defend your stance and instead resort to a personal attack that's the equivalent of calling me a poopy-head, taking your toys, and going home.
Three things become clear now. 1: you've got a bug up your butt about FW for some reason. 2: The entire purpose of this thread is basically to feed that bug up there. 3: You really don't like it when it comes out that Forgeworld really doesn't upset anything any more than anything else GW releases does and is basically just more stuff for people to use.
If you don't like hearing then, don't make threads on it. Either way, I think now that the thread's purpose has become clear it is time to close it.
Well, no, he's right.
How are those Drakes looking after your properly deployed Sabre's have a go at them? If not Sabre's, then Vendetta's.
Thudd Guns may not be great against MC's, but again, Sabre's are. Ask Janthkin, I watched his Nids crumble to this style of list, piloted by a good player, from about 10 feet away (sorry for creepin' on ya, J!).
If you're going after the CCS, instead of things that can actually hurt you, how much of your army will be left to fight back? That's assuming you have cover ignoring weapons, which are actually quite rare to find reliably at a cost-efficient price for most armies, that can get into range.
What are the odds of rolling Terrify on telepathy? And what is the range? Oh, that's right.. And what kind of troops are you left with taking in that garbage army you propose if you're taking 2 Sorcerers?
Lastly, there's no way in hell I'm risking a deepstrike into a spread out Guard army with mass pie-plates to take advantage of the circular formation I'm forced to drop down in unless I've got a 2++ rerollable.
What you seem to be missing is that it isn't just the one unit that makes IGFW ridiculous. It's how it all works in tandem.
One thing I'll agree on with the pro-FW side is that we all have a choice not to attend. Nobody is forcing anyone to go. It's just tough seeing events you've loved in the past potentially turned into something you simply can't stand the taste of. Personally, I'd attend either style of event as long as it is well run. I'd simply prefer to go to an event where I don't have to either a) buy a Guard army, or b) pray I don't get matched up with Guard. If I have to make a choice between two events on the same weekend, one FW, one not, it's an easy decision for me.
There's a lot of counters to a list like this, I play such a list routinely (albeit with the Heavy Mortars and not the Thudd Guns). DS'ing and outflanking units are an issue, and the Thudd Guns aren't very effective against MC's or vehicles (a couple riptides can really put the hurt on a list like this), anything that can target out the LC/Company Command is huge issue and increasingly common. Cover ignoring weapons are also increasingly common. Focusing fire on the CCS/LC will remove them in short order, there's only so much you can do to stop that, fundamentally they are T3 5+ (4+ at best)sv models and not T4 3+sv heroes. Once the Ld reinforcement is gone, then the weapons are vulnerable to Ld attack. A chaos list with 2 or 3 heldrakes and a Telepathy Sorcerer or two will really take a dump on a list like this.
Your answer shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how an army of FWIG is played and it discredits anything you have to say.
So, instead of offering a counter-argument, instead of pointing out where I'm wrong, instead of pointing out some flaw in my analysis or experience anywhere (despite the fact that I play an army like this and have been taken apart as such)...
You are unable to actually defend your stance and instead resort to a personal attack that's the equivalent of calling me a poopy-head, taking your toys, and going home.
Three things become clear now. 1: you've got a bug up your butt about FW for some reason. 2: The entire purpose of this thread is basically to feed that bug up there. 3: You really don't like it when it comes out that Forgeworld really doesn't upset anything any more than anything else GW releases does and is basically just more stuff for people to use.
If you don't like hearing then, don't make threads on it. Either way, I think now that the thread's purpose has become clear it is time to close it.
I wrote it all out 5 pages ago of why all of your tactics that you think will not. Do you want me to keep re-posting it for you?
The fact that you think that fliers will not get crushed by Saber defense platforms, or that you can reliably get a psychic power off through the rune priest and the deny the witch roll shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the FWIG army works.
and that's why he's on the ignore list and I'll respond to your counterpoints instead.
How are those Drakes looking after your properly deployed Sabre's have a go at them? If not Sabre's, then Vendetta's.
If we're assuming enough artillery platforms and support to both have 9 thudd guns, an aegis line, a CCS and LC for babysitting support, and say 3 units of TLLC sabres, how many points are left for scoring units?
