Rumor: FW to become "officially approved" for 40K use.
Hahah
Nothing official yet, of course, but we were told this exact thing at the beginning of 6th by folks that knew what they were talking about and gamers doubted. Looks like the move to integrate FW and 40K is becoming more and more real.
People can still choose not to use it just like Double FoC or whatever, but this ties in to what we were told before 6th dropped, just like the allied mini-dexes as we called them which are the supplements, etc. which have all become a reality over time.
We shall see, but I am curious to hear how other TO's will react to this. We've been using FW in events for a year now and have had absolutely no issues with it at all, apart from Blackmoor who was mad that his opponent's turrets confused him but then Blackmoor categorically opposes FW so I take that with a grain of salt And just for the record Blackmoor, this is not meant to be an attack, just some friendly teasing as you so publicly oppose FW.
As the game becomes progressively more complex to the point that no normal player can possible keep up with it (we can barely keep up with it and we do this as our profession) including FW really changes nothing. We were also told that this was the intent of the game designers: to make the game so complex that the meta was in constant flux to avoid stagnation as we had at the end of 5th.
There are a few problem units in FW but the awesome thing about the company is that they actually listen to, and respond to feedback. I am appalled by that stupid new Tau suit and we wrote them and they asked for our feedback on the unit and are taking it into consideration. Nice!
Generally speaking though, nothing in FW is as powerful as what you can pull out of the Daemons, Tau, and Eldar books and help to bring more diversity to the game, and allow other armies combos to let them compete.
But seriously, we were told this exact same thing by someone who legitimately knows what they're talking about and who also predicted a ton of stuff, all of which has come to pass. We'll see of course, but I think there is a lot of veracity to this. BL is producing rules now, their books are cannon, FW is becoming more "official.' It makes sense for GW to consolidate everything to cross promote and encourage more sales of their various brands and products.
RiTides wrote: As you say, we had this exact same rumor at the start of 6th ed and nothing came of it.
Also, "via an anonymous source on Faeit 212" tends to be wrong more often than not, according to pretre's rumor tracker
That's not what I said
Nothing has come of it yet.
We also said to expect Genesteeler Cults at the beginning o 6th, and that hasn't happened yet, either, but we keep hearing rumors that it will. Time will tell.
I tend to agree with you that a lot of the new units/combos in the new codexes are just as bad if not worse then FW. Early in 6th FW was overpowered because FW had access to many special rules like Interceptor and Skyfire that the codecies at the time just did not have. Also a lot of the rule changes benfited FW units w/o comprable points increases (IG arty, etc)
FW has been updating their stuff fairly quickly lately but I still see the problem as to which rule book is legal at any given time and still accessiblity of their products. I hope FW releases a master sheet as to what is the current legal rule set.
RiTides wrote: As you say, we had this exact same rumor at the start of 6th ed and nothing came of it.
Also, "via an anonymous source on Faeit 212" tends to be wrong more often than not, according to pretre's rumor tracker
That's not what I said
Nothing has come of it yet.
We also said to expect Genesteeler Cults at the beginning o 6th, and that hasn't happened yet, either, but we keep hearing rumors that it will. Time will tell.
There's been rumors of Genestealer Cults for years and yet here we are. I guess on a long enough timeline you'll be right.
It will indeed, and if it ever does you get to say "I told you so" in big capital letters all over the forum
But until then, the title is pretty much the reverse. The idea that FW becoming official is "inevitable" has so had nothing happen to back it up... and all the reasons for it's current inclusion or exclusion is aptly covered in the 50+ page thread that we just had:
I know you want the reverse to be true, but the facts just don't bear it out right now... also, I say that as I prepare to register for an event that allows forgeworld (the AdeptiCon team tournament) so I'm not hating... just saying
I actually did some research on the Genesteelr cult thing. GW lost the rights to the IP and only just recently got them back. As Nids are to be released relatively soon, I think in 2014 we shall see if the Cult rumor is true after the Nid release. Then I shall very immaturely rub it in your face, good sir! just kidding of course.
Anyway, who cares. I don't have a dog in that fight other than hoping to see GSCs come back because they're cool.
As for FW, I am very curious to see if this is true. People can still play how they choose, of course.
It will indeed, and if it ever does you get to say "I told you so" in big capital letters all over the forum
But until then, the title is pretty much the reverse. The idea that FW becoming official is "inevitable" has so had nothing happen to back it up... and all the reasons for it's current inclusion or exclusion is aptly covered in the 50+ page thread that we just had:
I know you want the reverse to be true, but the facts just don't bear it out right now... also, I say that as I prepare to register for an event that allows forgeworld (the AdeptiCon team tournament) so I'm not hating... just saying
Oh I know, I was just teasing and that article made me laugh for the implications.
Either way it comes down to TO and player choice.
We shall see! If it turns out to be true, even if it is super immature, I may have to blast a big, "Told You so!" hahaha
All they're saying is FW is tweaking its already-present "it's Official" language.
The result is, no matter where you stand on the issue and/or for what reasons (and I still think most "new" pro-FW advocates are disingenuous in their motives, mostly hoping to use shiny new powerful toys enabled by the allies rules and the FAQs/amendments/6th Edition rules impacts on IG, but that's another discussion), until GW themselves comes out and says "yay or nay," there'll always be a debate ...
Why?
Because those who want FW legality say THEY'RE OWNED BY GW, THEREFORE EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS AS IF THEY'RE GW ... and those who don't say COME ON, THEY DON'T EVEN PLAYTEST TOGETHER AND THEY ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER, IT'S NOT AS IF FW CAN SPEAK FOR GW CODICES ... SO HOW CAN THEY SPEAK FOR GW RULEBOOKS?!!?!
Also, come on bra, leave poor Allan alone. He's been beat up over FW enough already :p
PS - There's not really any "told you so" to be had; most of the community and TOs have long held the impression there's a push toward legalizing FW or getting more people to buy it (And why wouldn't there be), while most of us have simultaneously listened to the broad community opinion on it and tried to make good decisions about our events based upon that opinion. By community opinion I mean our own event constituents, and the community at large; I think most events have made the right call (meaning, sometimes FW is and sometimes it isn't, presently).
That said, /giant hugs. I do hope GW comes out and says one way or another, AS GAMES WORKSHOP (not as operating component FW) "YES USE IT" or "NO NOT IN TYPICAL GAMES." It would make life easier for everyone involved.
MVBrandt wrote: . I do hope GW comes out and says one way or another, AS GAMES WORKSHOP (not as operating component FW) "YES USE IT" or "NO NOT IN TYPICAL GAMES." It would make life easier for everyone involved.
And it's a bit misleading to say that Black Library is making rules now. GW Digital isn't Black Library. It's the digital outlet of the actual studio.
And by no means do the current "supplements" match the allied codexes we heard about last year. That might change with Codex: Inquisition but time will tell on that one.
I know you love FW Reece but isn't it a little silly to grab on to a rumor from that blog with such gusto?
Hahaha, ok fair enough Mike, you make a good point.
Blackmoor, I am genuinely sorry if I hurt your feelings I was just joshing around and I hope you took it in the spirit it was intended =)
At the end of the day, everyone will choose to go with what they want for their event, it just makes me do a happy dance to see that FW may become more "mainstream."
The Independent Characters got the happy dance on film from Adepticon two years ago (after a LOT of beers) and I thank the Emperor it has never shown up anywhere!
Reecius wrote: Blackmoor, I am genuinely sorry if I hurt your feelings I was just joshing around and I hope you took it in the spirit it was intended =)
You didn’t hurt my feelings. I have my big-boy pants on and just like with Dugg, it is all in good fun.
Also, I will not cry if GW allows it in their games and makes it official. That is all I ask, and all I am waiting for. If that did happened that would mean that when I suckle at GWs teat, I can finally drink deep the nourishing forge world milk that has sustained Carl for these many long years.
Until that happens though, I will continue to rage against it.
MVBrandt wrote: . I do hope GW comes out and says one way or another, AS GAMES WORKSHOP (not as operating component FW) "YES USE IT" or "NO NOT IN TYPICAL GAMES." It would make life easier for everyone involved.
That would pretty much solve it.
But they won't. They don't even have the balls to say their FAQs are "official".
Cool *Puts R'Varna In Cart*
But this is pretty sweet, I have been going over the new chapter Tactics and they seem great for fun games, so im glad I will have little resistance to using my White Scars as.....im not sure yet
Reecius wrote: Blackmoor, I am genuinely sorry if I hurt your feelings I was just joshing around and I hope you took it in the spirit it was intended =)
You didn’t hurt my feelings. I have my big-boy pants on and just like with Dugg, it is all in good fun.
Also, I will not cry if GW allows it in their games and makes it official. That is all I ask, and all I am waiting for. If that did happened that would mean that when I suckle at GWs teat, I can finally drink deep the nourishing forge world milk that has sustained Carl for these many long years.
Until that happens though, I will continue to rage against it.
But seriously, we were told this exact same thing by someone who legitimately knows what they're talking about and who also predicted a ton of stuff, all of which has come to pass. We'll see of course, but I think there is a lot of veracity to this. BL is producing rules now, their books are cannon, FW is becoming more "official.' It makes sense for GW to consolidate everything to cross promote and encourage more sales of their various brands and products.
Not sure that BL is PRODUCING rules - so much as DISTRIBUTING rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reecius wrote: The Independent Characters got the happy dance on film from Adepticon two years ago (after a LOT of beers) and I thank the Emperor it has never shown up anywhere!
We are holding it for a REALLY good discount from Frontline....
It's been official since forever. People have always taken polite phrasing to justify their incorrect opinions on what's official.
To GW, it's all official, and always has been, Like it or not, that's the literal truth. To see it being heralded now as something new to adapt to (or worse, that it's still not official) is the very definition of missing the point.[/i]
aarondembskibowdenOctober 31, 2013 at 7:04 AM
That's the thing. GW has released that statement, but the fanbase mistake it as "Forge World is a different company, so they don't count."
GW have released the statement countless times. With the 40K Approved stamps. With Forge World stuff being on almost every page and in almost every army in White Dwarf for months. With every Imperial Armour book since #2 saying "Consider these official, but be nice if an opponent hasn't read the rules, so ask permission." Because of that misunderstanding becoming so entrenched, FW changed it in recent updates to "inform your opponent you're using these rules" with no "ask" at all.
That's how GW chose to release the statement. It's the same as Black Library being canon. To GW, it's all the same, it's all canon, it's all official. But because people apply their misunderstandings to how the company functions, you get this meme about needing "GW" to release a statement.
They did. They have. It's clear as day. People just don't realise what GW is, and take their misconceptions as truth.
aarondembskibowdenOctober 31, 2013 at 7:08 AM
I think the biggest misunderstanding is the triumvirate of "companies" that make up GW.
They're just departments, in the same building. Their designers all go to the same range meetings. Their top brass all talk, all plan, all discuss stuff.
There's a lot more communication than people seem to believe.
Is that a copy and paste from somewhere, muwhe? I'm not seeing the context here. I'm guessing it's not your text since it's italicized... clarification appreciated
Gosh, if he could just get "GW" somewhere anywhere to post to that effect, even on their FB page, it might be just enough to clear the air and make the lives of TOs/etc. everywhere that much easier ...
That said he is a little off. GW hasn't always considered them official. They didn't allow them in the GT's and unless I'm mistaken the Throne of Skulls they still run doesn't allow FW.
That said, if TO's pick it up and run with it I'm down for my codex SM to be Mantis Warriors. What's that? Divination on C:SM Libbies? Yes please! (And this is one of the least abusive things I could do )
Anyone being honest and experienced enough with present meta/list design to know what you can do with them will admit there's a lot of powerful stuff you can do with FW, and we haven't seen much of ANY of it in the events that've allowed it yet.
That said, the point shouldn't be about game balance and power. There are WAY too many people opposed to it for every event right now and TO to just blanket allow, and that's just how it is. If GW can get clear enough, however, everyone will follow suit (one way or another).
To the point that they still to this day have local GW stores where they disallow its use on occasion, and have even fairly recently disallowed their use in GW-sponsored events ... that's exactly the kind of mixed message that frankly sponsors the continued issue among many players.
During 3rd edition. The UKGT did not let you use space wolf scouts, and the US GT let you use forgeworld including flyers for at least one season. As of the last time I looked at it GW did not allow allies at the Throne of Skulls in the UK.
For me the argument over whether it was official or not-official was always a non-starter and never really in question. It was always official. I think Aaron sort of sums it up as to why.
The issue is just being official does not mean events have to use it. There are a lot of things in “official” 40k that we choose to allow or disallow at events.
Variety is good, and it allows attendees to participate in the sort of events they want to play.
I do not see anything here changing that other than maybe finally people will stop with the official or not official arguments.
The thing that I don't understand is that folks who are in favor of including forgeworld don't have an agreed upon standard of what from forgeworld can be used. For example, the Las Vegas Open is allowing *any* non super heavy / gargantuan entry (not just the 40k approved entries). But they aren't allowing forgeworld army lists. Why? If the units can be used, and they're official according to ADB, then why aren't the army lists?
From what I have seen, several people are proponents of forgeworld because it serves as a positive method of army comp. Rather than restricting units that may "break" the game, tournaments in sixth ed have allowed in forgeworld to help re-balance the game (principally against fliers earlier in the edition). That really isn't the altruistic "let's allow in more diversity" that some people are advocating, that is a TO's subjective utilization of additional unit entries to resolve what they see as problems with the way the difference codices are balanced out.
Reecius wrote: The Independent Characters got the happy dance on film from Adepticon two years ago (after a LOT of beers) and I thank the Emperor it has never shown up anywhere!
We are holding it for a REALLY good discount from Frontline....
Blackmail, good sir, black mail of the lowest order!
And yes, distributing rules is what I should have said, thanks for the correction. My intent was to show that they are working closely together.
Rumor: FW to become "officially approved" for 40K use.
Hahah
Nothing official yet, of course, but we were told this exact thing at the beginning of 6th by folks that knew what they were talking about and gamers doubted. Looks like the move to integrate FW and 40K is becoming more and more real.
People can still choose not to use it just like Double FoC or whatever, but this ties in to what we were told before 6th dropped, just like the allied mini-dexes as we called them which are the supplements, etc. which have all become a reality over time.
We shall see, but I am curious to hear how other TO's will react to this. We've been using FW in events for a year now and have had absolutely no issues with it at all, apart from Blackmoor who was mad that his opponent's turrets confused him but then Blackmoor categorically opposes FW so I take that with a grain of salt And just for the record Blackmoor, this is not meant to be an attack, just some friendly teasing as you so publicly oppose FW.
As the game becomes progressively more complex to the point that no normal player can possible keep up with it (we can barely keep up with it and we do this as our profession) including FW really changes nothing. We were also told that this was the intent of the game designers: to make the game so complex that the meta was in constant flux to avoid stagnation as we had at the end of 5th.
There are a few problem units in FW but the awesome thing about the company is that they actually listen to, and respond to feedback. I am appalled by that stupid new Tau suit and we wrote them and they asked for our feedback on the unit and are taking it into consideration. Nice!
Generally speaking though, nothing in FW is as powerful as what you can pull out of the Daemons, Tau, and Eldar books and help to bring more diversity to the game, and allow other armies combos to let them compete.
Discuss!
This goes in line with what I've been hearing from the GW manager meetings:
-GW relaunching website possibly with forgeworld included
-GW stores will be able to order forgeworld through the terminal again
-FW will be changing its resin to something cheaper.
With all that in mind true or not it points that GW is doing a big push with forgeworld.
Ravenous D wrote: This goes in line with what I've been hearing from the GW manager meetings:
-GW relaunching website possibly with forgeworld included
-GW stores will be able to order forgeworld through the terminal again
-FW will be changing its resin to something cheaper.
With all that in mind true or not it points that GW is doing a big push with forgeworld.
We shall see, but I am curious to hear how other TO's will react to this. We've been using FW in events for a year now and have had absolutely no issues with it at all, apart from Blackmoor who was mad that his opponent's turrets confused him but then Blackmoor categorically opposes FW so I take that with a grain of salt And just for the record Blackmoor, this is not meant to be an attack, just some friendly teasing as you so publicly oppose FW.
Just as an FYI, those turrets where just one of several issues in our game and that was the 8th and last game over a long weekend. He just wanted to win more than I wanted to fight and so I wanted to get an early start on my 6 hour drive home.
And I was not really mad at Isreal (I really loved his Tau shirt). I just used those turrets as an example of why FW should not be allowed at a tournament.
Even more reason to pick up a Fire Hawk for my Dark Angels. I am just waiting for official rules to make sure it is worth it (and still able to be used in Dark Angels).
You guys have it all wrong!!! Blackmoor will do a little dance once this happens he will be so HAPPY. Why? Because Blackmoor isn't happy unless he has something to cry about. :p
The thing that I don't understand is that folks who are in favor of including forgeworld don't have an agreed upon standard of what from forgeworld can be used. For example, the Las Vegas Open is allowing *any* non super heavy / gargantuan entry (not just the 40k approved entries). But they aren't allowing forgeworld army lists. Why? If the units can be used, and they're official according to ADB, then why aren't the army lists?
From what I have seen, several people are proponents of forgeworld because it serves as a positive method of army comp. Rather than restricting units that may "break" the game, tournaments in sixth ed have allowed in forgeworld to help re-balance the game (principally against fliers earlier in the edition). That really isn't the altruistic "let's allow in more diversity" that some people are advocating, that is a TO's subjective utilization of additional unit entries to resolve what they see as problems with the way the difference codices are balanced out.
The last time aI had checked in on the Throne of Skulls rules was very early in 6th edition (living 250 miles from the nearest game much less tournament has made me lose interest in keeping up with everything) so like I said at that time they were not allowing allies.
Dugg wrote: You guys have it all wrong!!! Blackmoor will do a little dance once this happens he will be so HAPPY. Why? Because Blackmoor isn't happy unless he has something to cry about. :p
I guess some people can't win in 6th edition and need the crutch of forge world to do well, and then attack those who can win without it.
True story: After going 4-0 on day 1 of the Adepticon championships I was looking all around for Dugg to make it also into the final 16. Then I remembered that they are not allowing Forge World into the championships, and that he sucks
at 6th edition 40k without it, and it all made sense.
The issue with 40k Forge World army lists is pretty simple. Forge World might release a book and that book may contain a some new units along with some army list for the “theme of the book” that allows those units to be taken in the army list section. That is all well and good. It also works generally well for a bit. However, at some future point Forge World will include updated versions of those units in an IA: Apocalypse book, or IA: Aeronautica or another compendium type book. Generally this involves some tweak to the unit rules, and/or a point change.
So now the most current version of these unit rules exist in the latest book release. At the same time it is pretty seldom that the entire army list from that book gets an updated. So most of the time you are left with an army list still having the old listing.
By my thought process you are left with two options if you want to allow Forge World army lists.
1. Take it upon yourself to tie out all the army lists to the most current unit rules and make any needed adjustments to the army lists.
2. Allow the older lists, and accept that you will have the same model being played under different rules. Including the distinct possibility that someone may have that same model in both a primary and ally detachment functioning differently.
Option 1: This could be a lot of work depending on the release schedule. Events as you well know have to balance time and resources. Even at events like AdeptiCon the percentage of people that would take advantage and run a Forge World army are pretty small. Is the effort required worth it or is that time and effort better spent someplace it can have a bigger impact on more attendees? I generally feel it is to small of an impact for the work required and as an event organizer my time is better spent elsewhere.
Option 2: One of biggest complaints we hear with regard to Forgeworld is “knowing” the rules. I just think that it is a bad idea to have identical models on the table or being played at the event, that are using different rules. It is asking for trouble, can lead to bad feelings and misunderstandings. All things we prefer to avoid.
So in the end, it is one thing to allow Forge World units. Allowing army lists creates additional considerations.
All that said we have at times, with the Gladiator allowed some selected army lists. I also think you can make a stronger case to allow the Warhammer Forge WFB lists, as generally there is a lot less change happening at Warhammer Forge.
muwhe, when you mention Warhammer forge army lists are you just referring to chaos dwarfs, or are there others? Chaos dwarfs seems pretty well accepted in the fantasy community... I actually played against them in one of the main fantasy tournies at Adepticon '12
TimmyMWD wrote: For example, the Las Vegas Open is allowing *any* non super heavy / gargantuan entry (not just the 40k approved entries).
Just to clarify: there are no units non-Apocalypse which are not "40k approved", other than maybe some obscure old unit that hasn't had updated rules since before the "40k approved" icon was introduced. Everything FW publishes is either "40k approved" or "Apocalypse". The only reason for a broader policy than "40k approved" is to cover the rare potential situation where something is clearly supposed to be a normal 40k unit but wasn't technically labeled correctly under the modern system. The actual list of units allowed is going to be almost identical, if not truly identical.
(Unless of course you're talking about experimental rules, which are not official and can only be allowed via house rules.)