We're talking 1100-1200pts right there with no upgrades on anything, no allied Azrael for invul bubbles, no Vendettas or anything like that, and no scoring units and a whole lot of immobile artillery units, all squashed up real nice if we're assuming they're all within orders/Ld bubble distance.
Lets say you're playing 1850 since that currently seems to be the most popular, you're left with say 600something points with which to purchase scoring units (hopefully something with some sort of mobility since the rest of your army sure as hell isn't moving), allies and vendettas? that's going to get kinda tight there. Assuming mandatory minimum troops to fill that out and make it legal, say 1 platoon (to get the Sabres) and 1 veteran squad (to make it cheap), none with any upgrades, you're looking at almost 1400pts, with two naked HQ's and four naked T3 5+sv footslogging scoring units that also have to double-duty as bubblewrap. So then there's 400ish points left over for allies and unit upgrades and transports and vendettas and something other than 35 footslogging T3 naked 5+sv models for scoring units.
So yeah, it's a ton of firepower, and the Interceptor's probably a bit overkill, but we're still talking an army with practically zero mobility, a huge vulnerability once one key unit is removed, and the core of the army is going to all be clustered around said key unit relatively closely, making your own blasts and templates relatively effective and limiting what the list can respond to (If we're talking Tyranids, Mawlocs would work wonders here), especially if there's some sort of LoS to block those Sabres.
Fundamentally I think in regards to the Sabres and many other units is that GW made the brainfart of removing the ability to fire at ground units with AA units (many of which had already previously been described also as effective anti-infantry/light vehicle units like the Hydra and Sabre) and then coupled the USR that fixes that with the ability to shoot at oncoming reserves which really wasn't anything that the game needed in the first place. If they remedied that and allowed skyfire units to choose each turn if they'd use skyfire or not, you'd see Interceptor fly off these units.
Thudd Guns may not be great against MC's, but again, Sabre's are. Ask Janthkin, I watched his Nids crumble to this style of list, piloted by a good player, from about 10 feet away (sorry for creepin' on ya, J!).
Sabres are if given lascannons sure, but if we're talking the above type of list, that's not as many lascannons as one might otherwise be facing, and there's ways to mitigate that as well (ideally cover/invul saves/psychic powers/etc)
If you're going after the CCS, instead of things that can actually hurt you, how much of your army will be left to fight back?
The question then is, how much effort is it to remove the CCS/LC. We're talking T3 5+sv models here, not a T4 W4 2+/3++ monster here.
Fundamentally here's what can be done (within the confines of codex:IG, not talking allies yet) to keep the CCS alive.
1: put it in a transport
2: give it carapace armor
3: give it Camo cloaks
3: buy a medic for the unit
4: put it in cover
5: put it out of line of sight.
6: add squadmembers including bodyguards to increase the units size.
7: add a Lord Commissar for Ld10 and an additional model for the unit.
8: upgrade the Company Commander to Iron Hand Straken for T4 and 3+ armor
10: hope for Night Fight turn 1 and that the IG get to go first
The worst case scenario therefore is a CCS upgraded with as many add-on models as possible (3 advisors and 2 bodyguards, 11 if including the Lord Commisar), given a medic, upgraded with carapace armor and Camo Cloaks in a transport out of LoS behind cover (and regimental standard to ensure that Ld bubble always works) and its Nightfight. I guess you could sub-out transport for Bastion but then you couldn't really be out of LoS I'd imagine on most tables.
We are then looking at 1 AV12/10/10 3 HP chimera with 11 T3 4+sv infantry models sporting with Stealth (one T4 3+sv Special Character) and rerollable Ld10 and (assuming we've filled out the weapons compliment on the squad as well) ending up at roughly 500points including the Lord Commissar and whatever gear he's got. That's the worst case scenario for engaging a CCS that doesn't want to die.
Looking at that unit and most tournament armies, knowing that that's the hardiest thing you're likely to face, relative to most other armies "you can't kill me HQ's", how impossible is this to kill? For a unit of guardsmen? Very hard. 500pts hard? Hrm, probably not. Short of being unable to draw LoS/having no barrage weapons/DS options/etc of your own, is this really going to be that much of an issue to take out? Only if it goes to ground behind an aegis line (and then it's not giving any orders), and if you've got anything like a Heldrake floating around, or a barrage weapon of your own, etc, then it won't care.
If we're talking a scenario one might actually run into, then we're likely going to see a CCS with camo cloaks and the LC behind an aegis line sporting a few guns and a regimental standard, 6 T3 models at roughly 180-200pts. Hardest thing to kill ever? Hardly.
That's assuming you have cover ignoring weapons, which are actually quite rare to find reliably at a cost-efficient price for most armies, that can get into range.
Weapons or abilities that allow this are becoming more common than they once were. CSM's got the Baleflamer and Ignores Cover is standard on Sonic Blasters/Blastmasters, Daemons got the Skull Cannons and have an S6 AP4 Torrent weapon on Soul Grinders, Tau certainly have no issues removing cover between Markerlights and Smart Missile Systems, Eldar have a number of barrage weapons and psychic powers that would be highly useful against such a list.
What are the odds of rolling Terrify on telepathy? And what is the range? Oh, that's right..
24" likely means you just need to survive turn 1 if you've got a transport (and, if playing Eldar, the Hemlock fighter comes standard with Terrify, pods that force all Ld tests to be rerolled, and ID inflicting AP2 blast weapons for those artillery units, and can be coupled with the -3Ld Horrify psychic power).
Mech Eldar likely actually would do very well against such an army, kit whatever you're taking in Wave Serpents with Holofields and Flat Out turn 1 (gogogadget 3+ cover saves and downgrading Penetrating hits to Glances on a 2+, 9 TLLC Sabres are averaging 1.3 HP's and a 1/16 chance between all 9 guns to get through and inflict an Explodes result, so likely squat all happens to the Eldar), and take a couple Farseers and a Seer Council, engage the sabre batteries and CCS first (likely have to sacrifice the seer council admittedly), and when the Hemlocks roll on, engage the thudd guns with those. If first turn is Nightfight (50/50 chance at it) so much the better, especially if Hammer and Anvil and the range on those Thudd Guns and Sabres is neutered.
And what kind of troops are you left with taking in that garbage army you propose if you're taking 2 Sorcerers?
I said "a sorceror or two", you needn't have two, but if we're assuming both then most likely mechanized CSM's, which can be effective against an army like this unless one is of the group that subscribes to the idea that only certain Cult units are useable CSM troops.
Lastly, there's no way in hell I'm risking a deepstrike into a spread out Guard army with mass pie-plates to take advantage of the circular formation I'm forced to drop down in unless I've got a 2++ rerollable.
Hint, there's a minimum range on the Thudd Guns wherein they don't get BS scatter even if firing directly, meaning not only a high likelyhood of missing and having to "walk" the blast back, but of hitting their own troops. It means those blasts are falling amongst their own lines and not being thrown downrange Additionally, if you get in there and get off Terrify or Psychic Shriek on a battery of Thudd Guns, it's not likely to continue to cause you trouble testing on Ld4 or likely taking losing a gun and a couple crew and then having to take an Ld7 morale test again.
What you seem to be missing is that it isn't just the one unit that makes IGFW ridiculous. It's how it all works in tandem.
One thing I'll agree on with the pro-FW side is that we all have a choice not to attend. Nobody is forcing anyone to go. It's just tough seeing events you've loved in the past potentially turned into something you simply can't stand the taste of. Personally, I'd attend either style of event as long as it is well run. I'd simply prefer to go to an event where I don't have to either a) buy a Guard army, or b) pray I don't get matched up with Guard. If I have to make a choice between two events on the same weekend, one FW, one not, it's an easy decision for me.
Ultimately, I'd have to ask, if these are so unstoppable and make for such one-sided unwinnable games, and FW does so little for anyone else, why haven't IG artillery lists simply overrun and consistently dominated at FW allowed events?
EDIT: P.S. Vultures!
They're only really in any way an issue with one armament (the TL punisher cannon, nobody seems to care if they're armed with 4 missile pods for instance), and even then, are more expensive and provide less utility (and certainly don't have the same arrives-on-board potential) relative to Vendettas.
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, I'd have to ask, if these are so unstoppable and make for such one-sided unwinnable games, and FW does so little for anyone else, why haven't IG artillery lists simply overrun and consistently dominated at FW allowed events?