Dugg wrote: You guys have it all wrong!!! Blackmoor will do a little dance once this happens he will be so HAPPY. Why? Because Blackmoor isn't happy unless he has something to cry about. :p
I guess some people can't win in 6th edition and need the crutch of forge world to do well, and then attack those who can win without it.
True story: After going 4-0 on day 1 of the Adepticon championships I was looking all around for Dugg to make it also into the final 16. Then I remembered that they are not allowing Forge World into the championships, and that he sucks
at 6th edition 40k without it, and it all made sense.
Boom!!!
Jouglas, I smell a grudge match in the works! Three games, 1 with, 1 without FW and 1 at either player's discretion, last man standing wins!
Dugg wrote: You guys have it all wrong!!! Blackmoor will do a little dance once this happens he will be so HAPPY. Why? Because Blackmoor isn't happy unless he has something to cry about. :p
I guess some people can't win in 6th edition and need the crutch of forge world to do well, and then attack those who can win without it.
True story: After going 4-0 on day 1 of the Adepticon championships I was looking all around for Dugg to make it also into the final 16. Then I remembered that they are not allowing Forge World into the championships, and that he sucks
at 6th edition 40k without it, and it all made sense.
haha, I'm not attacking you buddy, I'm just saying you like to whine and cry about things. It's kind of your thing. Some people are not happy unless they have something to complain about. My Grampa was that way. I wont say you are fully that way in life but HOLY CRAP you will jump on that soap box every chance you get to cry about FW in 6th.
And by the way, my Non-FW record is still about a 12-1 W-L average in 6th and I do play without FW (rules/units) all the time, I still play with the FW models because they are AWESOME. I play about 3 non-FW games to 1 FW game on average. So you might want to check all the facts before you make those kinds of statements, or don't, I wont lose any sleep over it.
Sure, I only went 3-1 first day at Adepticon this past year, 1st time I haven't been in the top 16 and I think I only missed the cut by a half dozen-dozen, maybe, out of what 240'ish, but that can happen. I'm not going to whine and cry about my lose and point the finger and say my opponents list was OP, he was lucky, I had bad luck or go on AND ON about what was allowed or not allowed. It was what it was. And honestly I always blame myself when I don't win and try not to make to many excuses. I knew going in what the rules were, what the restrictions were, what the new Meta was and I chose to play in the tournament. Just because I play with little Army men doesn't mean I have to stop acting like an adult. This wasn't my first or last rodeo buddy but it is in the past and I'm all about the future. Adapt and Overcome, right guys?
Like I told you at Adepticon, congratulations for making it into the top 16 this last year. It is a big accomplishment and it's a tough field over there so again way to go bud.
This whole foregworld "argument" is pretty silly in the long run. The FW40k approved stamp is there. TOs will decide what the rules/restrictions will be and we will decide to play or not play in their tournament. Crying about it to the same people over and over again is just white noise and becomes annoying and pointless.
@ Reecius - ... or better yet 2 out of 3 and we switch lists from the Broadside Bash, my HobbyKiller FW list played by Blackmoor and his Draigo (no FW) List played by me, same Lists and Mission we played there for all 3 games. I would be willing to bet I win 2 if not all 3 times. What do you say Blackmoor? I mean I suck in 6th and ForgeWorld is OP so let's put some money down on it and play like men. We can make it a friendly bet, 100 per Win, sound good?
Forgeworld will never be accepted, not in the way that their advocates want it to be. Realistically most TOs/gaming groups aren't going to allow lists full of over-powered cheese that most players haven't even heard of to gak all over some newbie.
That and the average gamer would have to have read about twice as many rulebooks as he currently has done - and not just rulebooks that can be flicked through in GW, but expensive FW-only rulebooks. Consequently the contents of these rulebooks will remain obscure and the average gamer will stay clear of FW.
Guys, it's silly to say one person is whining/crying/going-on-and-on when the fact is you both are on either side of the issue. Ribbing can be good fun but it can also go too far. Agree to disagree, hmm? Someone isn't a whiner, Or less of a 40k player, than you just because they don't agree with you.
You can't say you're being an adult while at the same time calling someone a whiner/cryer, I don't use those words in my adult interactions. You also can't say it while questioning someone's skill because they use a certain unit. So, like I said, please let it go / agree to disagree. Maybe GW really will be clearer on this one day, but until then this is the same old ground and not worth fighting over.
xruslanx wrote: Forgeworld will never be accepted, not in the way that their advocates want it to be. Realistically most TOs/gaming groups aren't going to allow lists full of over-powered cheese that most players haven't even heard of to gak all over some newbie.
That and the average gamer would have to have read about twice as many rulebooks as he currently has done - and not just rulebooks that can be flicked through in GW, but expensive FW-only rulebooks. Consequently the contents of these rulebooks will remain obscure and the average gamer will stay clear of FW.
From this post, the impression I get is that you consider FW to be on the same level as non-GW wargames.
Also, does the average gamer really read every codex? Really?
I see little difference between FW rules and 50$ supplements, both are luxuries beyond the core game and main army books. One says Games Workshop and the other says Games Workshop with a FW logo. You can actually GET the FW books in hard copy tho when they're released which makes them actually easier to use than supplements, which is ironic considering the complaint is the difficulty in obtaining the FW rules.
My main and ongoing problem with FW is that they need to stop changing unit rules with every book every 3 months (I'm looking at you Mortis Contemptor...). As a TO tho I couldn't care less what GW says, since they don't run, they don't support and they don't care about tournaments. Plenty of events restrict things that are in the core rulebook, it's just preference.
If GW came down and said FW was in fact official, I don't think it would change much in actual practice. There's enough people against it that the normal tournaments would just become 40K-Restricted, and the FW stuff would just be 40K-Open. The balance on attendance might shift a little, but I don't expect much.
At the end of the day it will just stop the arguments, but not change the practical reality.
CaulynDarr wrote: If GW came down and said FW was in fact official, I don't think it would change much in actual practice. There's enough people against it that the normal tournaments would just become 40K-Restricted, and the FW stuff would just be 40K-Open. The balance on attendance might shift a little, but I don't expect much.
At the end of the day it will just stop the arguments, but not change the practical reality.
Exactly, the allowance of FW currently is just preference by TOs. Some explain it away by saying it's "Not official" or it is "official" but it's 100% up to them. Most tournaments use rules not found in the main book, so they are already deviating from the core rules because of preferences.
The teasing is in good fun, I sense a disturbance in the force, maybe you two should take a time out for a sec to put things back in perspective...and I will stop egging thing on! haha, you're both top notch players and can win with or without FW or whatever. Everyone knows that.
@Thread
Yeah, the game is changing dramatically right now it is so incredibly complex and there are so many more rules and rules interactions coming down the pipe at us with supplements and such that there is no way anyone will stay on top of it all.
We do this for a living and we can barely, barely keep up with the rules. There's no way a casual gamer can hope to.
The teasing is in good fun, I sense a disturbance in the force, maybe you two should take a time out for a sec to put things back in perspective...and I will stop egging thing on! haha, you're both top notch players and can win with or without FW or whatever. Everyone knows that.
As a TO I will be much more receptive to allowing FW once they get an official list of units, 40k/apoc type and the book(s) where their most updated rules are at.
I just finished running a 50 man (44 actual attendees) that we decided to allow FW that had the 40k approved stamp and it was a nightmare to try and ensure the most up-to-date rules were being used. Of the few people that actually used FW (3) two of them had old rules and not the most up to date -- luckily they talked to me first and we were able to get them copies of the rules to use.
That right there is the issue to me. Its not like codexes that have a clear line of valid/invalid and where they are located, crap is all over the place (especially the Marine and CSM stuff).
Well, that is actually going to be an issue with Codices, too. The digital versions get updated electronically and if someone hasn't updated theirs, you could find yourself in a situation where two people have different versions of the rules, or a different version than the judges or, crappiest of all, a change to the rules mid tournament.
We were talking about on the last FAQ call, how this move to digital is really going to alter the way tournaments are run as the rules come out faster and faster and are changing under our feet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and congrats on the strong turnout for your event!
The teasing is in good fun, I sense a disturbance in the force, maybe you two should take a time out for a sec to put things back in perspective...and I will stop egging thing on! haha, you're both top notch players and can win with or without FW or whatever. Everyone knows that.
Nah, I was just busting Doug's balls.
yeah yeah guys holy crap. If Blackmoor and I had real issue with each other we would talk through IM or over the phone person to person. We hang out at big Events together and like giving each other a hard time. I would have thought the Title of this thread would have been a pretty big hint that this is joking and we will always bring some extra tissues for Blackmoor to all the FW events he goes to, because we care and are thoughtful friends.
I might not be the Word Smith Reecius and some of you guys are and I am definitely not a big forum guy but when I post it's to joke around with friends and / or throw out some information from time to time. And I never joke with someone on here that I haven't already done in person with first.
The only part of my last post people should take seriously is my offer of that bet.
I'm pretty sure we wont let this get to a point where MVBradt has to announce " Blackmoor kills a guy with a Trident at a FW Event". haha How far can you throw a Trident Blackmoor? I just want to know so I can make sure to get some distance if you end up walking into an Event carrying one now that I think of it.
MVBrandt wrote: Blackmoor would be too busy camping behind a wall with his fellow paladins to actually expose himself and throw a trident at you. Let's be serious.
xruslanx wrote: Forgeworld will never be accepted, not in the way that their advocates want it to be. Realistically most TOs/gaming groups aren't going to allow lists full of over-powered cheese that most players haven't even heard of to gak all over some newbie.
That and the average gamer would have to have read about twice as many rulebooks as he currently has done - and not just rulebooks that can be flicked through in GW, but expensive FW-only rulebooks. Consequently the contents of these rulebooks will remain obscure and the average gamer will stay clear of FW.
From this post, the impression I get is that you consider FW to be on the same level as non-GW wargames.
Nope, just an optional add-on, like random objectives/terrain. Double FOC at 2000 points is technically compulsary, but most gamers choose to omit it. Technicality really isn't important, this isn't a rules dispute.
Also, does the average gamer really read every codex? Really?
No but he's at least heard of them, and will have a vague idea of what they entail. I've never read a Dark Eldar codex, but I know they are quick and fragile. I've not read the new tau dex but I know they have stupidly powerful shooting. If my opponent pulls out his Bumdinger army, I have no idea what to expect.
Dugg wrote: You guys have it all wrong!!! Blackmoor will do a little dance once this happens he will be so HAPPY. Why? Because Blackmoor isn't happy unless he has something to cry about. :p
I guess some people can't win in 6th edition and need the crutch of forge world to do well, and then attack those who can win without it.
True story: After going 4-0 on day 1 of the Adepticon championships I was looking all around for Dugg to make it also into the final 16. Then I remembered that they are not allowing Forge World into the championships, and that he sucks
at 6th edition 40k without it, and it all made sense.
Just for the record if FW buys you wins... I haven't bought enough! I need to spend more money on it apparently. And we ALL know how that will turn out... divorced and alone. Hugging my resin and crying.
@ cvtuttle - I hug my DKoK every night and tuck them into their little 28mm cots at bed time. If they were good little Army soldiers I might even read them a little Horus Heresy before bedtime.
xruslanx wrote: Nope, just an optional add-on, like random objectives/terrain. Double FOC at 2000 points is technically compulsary, but most gamers choose to omit it. Technicality really isn't important, this isn't a rules dispute.
Well, at least you admit that "no FW" is on the same level as "no double FOC" house rules.
And no, I don't think "most gamers" refuse to play against double FOC lists in 2000 point games. I think a loud and obnoxious minority of self-declared "experts" insist that their policy should be law, while the rest of us just use the normal army construction rules provided by GW.
No but he's at least heard of them, and will have a vague idea of what they entail. I've never read a Dark Eldar codex, but I know they are quick and fragile. I've not read the new tau dex but I know they have stupidly powerful shooting. If my opponent pulls out his Bumdinger army, I have no idea what to expect.
Sorry, but like everything you post, that's just ridiculous. If you know what IG does (hordes of infantry, awesome heavy support) you know what DKoK do. If you know what flyerspam IG does you know what Elysians do. If you know what Necrons do you know what the FW Necron list does. None of the FW army lists diverge so far from the "parent" codex that you won't know even the basic one-sentence summary of what the army does, even if you just assume it plays exactly like the "parent" codex.
TimmyMWD wrote: My understanding has always been that the forgeworld units are not as vetted or playtested as the mainstream GW counterparts. That is partially what contributes to some of the issues with the rules that forgeworld releases.
This might have been true in the past but if it is now I sure hope the person responsible for letting the re-rolling 2+(i) ScreamerStar w/ FateWeaver into their last Codex was FIRED the day that codex was printed. If not and this is a sign that the new forgeworld books are going to be even more OP than that I'm going to start saving my money now. As long as they have cool models to go along with those OP rules that is.
Truth is, every new codex seems to break something and add something. The absurdities of these new codices have really watered down the absurdities of forgeworld IMO. Sure the balancing issues are COMPLETELY Games-Workshops fault and I think we would be lying to ourselves if we thought this is all going to magically change any time soon. We just have to roll with the punches, have some fun and enjoy the game how ever we can. I find playing with good friends and having some adult beverages helps smooth over the imbalances of the game myself.
Ok I will bite, when I played in 5th before I had any IA: Apoc books I used to think FW was OP but as I found a way to get more income I did buy IA: Apoc and when looking at the rules, they did not seem too bad and the models looked really cool, and so I asked around my FLGS if I could use said units and everyone agreed so, so I did and you know what? No one has yet cried OP with the current IAApoc rules.
Blackmoor, now I really don't know your problem with FW, I do not know you as you do not know me, so I'm just being curious but do you have the Current 6th ed. IAApoc rules? to me they seem powerful but not the batman/bane spine breaking moment that would break the edition (unlike the current 6th ed. codex's have done imo). It seems to me (as I'm reading the thread) your problem is more with the interceptor turrets more than FW as I am reading through, which makes me wonder but how many people bring flyers to Tournaments now? the only few I see happening is that the usual CSM Helldrake spam and Vendettas all over the place, in which case how are the turrets different to, say Tau for example? Tau have a good amount of AA and their official yet the Turrets do the same role and perform similar synergy as the Tau army?
To me I like FW I have a CSM contemptor which I do like very much, I am also wanting to convert two units from GW into FW units and also going to purchase a mega-dredd.
To me FW sort of fixes those nooks and cranny's that some older and codex's have, for example if someone were to field a full unit of Khorne Berserker's but wanted a good delivery system for it, he or she could then go out and purchase a Spartan Assault tank into his or her list meaning that squad that had the problem of a delivery system now has a good solid way of getting to the other side keeping the squad intact, obviously this is just an simulation but, to me looking at the units within the book it does add a few units to boost those army's that are in need of an update or ones that did get a bit rather trodden over, but this is just my opinion, was wondering on your thoughts, Blackmoor why you don't like FW?
AlexRae wrote: It's only a handful of things that break FW. Most of it is overcosted and underpowered.
It is pretty much exclusively IG guns that make FW unpleasant to play against.
Its more of lack of knowledge and requiring to buy a $90 book to "know your enemy" in addition to the $60 dex that irks me. Aside from that the biggest problem with forgeworld is that their update system sucks, they are either behind or still using rules from 2 edition ago that no longer have an effect in game.
Personally I think FW should just have all the datasheets on their website to download for free, and they can update them as they go without having to waste the paper. Introduce new units via the books and then release the datasheet a few months later, do updates once or twice a year and they still sell models. This way 99% of people in the hobby have access to it and it stays current with 40k and GWs growing insanity.
Did you guys see what Aaron Dembski-Bowden was saying over at Faeit about BL, FW and GW?
He basically laid it out that FW has always been considered a core part of the game by GW and that BL has always been cannon it's just that people don't accept it for whatever reason.
He said they're only changing the wording in the books now because people mistakenly took the polite wording in the FW books to be official policy but that everyone's been missing the point.
People will always fear and point the finger at what they don't know or understand.
I have been allowing FW in the league I run down here for ever. I would say a few weeks after they first printed those 40k approved stamps in the GW printed IA books.
I also had a Double Force Org League shortly after 6th came out and everyone, on the net, was worried and complaining about it and everyone in that league had a blast. I even told the guys to try to bring the craziest "broken/cheese" they could think of. One guys brought something like 13 IG flyers, a couple IA flyers as well. It was fun watching him try to even get them to not crash into each other and get in their own way.I think he went 3-2-1 at the end.
I would say 80% of the guys, we average 20-24 players per league, that "tried" to bring the DFO power lists ended up shooting themselves in the foot with a list that didn't have the tools to win the game.
Lately in our league down here almost all gripping has been over Tau, Seer Council and Demons lately. No one is crying about FW. Unless they have to play me for a make-up game and I bring the pain, but they did that with me WAY before FW. Just don't miss a league game Guys.
p.s. I have been play testing a list with 0 FW and it's on average cleaning 50-65% (percentage figured by list points) of Tau, Eldar, Taudar lists in my first turn and close to that with other Meta lists. It's crazy. It needs a few tweaks to be tournament ready but it's another crazy anti-meta Dugg list.
But seriously, we were told this exact same thing by someone who legitimately knows what they're talking about and who also predicted a ton of stuff, all of which has come to pass. We'll see of course, but I think there is a lot of veracity to this. BL is producing rules now, their books are cannon, FW is becoming more "official.' It makes sense for GW to consolidate everything to cross promote and encourage more sales of their various brands and products.
Personally I dislike the term "official" being thrown around. Of course FW is "official" it's a real GW PLC product line. The arguement really falls to how "legal" one wants to treat it as being (house rules, not house rules, ect).
The thing is that the rulebook already supports altering the army list (which FW does by adding new units/rules/options/ect), or even making your own. Of course that is apparently not good enough for some as it doesn't explicitly state FW, but really when one talks about tournaments does it really matter what ruleset one uses? I mean if all the big tourneys got together and wrote a 5.5Ed ruleset and used that it'd be just as legal as anything else. Just like comp, or painting standards (or a lack of) or whatever you choose to add or remove from your tournament requirements.
So really in the context of FW and tournaments: does it matter what GW does? It's your event, run it how you like!
When we talk about FW we are not really talking about the IA: Apoc book (I have not seen the new one yet). What we are talking about is that in the nooks and crannies of almost every IA book there is a broken unit (all imperial btw) and when put together create an broken list. We are not talking about the Chaos Contemptor dread or any other bad units, just the broken ones. Think IG artillery for starters.
The only issue is figuring out what everyone likes so we can all go to the same events =)
Heh, as long as we have us big brassy Type A's putting thousands of hours and dollars into the events we run, good luck finding much common ground from event to event :p ... we all think "our way" is the smart/best way to do it.
I do think there's some common formatting components everyone could use without really affecting mission / points / etc., but that's for a different discussion.
The only issue is figuring out what everyone likes so we can all go to the same events =)
Perhaps we can form a committee who governs the unique rule set that will be used in tournaments. We could call them the High Lords of Terra, and the TOs for the events could be Inquisitors with any other judges being their Inquisitorial Acolytes....
That's about the most serious solution I can present. I'm not a high tournament player (I do like a good competitive game though) so whatever is done will not likely effect me much.
When we talk about FW we are not really talking about the IA: Apoc book (I have not seen the new one yet). What we are talking about is that in the nooks and crannies of almost every IA book there is a broken unit (all imperial btw) and when put together create an broken list. We are not talking about the Chaos Contemptor dread or any other bad units, just the broken ones. Think IG artillery for starters.
Wait....when did the Arvus Lighter, Aquila Lander or the Avenger Strike Fighter become broken? Or the Vulture be considered more broken than the Vendetta? I don't think ALL of the Imperial stuff is broken.
Also the IG artillery was mostly broken thanks to GW's artillery rules (the crew using the gun's Toughness when you roll to wound them was a bit much I think).
Well, that is actually going to be an issue with Codices, too. The digital versions get updated electronically and if someone hasn't updated theirs, you could find yourself in a situation where two people have different versions of the rules, or a different version than the judges or, crappiest of all, a change to the rules mid tournament.
We were talking about on the last FAQ call, how this move to digital is really going to alter the way tournaments are run as the rules come out faster and faster and are changing under our feet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and congrats on the strong turnout for your event!
Thanks for the kudos.
And yeah I agree the eRules are going to be a bigger and bigger issue going forward but its significantly different situation.
--Adepta Sororitas, I know what that is and what should be in there. If it gets an update the digital website at least lets me know I need to take a look/find someone with the book. It also updates automatically -- I don't need to order it from England. If there happens to be some overlap between other books its ok because they are self contained (eg condemnor boltguns can be different between codexes without much issue -- its silly when there is but it doesn't cause a TO much issue).