Ooh, I know! It's because nobody wants to buy FW models just for those events so nobody brought the most powerful FW-based armies. It certainly can't be because those armies aren't as good as the theory and speculation suggest.
Of course you could say the same thing about a lot of other stuff. For example, Riptides are great at killing artillery (wound on a 2+ with no saves, and you're going to hit a lot of models if everything is crammed into a commissar bubble), so we have to throw out all experience with "overpowered" FW armies winning because people haven't had enough time to buy Riptides yet.
Don’t know if i should cry or laugh at this discussion.
I should stay clear I guess, but here’s my 2 cent:
I have been in this hobby for 30 years. In Norway, where I stay, FW has been allowed in GT for years. In small GT with 1500 points, FW it’s usually limited to a 0-1 choice unless you use a FW armylist. In bigger GT, 1850 +, it’s no 0-1 restriction. (only 40k units of course, so no super heavies etc). I have seen no big problems or heated debates like this.
I may have a naive and simple view: We are playing around with small toy soldiers. And the game is from a company who has said that they mainly are a miniatures company, that the game isn’t very well suited for balanced competitive GT-play, and who don’t support that sort of GTs (unlike Privateer press). When playing with toy soldiers, why wouldn’t you allow players to bring even more great looking models, made from the same company and intended for play within the same system?
I think people, on bouth sides, overanalyzes this issue. 40k is an expensive hobby and a inbalanced game. That’s true with or without FW.
Even though I’m a pro-FW-in-GT, there’s some small issues against full-FW-inclusion-at-once:
- Tradition: FW has been a separate thing/universe from 40k for long time. Several things have shaken this up; like the new stamp of 40 in FW-books, the allies table, fliers and so on. But like all things, people like the old ways – like it was before. GT want people at their tournies. And even more books and units, could be a issue against new players attending or old/competitive players who don’t want to handle FW. So to keep everybody happy, FW inclusions should be slow. A 0-1 force slot should be fine the first years. And then after a few year – no restriction.
- Time: GT is usually very timelimited. If you face new FW-units you may be unprepared and want to read their rules. This is possible before the game, because GT imposes players to have the rules with them. If the player has 1 unit – this is no problem. If the player has a lot of unknown units from FW, you may use up a lot of time on this, and the game will start late. Or you want get to read them all. With a 0-1 restriction this is no problem, until FW is a natural thing. GT could make it mandatory for people with FW-unit to send in armylist in advance, or at least report the FW-units in advance. The GT could then made it public on their game site, which FW-units has been reported in, so people could prepare for them.
Your argument against the power of this army really does sound like you don't think they will be doing anything while you attack them. So turn 1 your proposed eldar list won't be able to terrify (you cannot begin within 24" of the enemy unless you can somehow infiltrate) so chances of killing all of the saber platforms is bad. Turn 2 your hemlocks likely start coming in and oh yeah, get blown away by sabers because well they are AV10 and even if not cannot terrify till turn 3. Oh and that 24" range means you are likely in range for a runic weapon to shut you down...as for ignoring cover, again those weapons will be targeted first by your opponent so sure they'll do some damage, but how long will they live and how much will they kill while they do. Also why is the Thudd gun unit afraid of Bale Flamers exactly. So I spread out to 2" coherency, and you cover maybe 4 models, and wound like 1 time...not really super scarey.
As for why this list has not dominated in Competitive play. Peregrine has it partly right, most people (since FW tournaments are not yet common) feel like McNinja, and therefore don't buy FW models because they are not going to be able to use them much. So they are not all that prevalent yet, if they were allowed everywhere we would see more of them. Furthermore IG armies using FW have done extremely well. (See Adepticon Team Tournament, 2 out of the top 3 or 4 at BAO, There was another GT slightly after BAO that was won by IG with FW(cannot remember the name at the moment) so it is not as if people are not building up to this.
Oh and also apparently the thing takes like 25 min to resolve, so my mobility does not really matter as we are only getting to maybe turn 4 so as long as I can keep you off my objectives, I'll do ok (sarcasm.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess what it comes down to for me is this, Marine codex + IG is very strong already, so is the argument somehow that adding better weapons to this army at really no increased cost is somehow making it worse?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess the other issue here is that a lot of your solutions may not work so well against other good armies. At which point, if I'm the IG player if I don't see you round 1 in an event, likelyhood is that I won't. The issue is beating the list with a TAC list not one tailored to beat it.
Oh and the argument that other blasts and template will be super effective also essentially means more IG...So the argument that FW inclusion will mostly lead to IG ruling events seems even more likely. You mention the Mawloc, which will hit one time, then get shot to pieces by Interceptor lascannons. As well as being a unit that does not appear in many top tier Nid lists.
Of course you could say the same thing about a lot of other stuff. For example, Riptides are great at killing artillery (wound on a 2+ with no saves, and you're going to hit a lot of models if everything is crammed into a commissar bubble), so we have to throw out all experience with "overpowered" FW armies winning because people haven't had enough time to buy Riptides yet.
You're assuming the Riptide Nova Charged, and wrongly assuming the Artillery is not behind LOS blocking terrain or an Aegis. The artillery simply goes to ground and tanks the wounds on a 2+ cover save. Markerlights? Have a 36" range. The guard blob ensures they do not get to close.
40K is not a balanced game … and I am pretty sure on the white board priority list balance is not in the top 5 of concerns at Games Workshop Design Studio or Forgeworld. Once you accept the fact that 40K is an evolving meta, cyclical, and at times has sweeping power changes the happier your hobby life will be. Balance I am pretty sure falls somewhere behind appeal to 14 year olds, sell kit X, but maybe slightly in front of “tournament” concerns. The game system only ever has to be enjoyable and playable to continue to sell models and attract players. End of story ..
Forgeworld and Black Library target audience is different than that of Main-line Games Workshop. So the fact that “official” Games Workshop events do not allow Forgeworld models to me is not some indication that these are sub-standard, and not approved. But rather they do not support the core marketing mission of Main-line Games Workshop. Principally grow the business through “new hobbyists” and keeping the game accessible to the entry level gamer. That said plenty of official events held at Warhammer World support Forgeworld models.
Forgeworld has a track record of revising model rules based on community feedback, they have done this routinely. I do not see anyone claiming the Hades Breaching Drill is still an issue that is because they saw an issue and revised the rules for them. They did the same for the Lucius Pod and the Achilles both now significantly less an issue, Mieotic Spore Sacks before that etc. For the Quad Launcher, Sabre Platforms or Heavy Mortar they operate as they had in 5th. The issue is with the change to the artillery rules in 6th edition and in time I am sure these will be addressed by the Forgeworld one way or another. That is the beauty of Forgeworld they have greater flexibility in this regard to adjust and tweak things between releases. Regardless, the argument for inclusion or exclusion should never be about codex or unit strengths. The game changes, codex and unit effectiveness comes and goes.
Just for clarity …having a GW “playtester” say that Forgeworld models are not playtested is not the same thing as Forgeworld models are not playtested. It just means that in the limited playtesting that individual was involved in Forgeworld was not a concern. Given what we know of Games Workshop playtesting and limited resources available this is not surprising. Which means for Forgeworld the playtesting and acceptability of these rules is responsibility of Forgeworld. That said, a number of main line Games Workshop designers have Forgeworld units and play with Forgeworld models so there certainly is a level of awareness.
Forgeworld has different concerns and priorities than the main line Games Workshop. Main-line Games Workshop has different concerns and priorities than Forgeworld. It is as it should be.
I choose to play either and find enjoyment in both.
I'm fine with that attitude if you want to admit you are OK with IG being the Dominant tournament army for the remainder of 6th Edition (how fast does FW update these rules I remember those Broken units being broken for quite a while before they got fixed.). The issue is that A majority of FW units are Imerial units, and so it shifts the balance of OPTIONS, very much in favor of anyone choosing to play imperial armies. As most people have said if you want to ban those Imperial units that are most offensive most would be ok with using FW. Furthermore, just because GW is not concerned with balance, does not mean players or TOs are not (or should not be), how many tournaments play GW stock book missions? How many Major tournaments? There is already tons of house ruling going on (FAQs for questions GW has not answered, Deciding new missions, eliminating random terrain, or terrain placement in general, setting time limits.) all of this is done for events to run smoothly and for games to be more balanced (based on skill rather than lots of random luck). I see no reason why FW is any different, some people choose to accept it, others don't, others accept some of it, any of these are already house ruling something.