--Forgeworld is no such animal. Each IA book has the potential of mix of loyalist and non-loyalist stuff. The units they contain changes over time (IAApoc books always contain different stuff from the last ones). There's overlap between books, even recent ones and its hard to tell if anything has changed. We know that hydra platforms changed in the 3 months or so between Aeronauticus and IA1 2nd ed. How can we ever know that won't happen again? There's stuff from IA12 is in Apoc 6ed, has it changed at all? Who knows unless you somehow acquire both books.
That really is the difference and the issue I have. With codexes I determine the current rules on a codex by codex basis. Check website for 15 codexes and expansions, check FAQs, check didgital website, done. With FW its a unit by unit basis. If I want to really be on top of things I need to know where the latest rules are. Only Adepticon has ever made that effort and this year their document was obsolete almost as soon as it was published.
Personally I don't care one way or other about the supposed balance issues with Forgeworld, the game has yet to ever be really balanced as players will always try and find ways to exploit any supposed balance, whether you include Forgeworld, institute comp or even use custom missions. I also don't thing there's much weight on either side of the 'is it offical' arguments cause tournaments are their own animal entirely anyways even if its fully sanctioned by the studio.
The only problem I have is the time consuming and potentially expensive task keeping up with what is current as far as Forgworld
Dugg wrote: Lately in our league down here almost all gripping has been over Tau, Seer Council and Demons lately. No one is crying about FW. Unless they have to play me for a make-up game and I bring the pain, but they did that with me WAY before FW. Just don't miss a league game Guys.
Besides you, most people do not want to spend the money on a broken FW list. The FW units that I want to use at the LVO come out to $272.00 and that is a lot for 4 models that I will only use once or twice a year (and whose rules can change at any time).
Most people do not want to spend the money on FW. That is the only thing that is keeping people ignorant of how brutal it is.
Dugg wrote: Lately in our league down here almost all gripping has been over Tau, Seer Council and Demons lately. No one is crying about FW. Unless they have to play me for a make-up game and I bring the pain, but they did that with me WAY before FW. Just don't miss a league game Guys.
Besides you, most people do not want to spend the money on a broken FW list. The FW units that I want to use at the LVO come out to $272.00 and that is a lot for 4 models that I will only use once or twice a year (and whose rules can change at any time).
Most people do not want to spend the money on FW. That is the only thing that is keeping people ignorant of how brutal it is.
So GW hasn't invalidated units or options through new codexes or FAQs? I guess my Repentia unit didn't get dragged into a dark ally and beaten with a Nerf Bat then.
ClockworkZion wrote: So GW hasn't invalidated units or options through new codexes or FAQs? I guess my Repentia unit didn't get dragged into a dark ally and beaten with a Nerf Bat then.
They do it, but it takes GW years. Even with the quick release schedules they are replacing 4th edition codexes that are many years old.
And FYI, Repemtia have always been bad so nothing has changed.
When we talk about FW we are not really talking about the IA: Apoc book (I have not seen the new one yet). What we are talking about is that in the nooks and crannies of almost every IA book there is a broken unit (all imperial btw) and when put together create an broken list. We are not talking about the Chaos Contemptor dread or any other bad units, just the broken ones. Think IG artillery for starters.
Wait....when did the Arvus Lighter, Aquila Lander or the Avenger Strike Fighter become broken? Or the Vulture be considered more broken than the Vendetta? I don't think ALL of the Imperial stuff is broken.
Also the IG artillery was mostly broken thanks to GW's artillery rules (the crew using the gun's Toughness when you roll to wound them was a bit much I think).
Someone needs to read a little better. I said that there is “a” broken unit in the FW books, not all imperial units are broken.
The vendetta is way over powered because it has rules and a point cost for a skimmer, and then was given flyer rules. So because they have a broken unit it is perfectly fine to give them even more? If it is just as good as a vendetta, then you would not mind having forge world banned?
ClockworkZion wrote: So GW hasn't invalidated units or options through new codexes or FAQs? I guess my Repentia unit didn't get dragged into a dark ally and beaten with a Nerf Bat then.
They do it, but it takes GW years. Even with the quick release schedules they are replacing 4th edition codexes that are many years old.
And FYI, Repemtia have always been bad so nothing has changed.
When we talk about FW we are not really talking about the IA: Apoc book (I have not seen the new one yet). What we are talking about is that in the nooks and crannies of almost every IA book there is a broken unit (all imperial btw) and when put together create an broken list. We are not talking about the Chaos Contemptor dread or any other bad units, just the broken ones. Think IG artillery for starters.
Wait....when did the Arvus Lighter, Aquila Lander or the Avenger Strike Fighter become broken? Or the Vulture be considered more broken than the Vendetta? I don't think ALL of the Imperial stuff is broken.
Also the IG artillery was mostly broken thanks to GW's artillery rules (the crew using the gun's Toughness when you roll to wound them was a bit much I think).
Someone needs to read a little better. I said that there is “a” broken unit in the FW books, not all imperial units are broken.
The vendetta is way over powered because it has rules and a point cost for a skimmer, and then was given flyer rules. So because they have a broken unit it is perfectly fine to give them even more? If it is just as good as a vendetta, then you would not mind having forge world banned?
Even if we consider the vulture too powerful (it really isn't), why ban all Forgeworld?
Let's not go down this rabbit hole, guys, there has been plenty of discussion on what IG units are overpowered in the Forgeworld books... no need to rehash it all here.
And the new Tau suit puts them all to shame, anyway
Dugg wrote: Lately in our league down here almost all gripping has been over Tau, Seer Council and Demons lately. No one is crying about FW. Unless they have to play me for a make-up game and I bring the pain, but they did that with me WAY before FW. Just don't miss a league game Guys.
Besides you, most people do not want to spend the money on a broken FW list. The FW units that I want to use at the LVO come out to $272.00 and that is a lot for 4 models that I will only use once or twice a year (and whose rules can change at any time).
Most people do not want to spend the money on FW. That is the only thing that is keeping people ignorant of how brutal it is.
That's a bold statement to state that players don't want to buy FW units. You might want to check those facts and ask FW how their sales are going these days. A very large and still growing list of fellow gamers down here and I get together to order FW and save on that shipping all the time. You want in on the next order?
Why would you only use them twice? I use mine all the time. Most of the time in games my friends have requested I play them or simple don't care what I play, and we have a great time playing. If any of my friends ask me not to play with my FW units I don't, without a second thought, and we still have a great time playing. Pretty Simple.
I will play you with any crazy "broken" units/lists you end up buying Blackmoor. If you spend money on crazy broken FW models and no one else will play with you I will invite you down here to play. I will BBQ up some spicy Wings and we will throw back some ice cold beverages and we might even have a pretty damn good time. I'll even invite other FW and non-FW playing buddies and we'll have a big ForgeWorld LOVE FEST.
But back to this threads point...
Don't worry Blackmoor, I am already looking into installing a tissue holder for you and anyone else that will need to wipe away their tears over such a silly issue. (if you got upset about that "Silly" comment you are in the Tissue category) haha But don't worry Guys, I will not remove the Cup Holders and I will have plenty of adult beverages for the rest of us Zen playing Gamers.
*The only rule in 40k that must always be part of my games and I am pretty serious about it is RULE #1 "Have Fun" The rest is ever changing and evolving.
Dugg wrote: Lately in our league down here almost all gripping has been over Tau, Seer Council and Demons lately. No one is crying about FW. Unless they have to play me for a make-up game and I bring the pain, but they did that with me WAY before FW. Just don't miss a league game Guys.
Besides you, most people do not want to spend the money on a broken FW list. The FW units that I want to use at the LVO come out to $272.00 and that is a lot for 4 models that I will only use once or twice a year (and whose rules can change at any time).
Most people do not want to spend the money on FW. That is the only thing that is keeping people ignorant of how brutal it is.
That's a bold statement to state that players don't want to buy FW units. You might want to check those facts and ask FW how their sales are going these days. A very large and still growing list of fellow gamers down here and I get together to order FW and save on that shipping all the time. You want in on the next order?
Why would you only use them twice? I use mine all the time. Most of the time in games my friends have requested I play them or simple don't care what I play, and we have a great time playing. If any of my friends ask me not to play with my FW units I don't, without a second thought, and we still have a great time playing. Pretty Simple.
I will play you with any crazy "broken" units/lists you end up buying Blackmoor. If you spend money on crazy broken FW models and no one else will play with you I will invite you down here to play. I will BBQ up some spicy Wings and we will throw back some ice cold beverages and we might even have a pretty damn good time. I'll even invite other FW and non-FW playing buddies and we'll have a big ForgeWorld LOVE FEST.
But back to this threads point...
Don't worry Blackmoor, I am already looking into installing a tissue holder for you and anyone else that will need to wipe away their tears over such a silly issue. (if you got upset about that "Silly" comment you are in the Tissue category) haha But don't worry Guys, I will not remove the Cup Holders and I will have plenty of adult beverages for the rest of us Zen playing Gamers.
*The only rule in 40k that must always be part of my games and I am pretty serious about it is RULE #1 "Have Fun" The rest is ever changing and evolving.
ClockworkZion wrote: So GW hasn't invalidated units or options through new codexes or FAQs? I guess my Repentia unit didn't get dragged into a dark ally and beaten with a Nerf Bat then.
They do it, but it takes GW years. Even with the quick release schedules they are replacing 4th edition codexes that are many years old.
Might want to check to see how often those rules FW has really get updated. Most of them are years old before any changes occur. The only ones that aren't are the Experimental rules which get their major update and will stay the same for years.
Blackmoor wrote: And FYI, Repemtia have always been bad so nothing has changed.
Tell that to all the stuff I've killed with them. And even when they didn't kill anything they served as a major distraction (tell an opponent that the unit of crazy women with chainswords are S6, AP2 with Armorbane and they will not only keep their tanks far away from them, but won't Deep Strike near them, or generally want to get close to them. They also waste shooting at them). Since losing FnP they became significantly less good.
Blackmoor wrote: Someone needs to read a little better. I said that there is “a” broken unit in the FW books, not all imperial units are broken.
Either way you want to slice it, I disagree. I'd love to see the list of which specific units the community agrees are broken along with a rational argument that explains why (instead of you know, "it's Forgeworld!"). The thing is there isn't a consistent one that exists. Some people thing this is OP, others thing that is, but there is no set list and if there was you could just ban those specific units from the tournament (might want to police all the regular GW "broken" stuff while you're at it too), or release an alteration to bring them back in line (perhaps Artillery Crews don't use the gun's toughness to nerf the Thudd Guns, Big Guns and emplaced artillery units to being good but not TOO good?). It's a tournament, if you're willing to do the actual work to iron the wrinkles out of the game then that's up to you.
Blackmoor wrote: The vendetta is way over powered because it has rules and a point cost for a skimmer, and then was given flyer rules. So because they have a broken unit it is perfectly fine to give them even more? If it is just as good as a vendetta, then you would not mind having forge world banned?
Who said anything was as good as a Vendetta? The Vulture was a skimmer too, as where most of the flyers, but not all of them got better when the new rules came out. And those who did benefited not because they were FW, but because of how the flyer rules work. All the blame for things doesn't rest on FW, especially when they aren't the ones who write the core rules (which are the rules that players will always try to bend over a table and take advantage of).
Automatically Appended Next Post: The thing is FW wasn't breaking the game when people played it in 5th (wound allocations shenanigans where doing a much better job of that in 5th than FW ever was), nor do they break the game in 6th. I feel the real issue is people don't want to change how their game is played, or refuse to believe that the stuff that comes out of FW isn't nearly as broken as they claim. Nothing they sell is "free" points wise, nor does it break FOC (I don't know of anything they have that you can play in 40k that doesn't take up a FOC slot).
Honestly a lot of things fall into an issue I've seen with competitive 40k as a whole since 6th started: not enough damned terrain.
Emplaced artillery? Can't pivot (they're immobile unless you take a specific vehicle), has a 45 degree firing arc, and if you kill or break the crew the gun automatically dies. Also a number of the guns need LOS to be effective (full distance scatter with no adjustment for BS), or to even shoot. Guess what we don't have enough of on most people's tables that allows Tau to be so good as a turtled up firebase? LOS blocking terrain as well as just terrain in general. There is a severe lack of terrain density on the tables I've seen pictured from tournaments and it often doesn't "fill out" like it needs to according to the rules themselves.
Dugg wrote: Lately in our league down here almost all gripping has been over Tau, Seer Council and Demons lately. No one is crying about FW. Unless they have to play me for a make-up game and I bring the pain, but they did that with me WAY before FW. Just don't miss a league game Guys.
Besides you, most people do not want to spend the money on a broken FW list. The FW units that I want to use at the LVO come out to $272.00 and that is a lot for 4 models that I will only use once or twice a year (and whose rules can change at any time).
Most people do not want to spend the money on FW. That is the only thing that is keeping people ignorant of how brutal it is.
That's a bold statement to state that players don't want to buy FW units. You might want to check those facts and ask FW how their sales are going these days. A very large and still growing list of fellow gamers down here and I get together to order FW and save on that shipping all the time. You want in on the next order?
Why would you only use them twice? I use mine all the time. Most of the time in games my friends have requested I play them or simple don't care what I play, and we have a great time playing. If any of my friends ask me not to play with my FW units I don't, without a second thought, and we still have a great time playing. Pretty Simple.
I will play you with any crazy "broken" units/lists you end up buying Blackmoor. If you spend money on crazy broken FW models and no one else will play with you I will invite you down here to play. I will BBQ up some spicy Wings and we will throw back some ice cold beverages and we might even have a pretty damn good time. I'll even invite other FW and non-FW playing buddies and we'll have a big ForgeWorld LOVE FEST.
But back to this threads point...
Don't worry Blackmoor, I am already looking into installing a tissue holder for you and anyone else that will need to wipe away their tears over such a silly issue. (if you got upset about that "Silly" comment you are in the Tissue category) haha But don't worry Guys, I will not remove the Cup Holders and I will have plenty of adult beverages for the rest of us Zen playing Gamers.
*The only rule in 40k that must always be part of my games and I am pretty serious about it is RULE #1 "Have Fun" The rest is ever changing and evolving.
I'm not reading back through all those pages. I'm just going to chime in here.
Until the FW units are included in normal army codices they will never be accepted as "official".
FW units are generally thought of as an expansion to the core game. It's FW's own doing as their books (mostly) play like a stand alone campaign.
The units in Imperial Armour Apocalypse with a 40K icon... Now that in my opinion is fair game. Why? Because that book IMO is not a game "expansion", but a game "supplement" much like the new codex supplements for Farsight Enclaves, Black Legion or Sentinels of Terra.
Emplaced artillery? Can't pivot (they're immobile unless you take a specific vehicle), has a 45 degree firing arc, and if you kill or break the crew the gun automatically dies. Also a number of the guns need LOS to be effective (full distance scatter with no adjustment for BS), or to even shoot. Guess what we don't have enough of on most people's tables that allows Tau to be so good as a turtled up firebase? LOS blocking terrain as well as just terrain in general. There is a severe lack of terrain density on the tables I've seen pictured from tournaments and it often doesn't "fill out" like it needs to according to the rules themselves.
You are looking at it like a noob. Yes on paper that is what it says, but all of those statements are countered.
Can't pivot (they're immobile unless you take a specific vehicle), has a 45 degree firing arc,
You set up in a corner so you can see the whole board.
and if you kill or break the crew the gun automatically dies.
You have a Lord Commisar with the Command Squad gives you a re-rollable leadership of 10.
Also a number of the guns need LOS to be effective
Every gun needs LOS to be effective (Unless you are Tau)
(full distance scatter with no adjustment for BS),
You just cast prescience on them, so they get to re-roll the scatter dice in case you miss.
Guess what we don't have enough of on most people's tables that allows Tau to be so good as a turtled up firebase? LOS blocking terrain as well as just terrain in general.
You mean LOS blocking terrain which Vultures and Heavy Gun Platforms pretty much ignore? Funny thing is that if it was not for FW, you can hide from IG with LOS blocking terrain.
And you think it is just toughness 7 with a 3+ save that makes IG artillery good? You forgot to address the part where IG artillery get to "go to ground" behind and Aegus defense line for a 2+ cover save, and then get to use "get back into the fight" to shoot the next turn. Also how you get to add Rune Priest with divination so that they ignore cover, and re-roll failed to hit rolls etc.
The only issue is figuring out what everyone likes so we can all go to the same events =)
Perhaps we can form a committee who governs the unique rule set that will be used in tournaments. We could call them the High Lords of Terra, and the TOs for the events could be Inquisitors with any other judges being their Inquisitorial Acolytes....
That's about the most serious solution I can present. I'm not a high tournament player (I do like a good competitive game though) so whatever is done will not likely effect me much.
We already do (although it isn't ALL events, just some of the bigger events)! haha, problem is, we're having trouble keeping up and on the same page now with all the digital stuff and pace of releases.
Emplaced artillery? Can't pivot (they're immobile unless you take a specific vehicle), has a 45 degree firing arc, and if you kill or break the crew the gun automatically dies. Also a number of the guns need LOS to be effective (full distance scatter with no adjustment for BS), or to even shoot. Guess what we don't have enough of on most people's tables that allows Tau to be so good as a turtled up firebase? LOS blocking terrain as well as just terrain in general. There is a severe lack of terrain density on the tables I've seen pictured from tournaments and it often doesn't "fill out" like it needs to according to the rules themselves.
You are looking at it like a noob. Yes on paper that is what it says, but all of those statements are countered.
Okay, that made me laugh. You said "noob" as if that makes you somehow "win".
Can't pivot (they're immobile unless you take a specific vehicle), has a 45 degree firing arc,
You set up in a corner so you can see the whole board.
No matter what you do you'll still have dead zones. Took 3 guns and pointed them 3 different directions? Then at least 1 won't be able to fire each turn.
(full distance scatter with no adjustment for BS),
You just cast prescience on them, so they get to re-roll the scatter dice in case you miss.
So you took a Lord Commisar and a Primaris Psyker as your HQ? Or did you ally in Eldar so you can still give orders? Hope you didn't mind spending points on allies instead of your guns. Oh and the guns can't take orders.
Guess what we don't have enough of on most people's tables that allows Tau to be so good as a turtled up firebase? LOS blocking terrain as well as just terrain in general.
You mean LOS blocking terrain which Vultures and Heavy Gun Platforms pretty much ignore? Funny thing is that if it was not for FW, you can hide from IG with LOS blocking terrain.
First you say everyone needs LOS then you say that the IG don't. Pick a story and stick with it!
Vultures are flyers. Flyers that are less powerful damage dealing wise than Vendettas and only get the advantage of Vector Dance over said Vendettas to compensate. And Heavy Gun Platforms are more expensive than Heavy Weapons teams, and if I remember correctly they can't move. Also I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a Barrage Autocannon. LOS still matters there. That goes back to my point about terrain again.
Blackmoor wrote: And you think it is just toughness 7 with a 3+ save that makes IG artillery good? You forgot to address the part where IG artillery get to "go to ground" behind and Aegus defense line for a 2+ cover save, and then get to use "get back into the fight" to shoot the next turn. Also how you get to add Rune Priest with divination so that they ignore cover, and re-roll failed to hit rolls etc.
Guns can't go to ground.
So that's where your divination is coming from. So how much did you spend on Rune Priests to make sure you have enough Divination to go around to support the different Artillery units AND those Heavy weapon platforms you're talking about? What is your points limit you're running to get ALL of that into a list and still be effective? How much terrain are you running (besides not enough)?
Also I love how we're assuming that no one brings stuff to counter the guns either. It's almost as if your justifications live in a world where the only thing that exists is an empty board and a massive IG list (or at least one that took VERY few troops, which means you can VERY much take them in an Objective game if you just play the mission) where they have magic dice that never roll misses, and no one adapts their playstyle or lists to compensate for such a list.
I think your underestimating the Forgeworld IG list, Its definitely top 5 competative.
If it gets first turn its brutal, basically very few if any lists will compete, maybe drop pod spam, but even then its going to be super rough.
If it goes 2nd the psyker deathstars have a better than average chance against it
Do I think Forgeworld shouldn't be at tournaments because of it, No. The IG list suffers badly to 2+ rerollable save units that can multi charge it. Also adding in a vulture, or some IG defense platforms, a mortis dread in a lucious, or any of the other number of better than units don't break the meta or the game, they just add a little more spice to the game.
Are some of the forgeworld units better than thier counterparts in the books, yes, are some of them probably 10-20 points undercosted, yes, does this break the game, no.
The two main arguements against forgeworld are that there are units that are too good for thier points value, and that since the rules aren't available in the codexs then you shouldn't have to play against them.
I would tend to say that there are always going to be units that are too good for thier points, even in the main codexs and that forgeworld isn't drastically off the mark in any of its weapons with the exception of expieriemental rules which for all intensive purposes are there to sell models. And as far as access to the rules, I would say its exactly the same as if you were facing any other army that you didn't own the codex for / had friends that played, if you haven't played a sisters player in the last 2 years would you go to a tournament and complain that you shouldn't have to play them because you are unfamiliar with the rules.