SO I guess we should just get over "Playing Official 40k" no competitive games do, because it is near impossible to make work.
Forgeworld has a track record of revising model rules based on community feedback, they have done this routinely. I do not see anyone claiming the Hades Breaching Drill is still an issue that is because they saw an issue and revised the rules for them. They did the same for the Lucius Pod and the Achilles both now significantly less an issue, Mieotic Spore Sacks before that etc. For the Quad Launcher, Sabre Platforms or Heavy Mortar they operate as they had in 5th. The issue is with the change to the artillery rules in 6th edition and in time I am sure these will be addressed by the Forgeworld one way or another. That is the beauty of Forgeworld they have greater flexibility in this regard to adjust and tweak things between releases. Regardless, the argument for inclusion or exclusion should never be about codex or unit strengths. The game changes, codex and unit effectiveness comes and goes.
This wasn't the argument. Plenty of places allow Forge World at campaigns/narrative events. The point was GW don't allow them at tournaments in any way. In fact, it's possibly more damning this way because it shows they are aware of Forge World units, allow their use (meaning it's not a piracy issue or anything) but ban them from the more competitive events. To me, that's saying someone at GW thinks that FW rules are not balanced enough to make the event, which considering their events are barely competitive anyway is pretty bad.
Your second point is okay though, but ultimately flawed. It took years for them to change the Lucius/Hades. The Heavy Artillery update was a deliberate official change and yet was made totally broken. When many people, including myself, mentioned how absurdly undercosted they were, we all got the same reply of "these rules were written as an update for 6th edition". It's not good enough and they have known of this problem for over 9 months. The psyker update is in a similar position. We still have no update to IA:A 2nd ed, despite that having been out almost 2 years and having many, many issues (some units don't even say which FOC slot they occupy). There are several arguments for including FW but never think that they update rules quickly or regularly because that's not true.
The topic of this thread was whether or not we NEED FW in tournaments. All I see is ten pages of arguing over whether or not people WANT FW or not. I think it is well established that some people WANT FW, some are OK either way, and some do not want FW.
Lets get back to the topic of whether tournaments NEED FW armies and units.
The premise of needing anything has been shown to be faulty. You don't need FW, you don't need IG. You don't need anything - this is a game. There is no such thing as "need" in this context.
Then the answer has always been No, tournaments don't need anything other than tables(though in theory you could play on the floor) and players, nearly everything else is a want not a need. I could run this tournament.
No Allies
No fortifications
2000 points single FOC Only Codex Space Marines Allowed
No rules updates of anykind (NO Death From the Skies, NO WD, NO FW.)
All missions will be Kill points (so NO objective markers needed)
No Terrain.
Not saying people want to play this, but you could run it.
@Breng77 - I am ok with IG being dominate at any given point in time as I am with any other codex. Such is the case with the game system. The alternative is TO or Community Comp a path that was well traveled once upon a time.
@Eyjio - My point was that Forgeworld units are used at Offical Warhammer World events. Last I checked Games Workshop does not really have a competitive tourney format? or am I mistaken? As for updates .. sure in some cases it took years. Which in my mind is better than never or not until we release a new codex. Some happen much quicker in the case of feedback to experimental rules they post. My point is they still have a business model that allows it and they do it. As for IA2v2. It makes zero sense for Forgeworld to update that book given the pending release of Codex: Space Marine. I would rather wait for an update to IA2v2 that accounts for the new codex then get an immediate update that is made obsolete in 6 months.
@JWhex - So back on topic .. I think we need FW in some events and I think we need some events without FW. : )
@Muwhe, I would rather (as we are beginning to see) not have one dominatant, army, it makes for a boring game (like we had at the end of 5th ed.) I have really enjoyed playing against all the different factions in 6th rather than game after game against IG, and GKs at the end of 5th.
muwhe wrote: @JWhex - So back on topic .. I think we need FW in some events and I think we need some events without FW. : )
Or we could just have a single tournament running parallel to one another where one series has FW and one doesn't, thereby catering to both crowds...
Most events are not large enough for this (I would think you would need 64ish players to make this really work) and also have an even spread of people that desired to play in both types of events (in my local area it is probably 5 to 1 prefer no FW.)
storm once a few months ago with: 
Cerberus's point was that allowing 