As long as whoever is playing the up to date currect rules than you shouldn't have any problem facing it, the units are balanced, the agruably best build to come out of forgeworld is very good if it goes first against basically everything, but if it goes 2nd against half of the top tier armies its going to have a serious disadvantage.
And I'm sure there are more you can find in the IG tanks section.
Yes, this is a perfect example and yes, there are more. Quite a few FWIG tanks got put into the 5th Ed. IG codex and much rejoicing was had. Why? Because there inclusion into the codex solidified them as "official".
Though if you look back to the original Imperial Armour books (the non-campaign style ones) that included these tanks Jervis Johnson himself said (in the book) they are official rules for use in regular games of 40K. So what happened that this approval / authentication didn't carry on / over to new editions? I speculate it's due to availability of the books and models, specifically here in the sates.
tiber55 wrote: I think your underestimating the Forgeworld IG list, Its definitely top 5 competative.
If it gets first turn its brutal, basically very few if any lists will compete, maybe drop pod spam, but even then its going to be super rough.
Again, more terrain. Playing 5 peices of terrain like it's still 5th Edition is not nearly enough anymore.
Tables need to look more like this:
And less like this:
If you don't see the difference, the thing is one of those lets just about everything shoot just about anything else on the table effortlessly, the other does not.
tiber55 wrote: If it goes 2nd the psyker deathstars have a better than average chance against it
Possibly, but I'm betting there are a number of other ways to counter it out there. Or do we still think IG leafblower style lists are the best option out there?
tiber55 wrote: Do I think Forgeworld shouldn't be at tournaments because of it, No. The IG list suffers badly to 2+ rerollable save units that can multi charge it. Also adding in a vulture, or some IG defense platforms, a mortis dread in a lucious, or any of the other number of better than units don't break the meta or the game, they just add a little more spice to the game.
IG still suffers to the 2++ Screamerstar even with that stuff. Lucius Drop Pods don't let you assault the turn you land (instead you get to hide inside for a turn and hope they don't kill it, and then you), and a Mortis is a ranged Dread, not a close combat one, which is the Dread build people want in a Lucius.
tiber55 wrote: Are some of the forgeworld units better than thier counterparts in the books, yes, are some of them probably 10-20 points undercosted, yes, does this break the game, no.
I honestly disagree. And anything that is cheaper tends to have drawbacks as well. It's not a strict upgrade, there are trade offs.
tiber55 wrote: The two main arguements against forgeworld are that there are units that are too good for thier points value, and that since the rules aren't available in the codexs then you shouldn't have to play against them.
Supplements aren't in the codexes either, are we really going to argue that FW doesn't work like supplements? And from what I've seen 90% of what people complain is OP from FW gets toned down. GW not so much.
tiber55 wrote: I would tend to say that there are always going to be units that are too good for thier points, even in the main codexs and that forgeworld isn't drastically off the mark in any of its weapons with the exception of expieriemental rules which for all intensive purposes are there to sell models. And as far as access to the rules, I would say its exactly the same as if you were facing any other army that you didn't own the codex for / had friends that played, if you haven't played a sisters player in the last 2 years would you go to a tournament and complain that you shouldn't have to play them because you are unfamiliar with the rules.
tiber55 wrote: As long as whoever is playing the up to date currect rules than you shouldn't have any problem facing it, the units are balanced, the agruably best build to come out of forgeworld is very good if it goes first against basically everything, but it goes 2nd against half of the top tier armies its going to have a serious disadvantage.
Leafblower always hates going 2nd. You know what else makes it hard for them to table you turn 1? Not clustering up into a tight turtle formation, taking things that outflank (most books have some options that can do that), and using enough terrain that they have can't draw a bead on the entire army and the things that can shoot via Barrage don't get to roll their scatter.
That is why you put the crew in from with their 2+ cover save. That is why you bought a ton of extra crew. You should already know that. Why do I waste the time having to explain it to you?
First you say everyone needs LOS then you say that the IG don't. Pick a story and stick with it!
Vultures are flyers. Flyers that are less powerful damage dealing wise than Vendettas and only get the advantage of Vector Dance over said Vendettas to compensate. And Heavy Gun Platforms are more expensive than Heavy Weapons teams, and if I remember correctly they can't move. Also I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a Barrage Autocannon. LOS still matters there. That goes back to my point about terrain again.
Now you are just being obtuse. A FWIG army has artillery that is not limited by LOS (Think Medusas and Basilisks that can't be killed). They have a Vector Dancer flyer that can position itself so it can shoot just about anywhere. No other army can ignore LOS as much as the FWIG army.
You know the most damage a Vendetta can do is 3 wounds right (not including heavy bolters)? How many a can a Vulture do...20? What game are you playing that 3 strength 9 shots are better than 20 strength 5 ones?
Iif you think that you can't fit in a couple of Rune Priests, a Vulture and a lot of artillery all you have to do is have Dugg post his list.
I am done answering your false assumptions because I could do this all day and you would still not understand.
That is why you put the crew in from with their 2+ cover save. That is why you bought a ton of extra crew. You should already know that. Why do I waste the time having to explain it to you?
You know everything you're complaining about here applies to Ork Big Gunz which are ALSO T7, can use an Aegis and are BS 3 right? Guess we need to ban all of those too!
Oh, and picking the gun off with Barrage. Yes, Barrage the gun so it takes wounds first. That's an option. As is Focus Fire. "I'm going to Focus Fire my Autocannons on anything with a 4+ or worse Cover Save". Now you're just picking off the guns.
First you say everyone needs LOS then you say that the IG don't. Pick a story and stick with it!
Vultures are flyers. Flyers that are less powerful damage dealing wise than Vendettas and only get the advantage of Vector Dance over said Vendettas to compensate. And Heavy Gun Platforms are more expensive than Heavy Weapons teams, and if I remember correctly they can't move. Also I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a Barrage Autocannon. LOS still matters there. That goes back to my point about terrain again.
Now you are just being obtuse. A FWIG army has artillery that is not limited by LOS (Think Medusas and Basilisks that can't be killed). They have a Vector Dancer flyer that can position itself so it can shoot just about anywhere. No other army can ignore LOS as much as the FWIG army.
IG Artillery also all in the HS slot. So pick 3 units. 6 at 2K+.
Blackmoor wrote: You know the most damage a Vendetta can do is 3 wounds right (not including heavy bolters)? How many a can a Vulture do...20? What game are you playing that 3 strength 9 shots are better than 20 strength 5 ones?
A game where those 3 shots are killing my enemies tanks, artillery or focusing on killing enemy MCs (Hi Fateweaver!).
Also, you're the one who mentions LOS matters, then says it doesn't AND mentions Heavy Weapon Platforms in the same sentence in that it doesn't. I think you're the one who needs to spend a little time fact checking between us and getting your story straight because you're the one making factual errors here.
Blackmoor wrote: Iif you think that you can't fit in a couple of Rune Priests, a Vulture and a lot of artillery all you have to do is have Dugg post his list.
You can tak a max of 9 Artillery models (just the guns, not the crew) between the different unit options. They're only slightly cheaper than the tank options, can move (or pivot) and there are methods to deal with them but we're apparently playing pretend and saying there aren't.
If you're so confident that you can make such a face breaker list so easily why don't you prove it? Build a list and let people see what you think is so broken instead of making us box shadows.
Blackmoor wrote: I am done answering your false assumptions because I could do this all day and you would still not understand.
You're right, I can't understand what magical dream world you live in where FW is uncounterable.
You completely ignored where Blackmoor pointed out to you how they get a 2+ save. Let it go, guys... thread derail complete, and all over points that've been covered to death before. The 2+ save is trick #1 of that list, if you didn't know about it the argument is pretty much moot... and also long and already covered many times elsewhere.
IG artillery isn't the only FW model with issues... again, Reecius himself is concerned about the new Tau battlesuit.
There is no mythical list, its out there and being used.
Its a brutal list, is it worse than the rest of the super competative not fun to play against lists, no, is it just as bad, probably.
Also just so were clear the picture with a 90% board coverage of terrain would be horrible for a 40k game, if you think that would make a better tounament scene......
The other board looked fine in terms of area coverage of terrain, what it lacked is a large LoS blocking piece of terrain in the middle of the board, adding that one piece would make all the difference. Making the board give a blanket 5+ cover save and block line of sight from anything over 12 inches is just silly.
For some reason I missed the captions the first time- that is definitely an Infinity table, which plays best when choked with terrain... and also only requires 10 models to a side
Yeah the table he's pointing at is an Infinity table, the one he's saying is bad was an alternate layout NOVA table (they're actually both NOVA tables); the alternate layout definitely was too open. That Infinity one is too open also, for Infinity; I think we'll be like doubling for next year. The 40k tables will be getting double the large LOS blockers.
Perhaps unrelated, but the game needs a LOT more LOS-blocking terrain than ANY TOURNAMENT PRESENTLY IS FIELDING (yes, I'm including everybody). The game could also use the removal of 2++ re-rolling units (There are 2, and neither is from FW, and both are absurd for the average player to try and deal with, to a level of magnitude greater than anything FW or regular 40k).
Talk of whether FW is "broken" seems ... again ... pointless. Familiarity, fairness, comfort-levels, officiality, etc., are all fairly relevant. Point is, there are a lot of FW units (mostly IG) that are very, very difficult for and painful for the average 40k player to deal with. They are difficult enough for veteran players even (ref: our team vs. the BOLS team at AdeptiTeam last year, a game I doubt we'd have won if we weren't plying them with silly FW units like Ahazra Redth, Thudd Guns and Vulture). Adding them doesn't really address things like the 2++ re-rollers above, but it also doesn't make the tournament experience any more FORGIVING. It may add variety, but I think that's obvious ... more options should = more variety.
But I don't really see anyone putting forth the crazy idea that adding more stupid units to the average tournament is actually going to make it nicer on average players, so what's the point of arguing that it won't? It's as much a given as "add more units = more variety is likely."
RiTides wrote: You completely ignored where Blackmoor pointed out to you how they get a 2+ save. Let it go, guys... thread derail complete, and all over points that've been covered to death before. The 2+ save is trick #1 of that list, if you didn't know about it the argument is pretty much moot... and also long and already covered many times elsewhere.
IG artillery isn't the only FW model with issues... again, Reecius himself is concerned about the new Tau battlesuit.
The gun model can never go to ground so can't benefit from a 2+ save from doing so. If you focus fire on a 4+ only models with a 4+ cover save can take the wounds, leaving only the guns. And if they don't drop for the 2+ then you're hosing crew and forcing leadership checks. Even if you have a re-rollable Ld10 you can, and sometimes do fail. And if you don't fail the second time, that's okay, you just lost another model.
I didn't miss it, people just didn't understand that I was pointing out a problem with assuming that going to ground would solve the issue.
Sometimes I wish I had a good art program so I could draw the issue with the fields of fire. No matter how you lay it out there are dead zones for each Artillery unit, and if you fan the guns to cover a wider range of the board, at least 1 gun will not be able to shoot at a given target at a time. If you don't fan them and instead keep the guns parallel, you get a wider cone (especially at the far table edge) but the amount of dead space around the guns increases, meaning that it's even possible that they might leave you with clear avenues of approach as well.
And then their is Outflanking, Scouting, Snipers, Other Barrages, and a general list of tactics to deal with gunlines, emplaced or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: For some reason I missed the captions the first time- that is definitely an Infinity table, which plays best when choked with terrain... and also only requires 10 models to a side
Yeah, but it's a great example of what about a 40k table should look a lot more like, hence why I used it. I knew it wasn't perfect but honestly I was posting under a bit of a time crunch.
And for the one comment who said it would be bad for 40k, apparently you've never had the joy of playing City Fight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MVBrandt wrote: Yeah the table he's pointing at is an Infinity table, the one he's saying is bad was an alternate layout NOVA table (they're actually both NOVA tables); the alternate layout definitely was too open. That Infinity one is too open also, for Infinity; I think we'll be like doubling for next year. The 40k tables will be getting double the large LOS blockers.
Good to hear. And yes, that was a very bad NOVA table there. About the only armies who are happy on a table like that are Drop Pod armies, and Gunlines.
MVBrandt wrote: Perhaps unrelated, but the game needs a LOT more LOS-blocking terrain than ANY TOURNAMENT PRESENTLY IS FIELDING (yes, I'm including everybody). The game could also use the removal of 2++ re-rolling units (There are 2, and neither is from FW, and both are absurd for the average player to try and deal with, to a level of magnitude greater than anything FW or regular 40k).
Agreed. More terrain, especially LOS blocking terrain, solves most problems with the current game to include Tau gunlines and IG Artillery lists.
MVBrandt wrote: Talk of whether FW is "broken" seems ... again ... pointless. Familiarity, fairness, comfort-levels, officiality, etc., are all fairly relevant. Point is, there are a lot of FW units (mostly IG) that are very, very difficult for and painful for the average 40k player to deal with. Adding them doesn't really address things like the 2++ re-rollers above, but it also doesn't make the tournament experience any more FORGIVING. It may add variety, but I think that's obvious ... more options should = more variety.
Fair enough, the "broken" talk is mostly subjective for sure, but I do like to try and iron out some of the claims I see about it because they often require there to be a situation where the FW player's dice do nothing wrong, the other player's dice do nothing right and there is nowhere to hide on the table, nor strategies or options to handle it.
I don't think anything other than maybe making everyone play an identical Marine list would make the tournament experience more "forgiving".
MVBrandt wrote: But I don't really see anyone putting forth the crazy idea that adding more stupid units to the average tournament is actually going to make it nicer on average players, so what's the point of arguing that it won't? It's as much a given as "add more units = more variety is likely."
I disagree with assessing them as "stupid units" (you'll hurt their feelings ), mostly because the issues with the game are ones that come from the core rule mechanics and GW's main dev studio, not FW. FW may have some stuff that's unbalanced now, but they'll beat it with a Nerf Bat if they get enough feedback that there is something wrong (often resulting in free rules until the next book with that unit comes out) while GW does not.
And honestly in a game where people think you need to play X if you're fielding Army Y to win, I'd always welcome more variety (even if all I get out of it are 3 flyers, 2 of which suck and a single Transport which is....kind of awesome while still being very "meh". ).
You're getting to the point well enough; there's 0 point to arguing about what units are broken or not. I don't think Thudd Guns or Vultures are going to improve the Tournament Experience for anyone, and they provably (and already have if you want to actually go looking) worsen the experience for some. BUT the experience can already be AWFUL if you run into a Screamerstar or Jetcouncil. Both lists can be played to above average success by relatively inexperienced gamers frustrating the hell out of average opponents. When you put them in the hands of a top tier player, it becomes absolutely horrid for your average tourney-goer to play against.
FW DOES have units with similar "ugh" nature to them. Trying to prove or disprove that statement, however, is not really the determining factor for whether or not to include them.
Perhaps the biggest issue, that this thread and no other will ever solve, is that there are a LOT of players who either really don't know anything about FW, or who adamantly are against playing with it. While certain REGIONS may differ, this is still the case across the vast majority of at least the US (and I often see European players echo this).
A tournament can build itself up on the "FW legal" front, or it can be big enough in a con environment that changes will generally be sustained by attendance no matter what, but it's very difficult for events in the midranges to take risky gambles on potentially unpopular moves. TOs lose a SHITTON of money running these things as it is. So when a vocal minority (as most vocal groups on the internets are) starts trashing those who make whatever decisions they make (pro FW or against) ... well, it's silly. They're not making their decisions based upon what somebody said was a good or bad unit on the internets. They're making their decisions with the concert of their volunteers and peers in a way they consider mitigates the most risk to their already-taxed wallets in operating their events.
If you want FW, you need to motivate a clear VAST majority from among the PRESENT CONSTITUENTS and potential constituents of the events you're trying to influence. All the back and forth about individual units and how to counter them and whether they're broken or not is utterly pointless in comparison.
MVBrandt wrote: You're getting to the point well enough; there's 0 point to arguing about what units are broken or not. I don't think Thudd Guns or Vultures are going to improve the Tournament Experience for anyone, and they provably (and already have if you want to actually go looking) worsen the experience for some. BUT the experience can already be AWFUL if you run into a Screamerstar or Jetcouncil. Both lists can be played to above average success by relatively inexperienced gamers frustrating the hell out of average opponents. When you put them in the hands of a top tier player, it becomes absolutely horrid for your average tourney-goer to play against.
Pulling the "broken" argument aside, the point remains that it's not FW or GW's fault then, but rather players who ruin the enjoyment of the game for others by working to create combinations like that.
And even if you Comp the tournament, or rewrite rules or outright ban things you'll never really fix the issue as there are players who just move onto other combos. Like I said, the only way to soften this game is everyone play the same exact army.
MVBrandt wrote: FW DOES have units with similar "ugh" nature to them. Trying to prove or disprove that statement, however, is not really the determining factor for whether or not to include them.
Honestly that's all personal and depends on the kind of people you play more than the units themselves.
MVBrandt wrote: Perhaps the biggest issue, that this thread and no other will ever solve, is that there are a LOT of players who either really don't know anything about FW, or who adamantly are against playing with it. While certain REGIONS may differ, this is still the case across the vast majority of at least the US (and I often see European players echo this).
LOTS of players don't even know their own codex properly, much less other people's. Arguing against FW just because people can't be bothered to learn their own codex much less any other is a bit silly since you're not getting past the fact that some people don't want to spend the time or effort to get past their own codex.
MVBrandt wrote: A tournament can build itself up on the "FW legal" front, or it can be big enough in a con environment that changes will generally be sustained by attendance no matter what, but it's very difficult for events in the midranges to take risky gambles on potentially unpopular moves. TOs lose a SHITTON of money running these things as it is. So when a vocal minority (as most vocal groups on the internets are) starts trashing those who make whatever decisions they make (pro FW or against) ... well, it's silly. They're not making their decisions based upon what somebody said was a good or bad unit on the internets. They're making their decisions with the concert of their volunteers and peers in a way they consider mitigates the most risk to their already-taxed wallets in operating their events.
Oh understandable, which is why I already posted that TOs run what they want, it's their tournament after all.
MVBrandt wrote: If you want FW, you need to motivate a clear VAST majority from among the PRESENT CONSTITUENTS and potential constituents of the events you're trying to influence. All the back and forth about individual units and how to counter them and whether they're broken or not is utterly pointless in comparison.
And that's fair and I'm not trying to make every tourney do anything, Like I said, it's your event, run what you like. I'm not going to make anyone do or not do anything in that regards nor do I have the free time to bother trying.
Emplaced artillery? Can't pivot (they're immobile unless you take a specific vehicle), has a 45 degree firing arc, and if you kill or break the crew the gun automatically dies. Also a number of the guns need LOS to be effective (full distance scatter with no adjustment for BS), or to even shoot. Guess what we don't have enough of on most people's tables that allows Tau to be so good as a turtled up firebase? LOS blocking terrain as well as just terrain in general. There is a severe lack of terrain density on the tables I've seen pictured from tournaments and it often doesn't "fill out" like it needs to according to the rules themselves.
I have seen this before and thought I could just clarify this one rule that people seem to be getting wrong. Artillery models with Crew have a 360 degree firing arc like other "models" they are not vehicles and vehicle hull-mounted weapons are the ones that have the 45 degree arc restriction, if they do not have Sponson, Turret or Pintle Mounted weapons that is, so on. So if you are running a Sabre Platform, a Thunderfire, Aegis Gun or a heavy Artillery model(s) they all have a 360 firing arc at all times. Standard LOS applies but they are like IG Heavy Weapons Team or a Monstrous Creature not a vehicle. Just figured I could spare some misunderstanding that might come up during a tournament. No one likes to get surprised in the middle of a tournament game about a rule they thought they knew.
One important thing to note here is that those overpowered FW units were mediocre at best until 6th edition changed the artillery and flyer rules in incredibly stupid ways. So it's less a case of FW making overpowered stuff and more that GW just doesn't care about balance and releases game-breaking rules without bothering to playtest them. Banning FW isn't going to help balance very much when you still have frustrating overpowered stuff like re-rollable 2++ death stars or 4-5 Riptide Tau, and almost certainly will continue to get more of those frustrating overpowered lists in the future.
Not proof of anything I'm sure, but here's a direct quote from GW Digital Edition's Facebook page from one of the people who work on the digital codexes AND work with the GW main studio:
Games Workshop: Digital Editions
Hey Miles,
Our books are primarily to accompany the Citadel Miniatures range as opposed to the Forge World series.
We don't tend to include Forge World only units in any of our codexes.
That said, you are of course welcome to use additional Forgeworld units alongside our codexes, but because they tend to be a bit more exotic, you're probably best letting your opponent know you will beforehand.
- Eddie
So the stance seems to be "use if you like, just don't be a dick about it".
And your TO will let your opponents know beforehand what they might face, as well i.e. some Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld including FW army lists, or no FW. It's not universal and every TO will have to make the call on it, just like they've had to for the last decade or two...
For the record, I've made the case for before, and am a big fan of, limited/restricted FW allowance. But on the internet things tend to gravitate towards the "all or nothing" extremes. Simply making FW choices 0-1 as AdeptiCon has done in the past is an intriguing middle ground that I really like . It's also a baby-step towards more FW inclusion, and is something I think more "pro FW" players should heartily get behind, because it can only help lead to wider adoption.
It's a lot harder to enact change when you're deadset on trying to get a tractor trailer to go from 0-100mph in 5 seconds. Going from no FW allowance at all to unlimited FW is a lot harder than introducing it gradually, and will meet more resistance... so embrace the events that have put in the work to include it, even if it's not fully unlimited! And who knows what the future will hold
RiTides wrote: And your TO will let your opponents know beforehand what they might face, as well i.e. some Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld including FW army lists, or no FW. It's not universal and every TO will have to make the call on it, just like they've had to for the last decade or two...
For the record, I've made the case for before, and am a big fan of, limited/restricted FW allowance. But on the internet things tend to gravitate towards the "all or nothing" extremes. Simply making FW choices 0-1 as AdeptiCon has done in the past is an intriguing middle ground that I really like
If we're 0-1 FW options then we might as well do that to other things too. Riptides, Heldrakes, Wraithknights...ect. I mean why not apply such restrictions across the board if you're going to do them?
Ah, the olive branch discarded, and trampled underfoot...
I was still editing my post so I'll quote the relevant parts that I added:
It's also a baby-step towards more FW inclusion, and is something I think more "pro FW" players should heartily get behind, because it can only help lead to wider adoption.
It's a lot harder to enact change when you're deadset on trying to get a tractor trailer to go from 0-100mph in 5 seconds. Going from no FW allowance at all to unlimited FW is a lot harder than introducing it gradually, and will meet more resistance... so embrace the events that have put in the work to include it, even if it's not fully unlimited! And who knows what the future will hold
You demand all or nothing "On the Internet" (as your location so aptly names ) but ignore the middle ground events that would inexorably lead to greater adoption.
Ah well, twas a moment of peace, goodwill and mutual acceptance, at least in my own mind . I'll leave you to the "all or nothing" argument, as I've had my hearty fill of it in the past.
RiTides wrote: Ah, the olive branch discarded, and trampled underfoot...
Who said anything about discarding anything? I was just making a point that if we're limiting FW to keep it from being abused then limiting the abusable parts of the regular game should similarly be enacted.
RiTides wrote: I was still editing my post so I'll quote the relevant parts that I added:
It's also a baby-step towards more FW inclusion, and is something I think more "pro FW" players should heartily get behind, because it can only help lead to wider adoption.
It's a lot harder to enact change when you're deadset on trying to get a tractor trailer to go from 0-100mph in 5 seconds. Going from no FW allowance at all to unlimited FW is a lot harder than introducing it gradually, and will meet more resistance... so embrace the events that have put in the work to include it, even if it's not fully unlimited! And who knows what the future will hold
You demand all or nothing "On the Internet" (as your location so aptly names ) but ignore the middle ground events that would inexorably lead to greater adoption.
Ah well, twas a moment of peace, goodwill and mutual acceptance, at least in my own mind . I'll leave you to the "all or nothing" argument, as I've had my hearty fill of it.
I'm 100% FW for normal games. I don't pretend tournaments are normal games however and I've said (this making the third time I'm stating it) that I am fine with tournaments doing whatever they wish because they already have to play with house rules (like preset terrain) to make the game function for their event. I'm just stating that if we're going to limit one thing that has the potential for abuse we should probably limit ALL things that are abusable otherwise we're just playing favorites.
RiTides wrote: Indeed, but unless you want to make all codex entries 0-1, you're going to have to play favorites with the route you propose, regardless.
I don't think you're really playing favorites by reducing Riptides to a 0-1 choice. At least then they'd be as uncommon as they are in the fluff.
RiTides wrote: I only point to the 0-1 idea as a workable solution that has in the past been implemented, there are other ideas along those lines, too.
I'm not saying it can't or won't work I'm just saying that if we're using that mindset there are other things that just as badly need to be addressed and should be addressed too.
I actually thing rather than a 0-1 restriction (and this I'm sure would piss off a lot of FW people, and not alike) the best way to ease in FW would be to do something like.
Starting Now we will allow 40k approved units in x book (the newest FW book) any future FW release that is 40k approved. This take out any confusion about past units that have been re-printed multiple times, would make it so that there is less to learn for most players at fist. Is no different than adopting a new supplement....etc.
Now people won't like it because for FW players it means lots of their toys won't currently be legal. And anti-FW won't like it because it is including FW.
Alternatively you could state something like only FW books published since the beginning of 6th and forward are legal and get much the same effect.
When we talk about FW we are not really talking about the IA: Apoc book (I have not seen the new one yet). What we are talking about is that in the nooks and crannies of almost every IA book there is a broken unit (all imperial btw) and when put together create an broken list. We are not talking about the Chaos Contemptor dread or any other bad units, just the broken ones. Think IG artillery for starters.
Ok well, if that's the case why is it wrong to have a broken list that is FW? I mean I could say the same for Normal Codex's (with the use of Wave Serpent spam/Flying Daemon Circus/Triple Riptide markerlight missileside spam as examples) and their supplement's (also I would ban supplements in tourneys but that is my opinion, for a different thread) I see many a time people in tournaments exploiting their codex's just to win and usually those same lists break the edition, so what is wrong with a broken FW list when there are so many things broken with a normal codex? not having a go just curious..
Also I would highly, highly recommend the current IAApoc book, I think if you read that your opinion would change a bit about the matter (as it did with me)
RiTides wrote: And your TO will let your opponents know beforehand what they might face, as well i.e. some Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld including FW army lists, or no FW. It's not universal and every TO will have to make the call on it, just like they've had to for the last decade or two...
For the record, I've made the case for before, and am a big fan of, limited/restricted FW allowance. But on the internet things tend to gravitate towards the "all or nothing" extremes. Simply making FW choices 0-1 as AdeptiCon has done in the past is an intriguing middle ground that I really like
If we're 0-1 FW options then we might as well do that to other things too. Riptides, Heldrakes, Wraithknights...ect. I mean why not apply such restrictions across the board if you're going to do them?
Wow, talk about missing the whole point of the post.
RiTides wrote: And your TO will let your opponents know beforehand what they might face, as well i.e. some Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld, unlimited Forgeworld including FW army lists, or no FW. It's not universal and every TO will have to make the call on it, just like they've had to for the last decade or two...
For the record, I've made the case for before, and am a big fan of, limited/restricted FW allowance. But on the internet things tend to gravitate towards the "all or nothing" extremes. Simply making FW choices 0-1 as AdeptiCon has done in the past is an intriguing middle ground that I really like
If we're 0-1 FW options then we might as well do that to other things too. Riptides, Heldrakes, Wraithknights...ect. I mean why not apply such restrictions across the board if you're going to do them?
Wow, talk about missing the whole point of the post.
Actually, whilst it does slightly miss the point, this is a great Idea imo, as it would allow a lot more list variety than just the usual "Spam Cheese button X and Y" plus it would make people think a lot more and hold a refresh button to people tactics and maybe even make them become better generals as they could take a so called "bad" or "fluffy" unit and incorporate them into their list and make them... good perhaps? plus it would introduce a lot more originality into lists and even balance the so called "Competitive Meta" (if there is one in 6th, since it really does vary across gaming places imo), as everyone would be forced to take the 0-1 choice, therefore perhaps giving all armies a chance of winning a tourney imo
Comp scores just limit variety IMHO. As a player of Fantasy, and one that sees a lot of ETC (European Team Championships) ((For those that didn't know it, heck, I didn't for the longest time)), I just find that the more you comp something,t he more limited a list becomes, therefore causing you to see many of the same list.
Tournaments can do whatever they like, the organizer is the boss and he can allow what he likes. We just had a thread like this, and I'll say the same thing, "COME ON GW!! SAY IT"S LEGAL!" I would love to run contemptors in my new Iron Hands army... but does a Master of the Forge allow for Contemptors to be elite and heavy?
MVBrandt wrote: You're getting to the point well enough; there's 0 point to arguing about what units are broken or not. I don't think Thudd Guns or Vultures are going to improve the Tournament Experience for anyone, and they provably (and already have if you want to actually go looking) worsen the experience for some. BUT the experience can already be AWFUL if you run into a Screamerstar or Jetcouncil. Both lists can be played to above average success by relatively inexperienced gamers frustrating the hell out of average opponents. When you put them in the hands of a top tier player, it becomes absolutely horrid for your average tourney-goer to play against.
FW DOES have units with similar "ugh" nature to them. Trying to prove or disprove that statement, however, is not really the determining factor for whether or not to include them.
Perhaps the biggest issue, that this thread and no other will ever solve, is that there are a LOT of players who either really don't know anything about FW, or who adamantly are against playing with it. While certain REGIONS may differ, this is still the case across the vast majority of at least the US (and I often see European players echo this).
A tournament can build itself up on the "FW legal" front, or it can be big enough in a con environment that changes will generally be sustained by attendance no matter what, but it's very difficult for events in the midranges to take risky gambles on potentially unpopular moves. TOs lose a SHITTON of money running these things as it is. So when a vocal minority (as most vocal groups on the internets are) starts trashing those who make whatever decisions they make (pro FW or against) ... well, it's silly. They're not making their decisions based upon what somebody said was a good or bad unit on the internets. They're making their decisions with the concert of their volunteers and peers in a way they consider mitigates the most risk to their already-taxed wallets in operating their events.
If you want FW, you need to motivate a clear VAST majority from among the PRESENT CONSTITUENTS and potential constituents of the events you're trying to influence. All the back and forth about individual units and how to counter them and whether they're broken or not is utterly pointless in comparison.
Dang that MVBrandt guy speaks sense. I have to say TO's are doing a pretty amazing job these days and that job is not easy. There is just a huge differences between running your local game store event/league and a Major Event like Adepticon, Bay Area Open, Da Boyz and NOVA, to mention a few. I can only image what they go through every year in preparation for their Events. And with 6th and ForgeWorld it has not gotten any easier for them. I have the utmost respect for these guys and appreciate what they do for our gaming community, and I am always ready in any way I can as a gamer to help and support them. It's just to easy to criticize what they are doing from the outside. These guys are making the tough choices of what their event rules/restriction will be and any mistakes they make effect their pocket book directly, in big ways.
MVBrandt wrote: Perhaps unrelated, but the game needs a LOT more LOS-blocking terrain than ANY TOURNAMENT PRESENTLY IS FIELDING (yes, I'm including everybody). The game could also use the removal of 2++ re-rolling units
Once this is done, then we can actually look at things like comps and bans.
Until then it is just basically LeafBlower Vs DeathStar: THE GAME
MVBrandt wrote: Perhaps unrelated, but the game needs a LOT more LOS-blocking terrain than ANY TOURNAMENT PRESENTLY IS FIELDING (yes, I'm including everybody). The game could also use the removal of 2++ re-rolling units
Once this is done, then we can actually look at things like comps and bans.
Until then it is just basically LeafBlower Vs DeathStar: THE GAME
Haha, agreed
That was a funny way to state the truth.
We're working hard on some cost effective, large LoS blocking pieces of terrain and as soon as we get it worked out, or one way to resolve it, we will share it with everyone. It makes the game so much more fun and fair when it is played this way.
That corner that those who disallow 40K Approved Forge World keep painting themselves into appears to be getting smaller.....
The unbalancing augment is just plain silly in an environment of 4 Riptide armies, allies, hell drakes and the last 3 flavor of the month codices.
The outdated rules/which rules do I use false argument on Forge World material is about to be nailed into its coffin in a few weeks as well.
What will those folks do once the new wording is official I wonder?
In the end Game Workshops, which does include Forge World, is going to do what is in the best interest of their profit...
I suspect they will go with whatever sells more models and expensive rules to new customers, which will be Forge World, and those customers are going to want to use them....
Certain tournament folks have been the tail wagging the dog...I suggest they remember the more new players they turn away for a few who like things the way they are the more dismal their financial future will be....
Emplaced artillery? Can't pivot (they're immobile unless you take a specific vehicle), has a 45 degree firing arc, and if you kill or break the crew the gun automatically dies. Also a number of the guns need LOS to be effective (full distance scatter with no adjustment for BS), or to even shoot. Guess what we don't have enough of on most people's tables that allows Tau to be so good as a turtled up firebase? LOS blocking terrain as well as just terrain in general. There is a severe lack of terrain density on the tables I've seen pictured from tournaments and it often doesn't "fill out" like it needs to according to the rules themselves.
I have seen this before and thought I could just clarify this one rule that people seem to be getting wrong. Artillery models with Crew have a 360 degree firing arc like other "models" they are not vehicles and vehicle hull-mounted weapons are the ones that have the 45 degree arc restriction, if they do not have Sponson, Turret or Pintle Mounted weapons that is, so on. So if you are running a Sabre Platform, a Thunderfire, Aegis Gun or a heavy Artillery model(s) they all have a 360 firing arc at all times. Standard LOS applies but they are like IG Heavy Weapons Team or a Monstrous Creature not a vehicle. Just figured I could spare some misunderstanding that might come up during a tournament. No one likes to get surprised in the middle of a tournament game about a rule they thought they knew.
NeedleOfInquiry, you brought this up again to make a post like that?
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: The outdated rules/which rules do I use false argument on Forge World material is about to be nailed into its coffin in a few weeks as well.
What will those folks do once the new wording is official I wonder?
The outdated rules argument is entirely valid, how will that be nailed into its coffin? Even if GW 100% says "USE FW ALL THE TIME ALWAYS!" the rules for current units are hard to find, unless you go to the effort AdeptiCon does to make a current list, and it's always changing and the rules are much more scattered than they are for normal codexes... although those are getting harder to track with the release of supplements, that doesn't make FW any easier to track!
Regarding your second statement that I quoted above- those folks will probably buy and use FW it's just that easy, and if GW ever does come right out and say it clearly, I think we would ALL be happier- no matter what our preference is, 100% clarity would be far better than the mirkwood they currently leave us in.
Regarding your second statement that I quoted above- those folks will probably buy and use FW it's just that easy, and if GW ever does come right out and say it clearly, I think we would ALL be happier- no matter what our preference is, 100% clarity would be far better than the mirkwood they currently leave us in.
Well, I guess the issue is, we're talking about GW products with GW copyrights written by GW staff at GWHQ for a GW game to be sold on a GW website and featured in other GW publications and GW's periodical, how much more "official" can you get than that? You can see FW products featured on GW's main page on "White Dwarf Daily" section quite often, the latest was just yesterday on Nov 6.
From GW's perspective...why is such a statement necessary given the above? It would appear to be pretty clear already
BaronIveagh wrote: Personally, I'm in favor of allowing FW, if only because IG tanks.
That is what the popular thought is by players who do not go to tournaments.
There is a big difference between tournaments and home games because all you will see on the top tables are all of the broken units. I have never seen anyone take a FW Tank at a tournament, so allowing FW does nothing if you hope to see more of them.
Regarding your second statement that I quoted above- those folks will probably buy and use FW it's just that easy, and if GW ever does come right out and say it clearly, I think we would ALL be happier- no matter what our preference is, 100% clarity would be far better than the mirkwood they currently leave us in.
Well, I guess the issue is, we're talking about GW products with GW copyrights written by GW staff at GWHQ for a GW game to be sold on a GW website and featured in other GW publications and GW's periodical, how much more "official" can you get than that? You can see FW products featured on GW's main page on "White Dwarf Daily" section quite often, the latest was just yesterday on Nov 6.
From GW's perspective...why is such a statement necessary given the above? It would appear to be pretty clear already
Where do you see forge world in non-forge world publications? Are they ever in WD?
That is what the popular thought is by players who do not go to tournaments.
There is a big difference between tournaments and home games because all you will see on the top tables are all of the broken units. I have never seen anyone take a FW Tank at a tournament, so allowing FW does nothing if you hope to see more of them.
My local tourney scene would disagree with you. But that's meta here. See, back before the current guard codex, the only way IG could take things like Vanquishers and Executioners was to go FW. A lot of players like to forget that when they're talking about what a bad idea it is to have FW stuff, etc.
Where do you see forge world in non-forge world publications? Are they ever in WD?
They've been included in many White Dwarf's *very* frequently, and are featured every so often on GW's main front page in the White Dwarf Daily blog, and are featured in part in other GW books like Battle Missions and Apocalypse to varying degrees.
You can state it however you like, Vaktathi, but it's pretty darn obvious that, given the long-term and widespread NON-acceptance of FW in events, they need to clarify their stance on it if they think it should be included.
Because as clear as it is to you, it isn't as clear to a signifcant percentage of gamers... and given all the logistical challenges of including FW, they need to make it clear that it's worth the trouble.
There's lots of arguments about why FW should be considered fully accepted by default, but it's hard to argue that most gamers consider it that way. With the exception of the west coast nowadays, I think most groups do not consider FW required, but as optional... if GW doesn't think of it that way, they should come out and say so clearly.
Saying they don't need to say it just doesn't ring true given the reality of events and tournaments for the last... decade? More? Most don't allow FW, and the ones that do specifically have to say that they do. That means gamers are not viewing acceptance as default, but as something that needs to be specified. If GW feels differently, they should you know, specify more clearly
I probably just said the same thing 5 ways, but it's an easy fix, and it's up to GW to do it. Saying "they don't need to do anything" isn't looking at the reality on the ground / facts of actual events and mindset of gamers about FW.
Yes, we've been working this entire time to lure the freedom hating al queda sleepr agents in the minis wargaming community out of hiding, and now we're getting ready to spring our devious trap, muahahaha!
RiTides wrote: You can state it however you like, Vaktathi, but it's pretty darn obvious that, given the long-term and widespread NON-acceptance of FW in events, they need to clarify their stance on it if they think it should be included.
Because as clear as it is to you, it isn't as clear to a signifcant percentage of gamers... and given all the logistical challenges of including FW, they need to make it clear that it's worth the trouble.
There's lots of arguments about why FW should be considered fully accepted by default, but it's hard to argue that most gamers consider it that way. With the exception of the west coast nowadays, I think most groups do not consider FW required, but as optional... if GW doesn't think of it that way, they should come out and say so clearly.
Saying they don't need to say it just doesn't ring true given the reality of events and tournaments for the last... decade? More? Most don't allow FW, and the ones that do specifically have to say that they do. That means gamers are not viewing acceptance as default, but as something that needs to be specified. If GW feels differently, they should you know, specify more clearly
I probably just said the same thing 5 ways, but it's an easy fix, and it's up to GW to do it. Saying "they don't need to do anything" isn't looking at the reality on the ground / facts of actual events and mindset of gamers about FW.
I don't debate that there's a need for a clear statement due to the misperceptions surrounding FW, I was just trying to look at it from GW's end. They're not writing a tight, competitive, tournament ruleset suitable for large events where people are paired up and told to go at it, they're writing a narrative framework with which to play with their plastic toy army men between mutually consenting players bringing their toys to a table and tossing stuff around. In the latter scenario, "official" is largely an irrelevant label aside from using competitors products.
If I were making a product with that mindset, the need for such a statement probably wouldn't cross my mind either. It should come to their attention given how often the issue has been raised with GW, but it may just not be something they care about, especially as they run almost no events at all anymore. They should make a statement one way or the other, I agree, but I can see where they haven't given where their mindset for writing rules and lack of involvement in events is coming from.
RiTides wrote: You can state it however you like, Vaktathi, but it's pretty darn obvious that, given the long-term and widespread NON-acceptance of FW in events, they need to clarify their stance on it if they think it should be included.
Because as clear as it is to you, it isn't as clear to a signifcant percentage of gamers... and given all the logistical challenges of including FW, they need to make it clear that it's worth the trouble.
There's lots of arguments about why FW should be considered fully accepted by default, but it's hard to argue that most gamers consider it that way. With the exception of the west coast nowadays, I think most groups do not consider FW required, but as optional... if GW doesn't think of it that way, they should come out and say so clearly.
Saying they don't need to say it just doesn't ring true given the reality of events and tournaments for the last... decade? More? Most don't allow FW, and the ones that do specifically have to say that they do. That means gamers are not viewing acceptance as default, but as something that needs to be specified. If GW feels differently, they should you know, specify more clearly
I probably just said the same thing 5 ways, but it's an easy fix, and it's up to GW to do it. Saying "they don't need to do anything" isn't looking at the reality on the ground / facts of actual events and mindset of gamers about FW.
And there it is...... You consider that those who attend tournaments are the significant percentage of gamers.....by your own words.... In your mind the only gamers who decisions count are the tournament players... Read what you say above....
News flash... Most 40k players never attend a tournament....most 40k players never get a forum account and do not read them, much less post on them... They are unaware we are even having this discussion. They will show up at their meeting areas tomorrow and play, for fun....
What most 40k players do do is buy models and play the game, for fun, not ego.... They are the ocean that GW floats on..
There is a reason GW got out of sponsoring tournaments. I suspect it was they got tired of dealing with a small part of the user base that was not representative of the much larger base but was strident enough to alienate the others.
We have a basic disagreement. You think you represent the majority of 40k players. I think you may represent many 40k tournament players but these are not the same groups. Your represent a tiny subset of 40k players and I suspect your base is shrinking every day.
Where do you think the majority of WAAC players fit in at?
I suspect there is nothing GW can say or print that will change your mind...
That's OK....
As the crowds get smaller and less and less new players come to the "exclusive" tournaments, those organizers, like GW did, will have to make a choice based upon profit.. Without profit there is no next years event.... California organizers have already started to pick up on it.
RiTides wrote: You can state it however you like, Vaktathi, but it's pretty darn obvious that, given the long-term and widespread NON-acceptance of FW in events, they need to clarify their stance on it if they think it should be included.
Because as clear as it is to you, it isn't as clear to a signifcant percentage of gamers... and given all the logistical challenges of including FW, they need to make it clear that it's worth the trouble.
There's lots of arguments about why FW should be considered fully accepted by default, but it's hard to argue that most gamers consider it that way. With the exception of the west coast nowadays, I think most groups do not consider FW required, but as optional... if GW doesn't think of it that way, they should come out and say so clearly.
Saying they don't need to say it just doesn't ring true given the reality of events and tournaments for the last... decade? More? Most don't allow FW, and the ones that do specifically have to say that they do. That means gamers are not viewing acceptance as default, but as something that needs to be specified. If GW feels differently, they should you know, specify more clearly
I probably just said the same thing 5 ways, but it's an easy fix, and it's up to GW to do it. Saying "they don't need to do anything" isn't looking at the reality on the ground / facts of actual events and mindset of gamers about FW.
And there it is...... You consider that those who attend tournaments are the significant percentage of gamers.....by your own words.... In your mind the only gamers who decisions count are the tournament players... Read what you say above....
News flash... Most 40k players never attend a tournament....most 40k players never get a forum account and do not read them, much less post on them... They are unaware we are even having this discussion. They will show up at their meeting areas tomorrow and play, for fun....
What most 40k players do do is buy models and play the game, for fun, not ego.... They are the ocean that GW floats on..
There is a reason GW got out of sponsoring tournaments. I suspect it was they got tired of dealing with a small part of the user base that was not representative of the much larger base but was strident enough to alienate the others.
We have a basic disagreement. You think you represent the majority of 40k players. I think you may represent many 40k tournament players but these are not the same groups. Your represent a tiny subset of 40k players and I suspect your base is shrinking every day.
Where do you think the majority of WAAC players fit in at?
I suspect there is nothing GW can say or print that will change your mind...
That's OK....
As the crowds get smaller and less and less new players come to the "exclusive" tournaments, those organizers, like GW did, will have to make a choice based upon profit.. Without profit there is no next years event.... California organizers have already started to pick up on it.
Time will tell....
He's really not saying what you think he's saying.
People use tournaments as a reference point because they are the largest gatherings of hobbyists available for us to take the "pulse" of the community. Where has there been a gathering of 200 hobbyists that wasn't a tournament?
Tournaments drive and dictate a significant portion of the hobby and meta. Chess has tournaments, checkers, slot car racing, poker, any game that has a winner and loser appeals to the human nature of competition. Deep down inside, people get a warm fuzzy feeling when they can prove superiority over someone else. Some people want to paint better than others, some want to design the best list, some strive to beat others with suboptimal armies and rely on skill.
Yes there are groups that never seek out 40k forums and never will. Some want to keep it a casual beer and pretzel engagement between friends and that's ok. Why do we need to make tournaments appealing to them? It's always nice to have more people at an event, but you can't force a casual hobbyist to enjoy a tournament.
A store owner here once said: if you stay home and wait for things to change, you are part of the problem, not the solution. It seems harsh but it rings true. If a store runs monthly events with 20 regular attendees that are happy, why risk major changes that may cost them regular attendance for the chance of drawing in players who don't normally participate?
Nobody is saying only tournament players and their opinions matter, they are just the most readily available population to survey and analyze.
If you want forgeworld to become widely accepted, you need to follow the west coast example. Support the regular events. Show the stores and TOs you're invested in their growth and success. Then start talking up forgeworld and working it into some events to show people there's nothing to fear.
The hard line that the few voices like Peregrine, vaktathi, and NeedleOfInquiry take about forgeworld and tournaments is more damaging to the case than helpful IMO.
The hard line that the few voices like Peregrine, vaktathi, and NeedleOfInquiry take about forgeworld and tournaments is more damaging to the case than helpful IMO.
I'm sorry but I am not the one to go quietly sit in the back of the bus on command...
I think one play by all of the rules....or one does not....
Cheaters would be an example of those who do not play by the rules...
I see no difference between a guy caught with crooked dice or a modified codex on his IPAD than a tournament organizer who runs a 1999 +1 tournament...to avoid a part of the 2000 point 2x FOC or bans other rules he does not like.
Its all the rules for 40K or it's not... I am not an appeaser.
If you have to house rule your tournament don't call it a 40K tournament.
Call it a "Kinda like 40K Tournament but I threw out the things that were too difficult for me or I did not like"
Nothing wrong with running such a tournament as long as you tell folks right out you can not deal with all the rules for 40k as GW desired, There are those who are comfortable doing that and other WAAC actions.
Many of these tournaments draw large crowds and all the organizers I see do post their modification to the game for the event. But they do modify the game from how GW writes it...
They remind me of other exclusive groups who use to meet and excluded folks who thought differently....They also had a sit in the back mentality for others and saw nothing wrong with it since they were not being asked to sit in the back but were instead asking the other folks to do it. Funny how that mental mechanism works...
Look up Rosa Parks... or better yet...
Parks recalled going to elementary school in Pine Level, where school buses took white students to their new school and black students had to walk to theirs:
"I'd see the bus pass every day... But to me, that was a way of life; we had no choice but to accept what was the custom. The bus was among the first ways I realized there was a black world and a white world.
If this pisses you off you need to ask your self why... If it is a false analogy I should just look stupid in your eyes, if you are pissed off then that is another matter. Words only sting when there's a hint of accuracy about them.
If you see the same people over and over at your events and they are all playing the same armies at some point you have to wodor why that is.... Is it your custom?
The hard line that the few voices like Peregrine, vaktathi, and NeedleOfInquiry take about forgeworld and tournaments is more damaging to the case than helpful IMO.
I'm sorry but I am not the one to go quietly sit in the back of the bus on command...
I think one play by all of the rules....or one does not....
Cheaters would be an example of those who do not play by the rules...
I see no difference between a guy caught with crooked dice or a modified codex on his IPAD than a tournament organizer who runs a 1999 +1 tournament...to avoid a part of the 2000 point 2x FOC or bans other rules he does not like.
Its all the rules for 40K or it's not... I am not an appeaser.
If you have to house rule your tournament don't call it a 40K tournament.
Call it a "Kinda like 40K Tournament but I threw out the things that were too difficult for me or I did not like"
Nothing wrong with running such a tournament as long as you tell folks right out you can not deal with all the rules for 40k as GW desired, There are those who are comfortable doing that and other WAAC actions.
Many of these tournaments draw large crowds and all the organizers I see do post their modification to the game for the event. But they do modify the game from how GW writes it...
They remind me of other exclusive groups who use to meet and excluded folks who thought differently....They also had a sit in the back mentality for others and saw nothing wrong with it since they were not being asked to sit in the back but were instead asking the other folks to do it. Funny how that mental mechanism works...
Look up Rosa Parks... or better yet...
Parks recalled going to elementary school in Pine Level, where school buses took white students to their new school and black students had to walk to theirs:
"I'd see the bus pass every day... But to me, that was a way of life; we had no choice but to accept what was the custom. The bus was among the first ways I realized there was a black world and a white world.
If this pisses you off you need to ask your self why... If it is a false analogy I should just look stupid in your eyes, if you are pissed off then that is another matter. Words only sting when there's a hint of accuracy about them.
If you see the same people over and over at your events and they are all playing the same armies at some point you have to wodor why that is.... Is it your custom?
You do.
1) The audacity of comparing the fact that people on the internet think differently then you about what toys are appropriate to play with to civil rights is dumbfounding. Almost impressively so.
2) The reason the people in this thread you're referring to cater to the opinion of tournament players isn't because they believe that "tournament players are the majority". It's because tournament players are the ones who attend the events - the events ARE TOURNAMENTS. Why would they cater to anyone other than the people who are paying to attend their events? If you want to play with FW outside of an event there is literally nothing stopping you, this is a game, outside of sanctioned tournaments you can write your own rules for all most people care.
The hard line that the few voices like Peregrine, vaktathi, and NeedleOfInquiry take about forgeworld and tournaments is more damaging to the case than helpful IMO.
I'm sorry but I am not the one to go quietly sit in the back of the bus on command...
I think one play by all of the rules....or one does not....
Cheaters would be an example of those who do not play by the rules...
I see no difference between a guy caught with crooked dice or a modified codex on his IPAD than a tournament organizer who runs a 1999 +1 tournament...to avoid a part of the 2000 point 2x FOC or bans other rules he does not like.
Its all the rules for 40K or it's not... I am not an appeaser.
If you have to house rule your tournament don't call it a 40K tournament.
Call it a "Kinda like 40K Tournament but I threw out the things that were too difficult for me or I did not like"
Nothing wrong with running such a tournament as long as you tell folks right out you can not deal with all the rules for 40k as GW desired, There are those who are comfortable doing that and other WAAC actions.
Many of these tournaments draw large crowds and all the organizers I see do post their modification to the game for the event. But they do modify the game from how GW writes it...
They remind me of other exclusive groups who use to meet and excluded folks who thought differently....They also had a sit in the back mentality for others and saw nothing wrong with it since they were not being asked to sit in the back but were instead asking the other folks to do it. Funny how that mental mechanism works...
Look up Rosa Parks... or better yet...
Parks recalled going to elementary school in Pine Level, where school buses took white students to their new school and black students had to walk to theirs:
"I'd see the bus pass every day... But to me, that was a way of life; we had no choice but to accept what was the custom. The bus was among the first ways I realized there was a black world and a white world.
If this pisses you off you need to ask your self why... If it is a false analogy I should just look stupid in your eyes, if you are pissed off then that is another matter. Words only sting when there's a hint of accuracy about them.
If you see the same people over and over at your events and they are all playing the same armies at some point you have to wodor why that is.... Is it your custom?
Literally one of the dumbest and possible most offensive posts I've ever read....comparing the plight of FW players to the civil rights movement. Trying to shame people into getting your way in a hobby event.
Listen no one is saying you are a horrible person for wanting to play the game a different way...but not every event has the same rules. This is true for plenty of competitions get over it.
Or you know. Put your money (quite literally) where your mouth is...get off you @-- and do something about it. You want to have a tournament using "all" GWs rules go ahead and run one...prove how great it is.
2k double FOC Random rolled missions every round
Player placed terrain
FW No time limits on the rounds
No tournament FAQ to answer questions Gw in their infinite wisdom don't answer (cause those are dirty evil house rules)
Legitimately until the hard line guys who want to shame every TO running non-FW events wants to start stepping up and investing their own time and money into running events I see no reason why those of us who do put money in should feel any sympathy.
I should risk losing more money because you want to play with your toys at an event you're not even attending?
Or should I perhaps cater to the desires of my actual customers?
Literally it is a free market system...no one is saying you cannot run these events and if people desire them so badly put the horrible house rule events out of business.
Vaktathi wrote: I don't debate that there's a need for a clear statement due to the misperceptions surrounding FW...
...
If I were making a product with that mindset, the need for such a statement probably wouldn't cross my mind either. It should come to their attention given how often the issue has been raised with GW, but it may just not be something they care about, especially as they run almost no events at all anymore. They should make a statement one way or the other, I agree...
I think most of us can agree on this, which is why if the rumor were true I'd actually be really happy- GW just needs to come out and clarify one way or the other, given the reality of how people play things currently (and have for many years).
Also, guys, Needle is just going for a reaction- please don't give it to him. Statements like his are not worth responding to, and just feeds the process...
Nice try but not this is not on that scale and that is not what I said. Try reading it again.
The pertinent part is this:
They also had a sit in the back mentality for others and saw nothing wrong with it since they were not being asked to sit in the back but were instead asking the other folks to do it."
It is easy to ask someone else to just wait even if the rules are supposed to be the same if you not the one being asked to wait.
Try empathy sometime...Just change the name of the army..
Image if Tau were banned, would you tell all the Tau players just wait, do not make waves, that's a good player....
This is going to be an official change to the wording. Are you just going to ignore it because you are comfortable with things the way they are?
What ritides said. Trolls claiming racism-related moral high ground in a discussion about what toys you can use in an event put on at cost for the fun of others = thread death.
http://i.imgur.com/MHuW96t.gif
As a quick aside if you really want to see the "wild west" of competitive 40k look at the tournament scene in north central Florida.
Both major GTs in this area, BeakyCon3 and Crucible 3 are running FW and 2xFOC.
BeakyCon was last month and featured 2250 point level with 2xFOC. The winner ran a Necron Scarab farm army with 15+ Spyders and Imotek and Coteaz to ensure first turn charges
IMO 2xFOC is much worse from a competitive sense than FW is. FW major issue is the availability of the books, confusion about what rules are current and even valid at any given time. If these things were resolved by FW I think you would see a lot more tournaments allow it.
I thought that the pro-Forge World crowds are the Jews, and that the anti-Forge world are the Nazis trying to take away their freedoms and oppress them.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: Nice try but not this is not on that scale and that is not what I said. Try reading it again.
Th This is going to be an official change to the wording. Are you just going to ignore it because you are comfortable with things the way they are?
If the players who actually pay to attend events I run continue to vote that they would prefer not to allow FW...absolutely. Not worth risking my own money just to please people on the internet. But you are more than welcome to do so. Anyone can run tournaments, but few seek to put in the money or effort and instead want others to change for them.
To quote Ghandi "Be the change you want to see in the world."
Instead of coming on here and railing against those running events step up and actually do something. Run a successful evet in the style you want to see.
Though I typically don't allow FW in my events (I do sometimes in more casual events, because people don't mind as much), because it is not something my players desire, and is additional work for me. I have lots of respect for TOs that do, variety is the spice of life.
Wait, wait, WAIT?!?! There are rules to the ForgeWorld Models? That’s cool. I should check them out. I mean I don’t really even read the GW rules, I’m more of a skimmer. Reading is HARD.
MVBrandt wrote: What ritides said. Trolls claiming racism-related moral high ground in a discussion about what toys you can use in an event put on at cost for the fun of others = thread death.
http://i.imgur.com/MHuW96t.gif
I peed myself a little bit I was laughing so hard after watching this.
Hulksmash wrote: But I don't want FW users riding with me at the front of the bus!
Hulk buddy, I will sit at the back of the short bus every time if I can play with all my toys. And I did get a brand new helmet for my birthday so I won’t be hurting myself so much at the tables from now on. Life is good. SAVE ME A SEAT!
Even on the Short Bus this Hulk guy is still trying to bring us down Reecius. Geez, I guess they don't realize us California Hippies always just go with the flow. What ever DUDE!!! 8) From what little I remember of my high school days all the cool kids sat at the back of the bus anyways. You Nerds with control issues can sit up front. Reecius and I will sit in the back with the Dudes and the 1 or 2 girls that might actually be on the bus.
Lol, not too far off Dugg (although for the record, us nerds at the front of the bus are happy for people to play anyway they like, too . It's those loud kids in the middle that are yelling for everybody to play one way or the other only )
Reecius wrote: Everyone is welcome on the Forge World short bus! We don't discriminate!
Is this the "bus" you are talking about?
The new CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is the only way to travel in style. Now with secondary heavy bolters so you can bolt whilst you bolt, the CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT also contains an exclusive de-odouriser, making the CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT the only vehicle in the Imperium that doesn't stink like an Ork.
The hard line that the few voices like Peregrine, vaktathi, and NeedleOfInquiry take about forgeworld and tournaments is more damaging to the case than helpful IMO.
I'm sorry but I am not the one to go quietly sit in the back of the bus on command...
I think one play by all of the rules....or one does not....
Cheaters would be an example of those who do not play by the rules...
I see no difference between a guy caught with crooked dice or a modified codex on his IPAD than a tournament organizer who runs a 1999 +1 tournament...to avoid a part of the 2000 point 2x FOC or bans other rules he does not like.
Its all the rules for 40K or it's not... I am not an appeaser.
If you have to house rule your tournament don't call it a 40K tournament.
Call it a "Kinda like 40K Tournament but I threw out the things that were too difficult for me or I did not like"
Nothing wrong with running such a tournament as long as you tell folks right out you can not deal with all the rules for 40k as GW desired, There are those who are comfortable doing that and other WAAC actions.
Many of these tournaments draw large crowds and all the organizers I see do post their modification to the game for the event. But they do modify the game from how GW writes it...
They remind me of other exclusive groups who use to meet and excluded folks who thought differently....They also had a sit in the back mentality for others and saw nothing wrong with it since they were not being asked to sit in the back but were instead asking the other folks to do it. Funny how that mental mechanism works...
Look up Rosa Parks... or better yet...
Parks recalled going to elementary school in Pine Level, where school buses took white students to their new school and black students had to walk to theirs:
"I'd see the bus pass every day... But to me, that was a way of life; we had no choice but to accept what was the custom. The bus was among the first ways I realized there was a black world and a white world.
If this pisses you off you need to ask your self why... If it is a false analogy I should just look stupid in your eyes, if you are pissed off then that is another matter. Words only sting when there's a hint of accuracy about them.
If you see the same people over and over at your events and they are all playing the same armies at some point you have to wodor why that is.... Is it your custom?
You do.
1) The audacity of comparing the fact that people on the internet think differently then you about what toys are appropriate to play with to civil rights is dumbfounding. Almost impressively so.
2) The reason the people in this thread you're referring to cater to the opinion of tournament players isn't because they believe that "tournament players are the majority". It's because tournament players are the ones who attend the events - the events ARE TOURNAMENTS. Why would they cater to anyone other than the people who are paying to attend their events? If you want to play with FW outside of an event there is literally nothing stopping you, this is a game, outside of sanctioned tournaments you can write your own rules for all most people care.
Just compare this situation to the holocaust and hitler and you will win the internets
Just compare this situation to the holocaust and hitler and you will win the internets
Oh, Oh! By claiming that I should run a tourniment not according to the rules but according to the rules as you interpret them, you're being a Nazi and should stop screaming hate for FW into a mic like Hitler?
Just compare this situation to the holocaust and hitler and you will win the internets
Oh, Oh! By claiming that I should run a tourniment not according to the rules but according to the rules as you interpret them, you're being a Nazi and should stop screaming hate for FW into a mic like Hitler?
Who's this Hilter guy? I hear he plays Jet Council, and I believe he played Screamer Star before that. I don't really care what he plays, he sounds like a scrub.
Dugg wrote: Who's this Hilter guy? I hear he plays Jet Council, and I believe he played Screamer Star before that. I don't really care what he plays, he sounds like a scrub.
He likes using a lot of tanks so he sounds like a FWIG player.
I saw a list today that features Ultramarines allied with Red Scorpions. I can understand the sentiment against allowing Forge World in a tournament now.
Dugg wrote: Who's this Hilter guy? I hear he plays Jet Council, and I believe he played Screamer Star before that. I don't really care what he plays, he sounds like a scrub.
He likes using a lot of tanks so he sounds like a FWIG player.
Odd, with his love of flyers I would have expected him to be a Necron Flying Circus sort of player.
Dugg wrote: Who's this Hilter guy? I hear he plays Jet Council, and I believe he played Screamer Star before that. I don't really care what he plays, he sounds like a scrub.
He likes using a lot of tanks so he sounds like a FWIG player.
Odd, with his love of flyers I would have expected him to be a Necron Flying Circus sort of player.
Oh! He was totally a Cron Air player, he's a bit of Meta Cheese banwagoner though. I'm sure he is working on a TauDar list right this moment. Ironically enough he has never played with ForgeWorld.
also... Some Say, he was the first forum Troll and the very first person to be kicked off and banned for life from every forum on the "InterWeb".
Dugg, not to distract from your tangent here, but your flag is reading China, as Alpharius' has been... is there some sort of wargaming event I don't know about, or are you there for production stuff for TableWar, etc? Just curious
I know that adepticon next year i am skipping the champs on thursday because my team and friendly lists are FW heavy and I would rather not play without it. So I am playing x-wing instead on thursday.
The Warrior's Code document is pretty clear about which books you can use! The Imperial Armour lists are not on the list, so I'm afraid that means they are not in use at most of our events. We do allow their use at some events, notably Campaign Weekends, Legendary Battlefields and Forge World specific events. You can, of course use the models as appropriate stand-ins eg Death Korps as Imperial Guardsmen and Contemptor Dreadnoughts as Dreadnoughts!
The reason we have made this call is that Forge World products are, essentially, expansions to the main Warhammer 40,000 game, much like Apocalypse, Cities of Death and Planetstrike. As such, we choose to allow their use where the format of the event suits it. Forge World have told us their lists are designed to be used as narrative, story telling armies, not necessarily for one-off pick up games. As such, we follow their advice!
I hope that answers your question Nick Bayton
Events Manager
Of course he skirts around if their supposed to be used for tournaments, which do not exist in GW eyes, even if they hold them.
Of course given how the rest of the "warrior's code" nonsense is so blatantly "BUY MORE GW MODELS BUY BUY BUY BUY!!!!!!" it's not surprising that the sales staff would say that events are core products only. It's probably best to stop thinking about GW events as games and start thinking about them as opportunities to show off your painted models and buy more GW products.
And the bit about "FW rules aren't for pickup games" pretty directly contradicts what FW have said (unofficially) when people have asked, so I wouldn't pay much attention to it.
A rather contradictory statement to be sure, and would appear as if the event organizer is not particularly well acquainted with FW products as FW units are not just designed for narrative scenario play. Either way, it's just the event organizer for one location's events with only one major tournament, and, as noted, most GW events have been designed to drive sales of core channel products. Just another wrench in the works
Is it contradictory? It sounds more like he's saying FW is just as official as Planetstrike, Apocalypse, etc. That's to say, he acknowledges it's entirely official, but also not part of the core game, and thus by nature less common in a broadly attended public event where expectations are more variable. That something is an expansion does not render it unofficial, and similarly that something is official does not render it as part of the core game. He's making a clear note that there is in fact a Core Game, and expansions and supplements to it. Coupled w/ the Code rules you see a clear statement that the digital supplements and codices are all part of the Core, while the things excluded but still produced by one of GW's design studios (FW, GW, BL, etc.) are Official Expansions.
None of GW's stance on this really has much impact on the tournament scene and TO decision-making, however, and most of us are going to continue to allow FW in some of our events and not in others so as to address the wider swathe of the populace that's inclusive of FW lovers and FW ... well, dislikers at the least
MVBrandt wrote: Is it contradictory? It sounds more like he's saying FW is just as official as Planetstrike, Apocalypse, etc.
I'm talking about the part where he says that "FW tells us FW is for story campaigns, not pickup games", which contradicts what FW have said about FW rules being intended for normal pickup games as long as you show your opponent your rules before the game starts. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this supposed "conversation" never happened and this is just an excuse to avoid saying "sorry, your army doesn't help us sell our core products so we don't want it".
He's making a clear note that there is in fact a Core Game, and expansions and supplements to it. Coupled w/ the Code rules you see a clear statement that the digital supplements and codices are all part of the Core, while the things excluded but still produced by one of GW's design studios (FW, GW, BL, etc.) are Official Expansions.
That's not really the case since GW's events are not run by their game designers. In this context "core" has more to do with "which boxes of space marines can we sell to 15 year olds" and "how many rulebooks do I want to deal with when people start arguing and I don't understand the rules any better than a random player". Meanwhile in the actual published rulebooks and statements by the game design part of the company we see no real separation between "core" products and "expansion" products, and the only difference is if rules are for the standard missions (codex, supplement, "40k approved" FW) or if they introduce new game types (Apocalypse, Planetstrike, CoD).
MVBrandt wrote: Is it contradictory? It sounds more like he's saying FW is just as official as Planetstrike, Apocalypse, etc.
I'm talking about the part where he says that "FW tells us FW is for story campaigns, not pickup games", which contradicts what FW have said about FW rules being intended for normal pickup games as long as you show your opponent your rules before the game starts. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this supposed "conversation" never happened and this is just an excuse to avoid saying "sorry, your army doesn't help us sell our core products so we don't want it".
He's making a clear note that there is in fact a Core Game, and expansions and supplements to it. Coupled w/ the Code rules you see a clear statement that the digital supplements and codices are all part of the Core, while the things excluded but still produced by one of GW's design studios (FW, GW, BL, etc.) are Official Expansions.
That's not really the case since GW's events are not run by their game designers. In this context "core" has more to do with "which boxes of space marines can we sell to 15 year olds" and "how many rulebooks do I want to deal with when people start arguing and I don't understand the rules any better than a random player". Meanwhile in the actual published rulebooks and statements by the game design part of the company we see no real separation between "core" products and "expansion" products, and the only difference is if rules are for the standard missions (codex, supplement, "40k approved" FW) or if they introduce new game types (Apocalypse, Planetstrike, CoD).
I see it differently than you. However, as a supporter of both pro-FW and anti-FW players, I really don't care what GW thinks or says about how to run events in terms of allowed supplements; they're inconsistent enough on their own, and put on their own events where sometimes it's allowed and sometimes it isn't ... so whether I use them as an example or not, the result is "Use FW sometimes, and sometimes don't use FW." I tend to lean in terms of what I think they INTEND for the core game to be as what's referenced per my last post; namely, that you can draw a clear connection (and not contradiction) between comments culimating in a view of the FW rules as being intended for use / play / official to the game, but not part of their core game, and more akin to expansions such as Planetstrike.
In a sense, it doesn't get more clear than:
The reason we have made this call is that Forge World products are, essentially, expansions to the main Warhammer 40,000 game, much like Apocalypse, Cities of Death and Planetstrike.
FW Products being totally official, but also not part of the "main Warhammer 40,000 game." I think that's completely reasonable, too, and really lends little weight to whether any given TO should or shouldn't be pressured to allow their use.
The reason we have made this call is that Forge World products are, essentially, expansions to the main Warhammer 40,000 game, much like Apocalypse, Cities of Death and Planetstrike.
I agree that it's very clear, but the person saying it has no more authority than you or I declaring that FW products are expansions and therefore separate from the standard game. GW's events are run by the sales department, not the people who make the games. And with that in mind there are very clear sales reasons for banning FW: a desire to focus events on selling "core" products, and to avoid having to deal with GW's ideal customer (young and no experience playing outside of GW stores, where FW products aren't available) being unhappy about facing an army they've never seen before. It's kind of like how they invent rules like "two models on a swarm base isn't enough" to increase sales. And so their opinions on the rules of the game should be about as relevant as their opinions of the people who answer GW's rule question email. That is, not relevant at all.
On the other hand, when you look at what GW's rule authors are saying, you have explicit statements that FW rules are part of the game and a general policy of releasing non-codex rules (supplements and FW books) that add to the standard game and treating them all as being equivalent to a codex. The only division we see in the published rules is between rules for the standard game and missions (codex, supplement, FW "40k approved") and rules that add entirely new game types/campaigns/etc (Apocalypse and similar expansions).
MVBrandt wrote: Coupled w/ the Code rules you see a clear statement that the digital supplements and codices are all part of the Core, while the things excluded but still produced by one of GW's design studios (FW, GW, BL, etc.) are Official Expansions.
So does the new Inquisition codex count as 'produced by one of GWs design studios', since it was published and sold by Black Library, with no 'game designer author' credited, or does that get hand-waved away?
Its really clear that GW really can't be bothered to address the issue of 'legality' and that goes all the way back to Andy Chambers tenure at GW (so its not really new). I particular, this new release schedule, supplements, mini dexes (and I use the term loosely), etc. really throw legality out the window.
Fortunately there is enough variety in events that TOs will be able to provide something for everyone's taste.
ok I wanted to keep the adepticon thread clear of any heat from the pro/anti forgeworld debating, so here was a thought i had. I'm not flatly saying forgeworld is imbalanced and should never be allowed, but here was my thought. Based on the adepticon survey results:
I think its interesting to see that while roughly 46% of people would like some form of forgeworld allowance, less than half of that number would be ok with full forgeworld. Coming from a non-forgeworld meta myself I'm wondering the rationale behind why most 'pro forgeworld' people want forgeworld in a sort of 'pseudo comped' form, as if there is a notion that too much of it would be overpowered or imbalanced.
thanatos67 wrote: I think its interesting to see that while roughly 46% of people would like some form of forgeworld allowance, less than half of that number would be ok with full forgeworld. Coming from a non-forgeworld meta myself I'm wondering the rationale behind why most 'pro forgeworld' people want forgeworld in a sort of 'pseudo comped' form, as if there is a notion that too much of it would be overpowered or imbalanced.
From the way you asked your question I take it you are in the 20%.
Part of the reason why is that it is unbalanced when you cherry pick the best units out of 10+ books.
To give you just another example: from a tournament standpoint if my opponent just takes one FW unit I can see what it does before the game and memorize it. I can't do that with an army of FW.
Did it ask of all Forge World which would have included Bane Blades and such designed for APOC only playing or was it about the "Approved for 40K" stamped material like Tauros, Venators, Vultures, stuff like that...?
Never mind I found the survey....
So less than half with valid email addresses responded so it might be safe to say they did not care one way or another about any of the questions asked...
Out of the less than half that did respond just over half (52%) of them wanted no Forge World while the just under half replied they were OK with some "Approved for 40K" stamped (0-1 units etc..) and a little less than half of that group OK with Full "Approved for 40K" stamped units and armies.
Did I read that right? By the way what does the purple mean since there is no definition for it on the Forge World pie chart?
I was in the 50% that wanted no forgeworld. I voted that way based on unfamiliarity coupled with a non forgeworld local/regional meta and personal 'bad experiences' with people playing on forgeworld unfamiliarity. Im interested from a standpoint that if you are a pro forgeworld person why you would vote to have it 'comped' when you know the rest of the tournament that is using standard 40k units is not.
IE if you voted pro limited forgeworld, you're saying that they should restrict things like multiple thudguns/artillery batteries/whatever else you can do with forgeworld, knowing I could take my quad tide ovesa star, screamer council, or jetseer army, because the former is somehow overpowered compared to the latter. At least that's how it would appear to me, which doesnt really make a whole lot of sense, hence the question to rationalize that viewpoint.
To me, it'd be an all or nothing vote, not a 'well maybe, just a little bit.' The middle vote didnt even cross my mind as viable.
As my forum record and my signature shows I am for full "Approved for 40K" Stamped armies (Elysian is what I prefer) and equipment.
I suspect most people are turned off by Forge World because they think of the Apocalypse stuff which is and has never been OK to use in a 40K game.
I think the difference between cheaters who pry on "Forge World unfamiliarity" and those who do so with players with regular armies who pry on new players or folks like me who just plain are going to trust their opponent not to cheat since it is just a game is that everybody hears about when Forge World is involved so it is Forge Worlds fault but when it is some guy with a "normal" army cheating it is just that he is "that kind of guy" and not his armies fault so it is not cumulative...
Can someone point a Forge World Army that is as bad as the current "bring all the giant robots" army that currently places at the top of all the tournaments?
Really?
Fear of the unknown is what got the bulk of those 52%. I can not count the times in these forums someone has complained about how broken this or that unit is and then have someone tell the person, well that's not correct about that unit and then their opinion changed. Are there any broken Forge world units that have a Approved for 40K stamp? I can think of two...
I can better than number in any top 5 armies for the current tournaments, and none of them are banned.......because they are too popular....
You see, that questionnaire was put out to people who played in the Warhammer 40k championships at Adepticon. Those are players that literally come from all over the world and are a cut above even the average tournament player.
Saying the reason why they do not want FW is because they fear the unknown is wrong. They are making a logical choice.
This is what it is like being a FW zealot. You have to discredit anything that runs contrary to your beliefs.
I have always considered the main reason people don't want forgeworld in tournaments is introduces dozens more army types to the meta. This further complicates creating a balanced list as there are now more variables to consider. There is also the fact keeping up with forgeworld units can get expensive and not knowing what something can do can knock you out of the running.
Therefore it behooves competitive players to reduce the number of units/armies that will be in the tournament as much as possible.
Blackmoor wrote: Saying the reason why they do not want FW is because they fear the unknown is wrong. They are making a logical choice.
I don't know why you think it can't be fear of the unknown. The "best" players have obviously had success with their combination of skills/strategy/army list, and changing the metagame means they might not be the best anymore and would have to develop new strategies and army lists. It's much easier to just limit what is allowed and keep the nice safe metagame they're already comfortable with, especially if you can make a silly argument about "officialness" to avoid saying "too much change". Obviously not everyone is doing that, but it's not a completely absurd concept.
And when a common response to allowing FW is speculation about how it might lead to overpowered lists (in a game that's already full of them) "fear of the unknown" is a pretty good description.
And even if it isn't "fear of the unknown," it could also just be something as simple as being uninformed. For example, how many people who voted against Forgeworld still believe that you can assault out of a Lucius drop pod on the turn you arrive? As another example, I just came from a thread discussing the merits of Tigurius vs. Loth, and two of the nine posters didn't know Loth's rules, despite the rules being posted for free on FW's downloads page.
Yeah, we should go quietly into that good night...well sorry ... I do not roll over easy.
You have your beliefs... I have mine...
You insult me, I reply.
I'm not the one with the following signature....
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight Forge World in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our game, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this game or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our 40k beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the rules, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, Games Workshop, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation from the resin.”
Or you could debate with respect and an intelligent approach instead of insulting and degrading those who play the game with a different set of beliefs.
hyv3mynd wrote: Or you could debate with respect and an intelligent approach instead of insulting and degrading those who play the game with a different set of beliefs.
I started this off asking questions.
I did not throw the zealot word out there, I replied to it...and rephrased his statement.
I did not see you mentioned the person who did throw it out as insulting...Might I ask why?
hyv3mynd wrote: Or you could debate with respect and an intelligent approach instead of insulting and degrading those who play the game with a different set of beliefs.
I started this off asking questions.
I did not throw the zealot word out there, I replied to it...and rephrased his statement.
I did not see you mentioned the person who did throw it out as insulting...Might I ask why?
Zealot is a fanatical person by dictionary definition. Hardly an insult. I'm a painting zealot and would take it as a compliment if someone addresses me as such.
However you've associated anti-FW vocalists with racists from the segregation area as well as WAAC players just a couple posts up. Your M.O. and tone remain predictable and unchanged over the past 6 months or so in every FW related thread on this forum. Like I said, your attitude and approach do more damage to your cause than good.
hyv3mynd wrote: Or you could debate with respect and an intelligent approach instead of insulting and degrading those who play the game with a different set of beliefs.
I started this off asking questions.
I did not throw the zealot word out there, I replied to it...and rephrased his statement.
I did not see you mentioned the person who did throw it out as insulting...Might I ask why?
Zealot is a fanatical person by dictionary definition. Hardly an insult. I'm a painting zealot and would take it as a compliment if someone addresses me as such.
However you've associated anti-FW vocalists with racists from the segregation area as well as WAAC players just a couple posts up. Your M.O. and tone remain predictable and unchanged over the past 6 months or so in every FW related thread on this forum. Like I said, your attitude and approach do more damage to your cause than good.
Actually no, that is only half the definition;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zealot zeal·ot noun \ˈze-lət\: a person who has very strong feelings about something (such as religion or politics) and who wants other people to have those feelings : a zealous person
So you want others to share your passion for painting? Fair enough. I could definitely see that being a negative (or positive) depending.
I used the term go to the back of the bus which is how some treat us as we should quietly just take it.
You have now said I called someone a racist... Pull the quote.......
I did say WAAC and yes I can think of someone on this forum that meets my definition of one....and I do not think the one that called me a zealot was complementing me, do you?
I used the term go to the back of the bus which is how some treat us as we should quietly just take it.
You have now said I called someone a racist... Pull the quote.......
I did say WAAC and yes I can think of someone on this forum that meets my definition of one....and I do not think the one that called me a zealot was complementing me, do you?
Funny how terms can be misinterpreted with Internet tone and sensitivity to a given topic.
I've actually played blackmoor in person have you? Out of all the tournament pro/40k celebs he's one of the furthest from a WAAC mindset I've faced and our game was very light and fun. Maybe you have a valid experience or reason to label him with such a tag?
Tannhauser42 wrote: And even if it isn't "fear of the unknown," it could also just be something as simple as being uninformed. For example, how many people who voted against Forgeworld still believe that you can assault out of a Lucius drop pod on the turn you arrive? As another example, I just came from a thread discussing the merits of Tigurius vs. Loth, and two of the nine posters didn't know Loth's rules, despite the rules being posted for free on FW's downloads page.
Case in point, I didn't know what Loth does until i clicked on the link to the fw page. I always assumed that he was a mephiston level cc character (i knew he had a 2++, but assumed it was coupled with an egregious cc statline and 4 wounds). And I also assume lucius pods allow assault on the deepstrike. Because I have never seen a book that indicates otherwise.
Ultimately my personal concern over forgeworld is very weak. If it became an accepted thing at the tournaments i attend I'd just buy all of the books and build (insert X terrible nightmare army) out of those books. I think as far as rules exclusivity goes we're quickly seeing forgeworld rules have an equivalent in the online supplements: how many of you guys own every single one of those right now and feels like toting an Ipad around with you at a gt? I voted no because most of the tournaments i attend already dont allow it, along with not knowing the rules and not really wanting to go out and buy everything. It seems like the majority agrees. I still dont get the 'limited admittance' crowd. Ultimately i feel like the perception of that statistic in particular heavily favors the 'no forgeworld' group because it creates a notion that a vast majority of people feel forgeworld is imbalanced and either shouldnt be allowed or only be allowed under comp restrictions. Again I still dont see that as being the case compared to the current top tier lists in 40k's standard dexes, but maybe someone can drop me a forgeworld-centric list that flattens jetseer or screamerstar? As i said I'm pretty unfamiliar so there could be some gems in there.
I hardly think you can class Blackmoor as WAAC by any stretch of the imagination. That's an irrelevant and pretty ugly assertion.
Consider an actual WAAC though. Let's pretend that FW cost no more than a normal army, had all rules online for free and everything was extremely clear as to where the new rules were. I would guess that the anti-FW crowd would remain almost identical, even with such accessibility. Why? Because the main concerns are balance and the vast amount of injected rules. What would a WAAC player do in such a situation? Well, it makes no sense for them to be anti-FW; they're just trying to win regardless of the fun the opponent is having. To that end, they are hugely helped by more rules (introducing yet more confusion and weird RAW arguments) which they can exploit, hugely helped by having unbalanced armies (makes list building easy - spam the best) and totally unaffected by anything else. I find it funny that people say the WAAC players are anti-FW when that stance makes no sense for them. Indeed, almost every time I see it surveyed, a good chunk of the people who want FW are people who do things you'd associate with WAAC players - deliberate rule misreadings, intentional abuse of poor wording, etc. This doesn't even touch on thudd gun+mortar time wasting abuses or the new insane rvarna.
Now, I play against a lot of FW. In most games in the UK, you tend to find a lot of familiarity with the rules. Yet, I've only played in 2 events with FW, because the major ones at WW ban it and the local ones banned it after the winners tables were totally IG+SM alliance dominated. Whether you want FW or not, you have to acknowledge that a lot of contention is nothing to do with unfamiliarity and we should stop pretending it is. Most concerns nowadays are how hard the rules are to find (even I don't know the badab charcter rules now because they were all updated a few days ago, including the minotaurs chapter master, who was in IA12 most recently... It's a mess) and how unbalanced they are towards certain armies (ork FW is totally fine, IG has loads on contentious units, DE may as well have nothing). Saying the main game is not balanced is no excuse - you don't put out a fire by pouring on gasoline. If FW is to be taken into serious account, the balance issues need to be addressed. Heck, I still see people saying Acanthrites are weak, despite how they're about as durable as a Riptide point for point. I saw someone say hornets are bad, yet they're vastly better in damage output currently than war walkers. Things like this need analysis - one side needs to put forwards why they think some given contentious unit is fair/unfair and the other needs to dispell it. Tournament results don't count for this - the sample of FW allowed tournaments is far too small to draw any conclusions except how hard people can beat mostly local players. If this isn't done, we'll just go round in circles for years stuck in the same views.
Blackmoor wrote: Saying the reason why they do not want FW is because they fear the unknown is wrong. They are making a logical choice.
I don't know why you think it can't be fear of the unknown. The "best" players have obviously had success with their combination of skills/strategy/army list, and changing the metagame means they might not be the best anymore and would have to develop new strategies and army lists. It's much easier to just limit what is allowed and keep the nice safe metagame they're already comfortable with, especially if you can make a silly argument about "officialness" to avoid saying "too much change". Obviously not everyone is doing that, but it's not a completely absurd concept.
And when a common response to allowing FW is speculation about how it might lead to overpowered lists (in a game that's already full of them) "fear of the unknown" is a pretty good description.
The metagame changes fairly regularly, with each new codex release come adjustments. The top tournament players are the ones who usually adjust more quickly and effectively to change because they are more invested in competitive 40k than most other people. To assume that they wish to cling to a current meta because they fear change is preposterous, mainly because it is they who do the changing before the rest of us.
Eyjio wrote:I hardly think you can class Blackmoor as WAAC by any stretch of the imagination. That's an irrelevant and pretty ugly assertion.
Consider an actual WAAC though. Let's pretend that FW cost no more than a normal army, had all rules online for free and everything was extremely clear as to where the new rules were. I would guess that the anti-FW crowd would remain almost identical, even with such accessibility. Why? Because the main concerns are balance and the vast amount of injected rules. What would a WAAC player do in such a situation? Well, it makes no sense for them to be anti-FW; they're just trying to win regardless of the fun the opponent is having. To that end, they are hugely helped by more rules (introducing yet more confusion and weird RAW arguments) which they can exploit, hugely helped by having unbalanced armies (makes list building easy - spam the best) and totally unaffected by anything else. I find it funny that people say the WAAC players are anti-FW when that stance makes no sense for them. Indeed, almost every time I see it surveyed, a good chunk of the people who want FW are people who do things you'd associate with WAAC players - deliberate rule misreadings, intentional abuse of poor wording, etc. This doesn't even touch on thudd gun+mortar time wasting abuses or the new insane rvarna.
Now, I play against a lot of FW. In most games in the UK, you tend to find a lot of familiarity with the rules. Yet, I've only played in 2 events with FW, because the major ones at WW ban it and the local ones banned it after the winners tables were totally IG+SM alliance dominated. Whether you want FW or not, you have to acknowledge that a lot of contention is nothing to do with unfamiliarity and we should stop pretending it is. Most concerns nowadays are how hard the rules are to find (even I don't know the badab charcter rules now because they were all updated a few days ago, including the minotaurs chapter master, who was in IA12 most recently... It's a mess) and how unbalanced they are towards certain armies (ork FW is totally fine, IG has loads on contentious units, DE may as well have nothing). Saying the main game is not balanced is no excuse - you don't put out a fire by pouring on gasoline. If FW is to be taken into serious account, the balance issues need to be addressed. Heck, I still see people saying Acanthrites are weak, despite how they're about as durable as a Riptide point for point. I saw someone say hornets are bad, yet they're vastly better in damage output currently than war walkers. Things like this need analysis - one side needs to put forwards why they think some given contentious unit is fair/unfair and the other needs to dispell it. Tournament results don't count for this - the sample of FW allowed tournaments is far too small to draw any conclusions except how hard people can beat mostly local players. If this isn't done, we'll just go round in circles for years stuck in the same views.
Actually a WAAC gamer's perfect game would be 2 broken armies to ally and 1 other army that everyone else will play. This way they have access to the most broken stuff and at least some of the competition will be removed with the 3rd choice. Now matter how many different armies get buffed you can only have 2 (or 3 with Inq...which is GW), therefore more armies becoming viable in a competitive sense will only make a WAAC gamer less pleased as they will have more competition and have to learn more opponent's. It also becomes impossible to win effortlessly the more variety of armies you must face as you must come up with new tactics if someone throws a curve ball.
You also betrayed a hint of misinformation as the R'Vana is NOT a 40K approved unit. It is an experimental unit which should never be played without express permission from the opponent.
BTW are IG+SM the top contenders in the UK right now? I would be shocked as Taudar are the top dogs at the moment while SM+SM, Necron+GK/CSM, and Daemon+CSM are he runners up. Ever since the Tau dex the IG+SM have been in a decline.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: This is what it is like being a FW zealot. You have to discredit anything that runs contrary to your beliefs. "
This is what it is like being a WAAC player. You have to discredit anything that runs contrary to your chance to win. I fixed your statement for you.
This "Forge World Zealot" thinks you should look in a mirror....
lol
This WAAC player is trying to find an army that is not Eldar, Tau or Demons to play. The mark of a true WAAC player is the avoidance of all of the top codexes.
Their are many reasons why someone votes not to play with FW, It is funny that the only one you can come up with is that they are all ignorant.
Oh, and a zealot is a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
I am perfectly happy to compromise and have 0-1 choice for forge world units. What about you?
"A poll that disagrees with my unyielding opinion?! An astounding 50% response rate that defies standard polling odds by being enormously responsive?! CLEARLY JUST FEAR. I'M SMART AND THEY'RE DUMB! The will of the people is meaningless!"-Needle of Inquiry
Most concerns nowadays are how hard the rules are to find (even I don't know the badab charcter rules now because they were all updated a few days ago, including the minotaurs chapter master, who was in IA12 most recently... It's a mess)
WAAC isn't about winning effortlessly and in a game where both players are acting to win, you'll never be able to be in that situation where they face perfect match ups. There's no curveball in adding FW, believe me. Most the units are useless, same as normal codices. It's just another obstacle which isn't there at the moment. Not quite sure about your point here.
Seems you're the misinformed one too. See that big 40k stamp right next to the experimental rules? That means its approved. Yes, they're experimental - and? No more or less valid than any other stamped unit. It's basically just FWs code for "we pushed these out the door without testing so the model can be sold". They've done it many, many times.
I also didn't say the events were current when I went to them. I can see you don't play FW super frequently though, as imperial army use goes way up and Necron presence is reduced to almost nothing due to sabres. The top contenders in FWatm are IG+SM, Daemons and Taudar. They're further propelled up the ladder by the FW units whereas things like orks and csm with mediocre FW tend to keep doing poorly. Again, this makes me want to see FW even less frankly - I prefer diversity, which FW very arguably stifles considerably due to their unit distribution.
MVBrandt wrote: "A poll that disagrees with my unyielding opinion?! An astounding 50% response rate that defies standard polling odds by being enormously responsive?! CLEARLY JUST FEAR. I'M SMART AND THEY'RE DUMB! The will of the people is meaningless!"-Needle of Inquiry
OK.....50 percent response rate with just over 50% against any Forge World 40K....Am I right? Yes/ no will do....
! CLEARLY JUST FEAR. I'M SMART AND THEY'RE DUMB! The will of the people is meaningless!"
Not what I said..... The post just over my original questions was one of those who voted against the Forge World perhaps you should read it... if you are finished with the CAPS lock....
Since you did the survey what was the purple about in that pie chart, just want to know, no drama....
Most concerns nowadays are how hard the rules are to find (even I don't know the badab charcter rules now because they were all updated a few days ago, including the minotaurs chapter master, who was in IA12 most recently... It's a mess)
Does anyone know what the purple was on the vote for/against Forge World stuff?
I know where they are, I need to keep up to date with FW rules because, as I said, I play vs them a lot. I just haven't memorised the entire update yet. I'd barely gotten used to the last one from about 2 months ago. My point was it's in no way clear to a new player what they need to get for what rules unless you're 100% on the ball constantly.
" See that big 40k stamp right next to the experimental rules?"
Actually those are two different stamps, so you know.
Something can be "Experimental" - never to be used in tournaments...
Other things are "Approved for 40K" - exactly what it sounds like...
Is there something out there with both, I guess there is since you are talking about it but it could never be used in a tournament with the experimental stamp on it.
Actually those are two different stamps, so you know.
Something can be "Experimental" - never to be used in tournaments...
Other things are "Approved for 40K" - exactly what it sounds like...
Is there something out there with both, I guess there is since you are talking about it but it could never be used in a tournament with the experimental stamp on it.
Did that clear it up for you?
...
There's 2 stamps on the pdf. One is the experimental one, the other is the 40k stamp used in all the IA books. It IS 40k approved, it's just not a final rule set. Tournaments decide for themselves whether to use it, thats a TO choice. There's certainly no rule saying it's not usable and there's no reason not to use those rules in casual games. It's in the same boat as all FW, just as acanthrites, heavy artillery, fire raptor, etc all have been experimental.
" I can see you don't play FW super frequently though..."
If you had read earlier I state I am not about the winning but I do play using my Elysian army as a 40 IG..in tournament and as Elysians in my gaming group and on other events...
You point about Sabres makes my point. Guys that say no to Forge World armies but then via Allies grabs one of the 2 most broken Forge World items.
I do not see anyone banning Tau over riptides but lets ban Forge World 40K stamped armies because Sabres are broken...
Automatically Appended Next Post: "There's 2 stamps on the pdf. One is the experimental one, the other is the 40k stamp used in all the IA books"
Sabres are one of a few. It's not about banning FW because 40k is fair, it's about not adding more unbalance to a game already struggling for it. FW has many issues around it. I wouldn't be saying this if I believed FW to be a good option. I own a cool Dark Harvest list, as well as a little bit of FWIG and Nids. I would love to use them, but I don't see that as more important than the general tip of balance. That's all there is to it from my side really - I don't want to play some of the armies I've faced with FW inclusion. When I see a Riptide list for a casual game, I normally ask my opponent to change it as I find 3 Riptide lists no fun to play. In a tournament, I see no reason to add more lists like that when there's a wholly feasible option not to.
My point was it's in no way clear to a new player what they need to get for what rules unless you're 100% on the ball constantly.
I agree, that's what I meant by my "fear of the unknown" that got taken badly.
My question to you how is that any different than all of the electronic supplements that are popping up like ...well...popcorn...?
How would a fairly new player who does not read the forums and does not have a tablet or follow that stuff take it when someone shows up with 2 extra headquarters and 3 more kinda troop choices all mounted on Valkyries that did not take up any of the normal force chart?
Automatically Appended Next Post: "In a tournament, I see no reason to add more lists like that when there's a wholly feasible option not to. '
Given the option if a tournament organizer chose to ban riptides would you go to it, or would you consider it bad behavior...?
My point was it's in no way clear to a new player what they need to get for what rules unless you're 100% on the ball constantly.
I agree, that's what I meant by my "fear of the unknown" that got taken badly.
My question to you how is that any different than all of the electronic supplements that are popping up like ...well...popcorn...?
How would a fairly new player who does not read the forums and does not have a tablet or follow that stuff take it when someone shows up with 2 extra headquarters and 3 more kinda troop choices all mounted on Valkyries that did not take up any of the normal force chart?
I have issues with those too honestly. Any time the most recent rules aren't easily accessible and clear, I take issue. Codex:Inquisition particularly annoys me as it breaks core rules. However, they're still in a "codex", which is what the rulebook says to reference. If FW did similar, or even just linked the latest rules on every product page, I'd be okay with it as it's at least a handy guide.
As for Riptides, I'd question it but yes, it's probable that if I wanted to go to an event, the ban wouldn't stop me. I'm not massively against unit restrictions in tournaments; I find them strange as all it does is show who can exploit the restrictions best but it's not a large factor for me.
Blackmoor wrote: I am perfectly happy to compromise and have 0-1 choice for forge world units. What about you?
I'm perfectly happy to compromise between "no codex units allowed" and "codex units unrestricted". How's a 0-1 limit on every codex unit sound?
Eyjio wrote: What would a WAAC player do in such a situation? Well, it makes no sense for them to be anti-FW; they're just trying to win regardless of the fun the opponent is having. To that end, they are hugely helped by more rules (introducing yet more confusion and weird RAW arguments) which they can exploit, hugely helped by having unbalanced armies (makes list building easy - spam the best) and totally unaffected by anything else. I find it funny that people say the WAAC players are anti-FW when that stance makes no sense for them.
It makes sense because you have to consider what the WAAC player already owns and what metagame they're already familiar with and able to exploit. The WAAC player probably already has a codex-only army and knows all the ways to abuse the rules and win with it. Adding FW complicates things and introduces the chance that the WAAC player might not have the best tools anymore. And it's easier for the WAAC player to insist on banning FW and keep their winning position than it is for them to buy a new FW-legal army, memorize all the FW rule abuses, etc. That's why it's WAAC behavior: it doesn't matter if that policy excludes people who bought the "wrong" army, all that matters is protecting the WAAC player's chances of winning.
Indeed, almost every time I see it surveyed, a good chunk of the people who want FW are people who do things you'd associate with WAAC players - deliberate rule misreadings, intentional abuse of poor wording, etc. This doesn't even touch on thudd gun+mortar time wasting abuses or the new insane rvarna.
Indeed, almost every time I see it surveyed, a good chunk of the people who want codices are people who do things you'd associate with WAAC players - deliberate rule misreadings, intentional abuse of poor wording, etc. This doesn't even touch on re-rollable 2++ time wasting abuses or the new insane Riptide.
Yet, I've only played in 2 events with FW, because the major ones at WW ban it and the local ones banned it after the winners tables were totally IG+SM alliance dominated.
How is that any different from codex-only events where Tau/Eldar dominate?
Saying the main game is not balanced is no excuse - you don't put out a fire by pouring on gasoline.
It's not just the fact that the "main" game isn't balanced, it's that the people opposing FW are making no credible effort to fix that balance. It's all "comp is evil, we play the game we're given" when it comes to codex units and their poor balance, but suddenly balance is an issue as soon as FW is mentioned. And it certainly doesn't make any sense when you're talking about using blanket bans on a whole category of rules just to deal with a small number of potential balance problems.
MVBrandt wrote: "A poll that disagrees with my unyielding opinion?! An astounding 50% response rate that defies standard polling odds by being enormously responsive?! CLEARLY JUST FEAR. I'M SMART AND THEY'RE DUMB! The will of the people is meaningless!"-Needle of Inquiry
OK.....50 percent response rate with just over 50% against any Forge World 40K....Am I right? Yes/ no will do....
80% want to put restrictions on forge world. Also 1 unit of FW is very different than unrestricted access to it.
Each can claim the middle but why be silly about it...
The decision has been made. I like how you clipped the rest of my response out of the quote. Wasn't that just precious....
I just went and got since you missed it in your quoting me...
MVBrandt wrote:
"A poll that disagrees with my unyielding opinion?! An astounding 50% response rate that defies standard polling odds by being enormously responsive?! CLEARLY JUST FEAR. I'M SMART AND THEY'RE DUMB! The will of the people is meaningless!"-Needle of Inquiry
Not what I said..... The post just over my original questions was one of those who voted against the Forge World perhaps you should read it... if you are finished with the CAPS lock....
Since you did the survey what was the purple about in that pie chart, just want to know, no drama....
If Las Vegas Open was 0-1 FW, I'd buy my ticket tomorrow. As it is, I'm still waffling. 0-1 lets the hobby only people take their "pretty," unit. It also prevents people who only want another broken ruleset to abuse.
Seeing as how non-FW is currently the norm, I'd say that's a fair compromise.
I see no reason for a 0-1 Codex Unit restriction.. Who am I compromising with on that one? Maybe a handful, at best, of crazy people who spend way too much time arguing on the internet? Nah.. Majority rules, buddy.
Excellent, then please stop arguing for "all or nothing" Forgeworld.
"Some" Forgeworld is much more palatable to many more people. Under 20% want unrestricted FW... go with what is possible, compromise. It's the only path to getting anywhere in this debate!
hippesthippo wrote: If Las Vegas Open was 0-1 FW, I'd buy my ticket tomorrow. As it is, I'm still waffling. 0-1 lets the hobby only people take their "pretty," unit. It also prevents people who only want another broken ruleset to abuse.
Seeing as how non-FW is currently the norm, I'd say that's a fair compromise.
I see no reason for a 0-1 Codex Unit restriction.. Who am I compromising with on that one? Maybe a handful, at best, of crazy people who spend way too much time arguing on the internet? Nah.. Majority rules, buddy.
Yes, a man who sees reason! Cheers
Needle- MVBrandt runs the Nova Open, not AdeptiCon... AdeptiCon did the survey, as should've been pretty clear from the link
"Needle- MVBrandt runs the Nova Open, not AdeptiCon... AdeptiCon did the survey, as should've been pretty clear from the link " My mistake...I clicked the link to the results and did not look where I was. I am sorry.
I know these debates tend to go in circles, but just to look at this "glass half full" as muwhe said- Almost half of those surveyed were open to some FW allowance! So, that is pretty exciting from the "pro FW" point of view and for hobbyists, etc.
It's never going to make folks who want to run a FW army list (like Peregrine) happy, but even events that allow unrestricted FW tend to not allow FW army lists, so I don't think anything's going to satisfy him
For most people, though, this indicates people are open to seeing more FW in tournaments, just not ready to "open the floodgates" and see it included with no restrictions at all yet.
Yeah but my Elysian army is missing out on those tournaments as Elysians. The problem with letting in just a little is power gamers will bring in the broken units and those who do not know the armies will assume the Forge World Armies are broken...
That aside did anyone find out what the purple referenced in the pie chart? It was less than 2% but still would like to know what it represented...
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: The problem with letting in just a little is power gamers will bring in the broken units and those who do not know the armies will assume the Forge World Armies are broken...
Not from what I've seen- at the AdeptiCon team tourney last year, I faced 2 FW units, the nurgle plague drone and the big necron monster. Neither seemed broken and just facing one of each made it much more manageable for me to understand the rules for them on the fly, despite having never been exposed to either before.
I actually didn't understand why even events that allow FW tend to disallow the FW army lists. Muwhe (the organizer of AdeptiCon) made a great post explaining the reason for that:
muwhe wrote: The issue with 40k Forge World army lists is pretty simple. Forge World might release a book and that book may contain a some new units along with some army list for the “theme of the book” that allows those units to be taken in the army list section. That is all well and good. It also works generally well for a bit. However, at some future point Forge World will include updated versions of those units in an IA: Apocalypse book, or IA: Aeronautica or another compendium type book. Generally this involves some tweak to the unit rules, and/or a point change.
So now the most current version of these unit rules exist in the latest book release. At the same time it is pretty seldom that the entire army list from that book gets an updated. So most of the time you are left with an army list still having the old listing.
By my thought process you are left with two options if you want to allow Forge World army lists.
1. Take it upon yourself to tie out all the army lists to the most current unit rules and make any needed adjustments to the army lists.
2. Allow the older lists, and accept that you will have the same model being played under different rules. Including the distinct possibility that someone may have that same model in both a primary and ally detachment functioning differently.
Option 1: This could be a lot of work depending on the release schedule. Events as you well know have to balance time and resources. Even at events like AdeptiCon the percentage of people that would take advantage and run a Forge World army are pretty small. Is the effort required worth it or is that time and effort better spent someplace it can have a bigger impact on more attendees? I generally feel it is to small of an impact for the work required and as an event organizer my time is better spent elsewhere.
Option 2: One of biggest complaints we hear with regard to Forgeworld is “knowing” the rules. I just think that it is a bad idea to have identical models on the table or being played at the event, that are using different rules. It is asking for trouble, can lead to bad feelings and misunderstandings. All things we prefer to avoid.
So in the end, it is one thing to allow Forge World units. Allowing army lists creates additional considerations.
All that said we have at times, with the Gladiator allowed some selected army lists. I also think you can make a stronger case to allow the Warhammer Forge WFB lists, as generally there is a lot less change happening at Warhammer Forge.
@Peregrine: Check the last few sentences from the paragraph of mine you paraphrased. The fact that the majority is willing to compromise at all with the minority shouldn't be taken for granted. Extreme opinions like yours serve only to put-off those who are on the fence from even discussing the issue. Start running your own tournaments; good luck finding 10 people that want to play by your rules.
@Needle: With the new Codex:Inquisitor, you should have no problem fielding a very reasonable Counts-As Elysian IG/C:I army.
I have fun playing with FW but will be happy Tabling Reecius with or without FW in my list. Adepticon just tell me the rules and I'll table him either way. :p
The Jokes on you Reecius!! Even with my All Golden Forgeworld Army sitting across from your Eldar Army I would be the one pointing and asking "What's that Unit Do again?" "What is that's models Stats again?" and I would still crush you. But you are correct, we should let the last 3 times I've Tabled you in GTs dictate our next meeting. Anything is possible, right? Either way we will play with Class and a Cold Beverage and have an Epic time.
I am getting old, thanks for pointing that out. I forget that and where I left my keys more and more these days. You are a Class act GreyBush!
I am a bit surprised you "forgot" the last time we met across the Table. That was the time I showed you the proper way to play IG/SW and tabled you top of 3. Do you still get flash backs or wake up in a cold sweat over that one?
Bobthehero, I'm guessing you then need more than unlimited FW- you need FW army lists, too. As I quoted muwhe on the last page, even events (such as Reecius runs!) which allow FW seldom allow the army lists, as the units get updated piecemeal and not the entire list.
So you, as well as Peregrine, are asking for something almost no TO offers currently, and there's a reason for that! The challenges of doing so were listed in muwhe's quote last page, and even Reecius/Dugg aren't pushing for their allowance, nor are they allowed in Reecius' "unrestricted FW" events.
Just don't go to tournaments and play friendly games, problem solved.
I have not been to many tournaments, but the ones I've been to have brought around the realization that I should stop.
If you want to play 100% Forgeworld, just do it, don't look to a tournament to allow you to play it. I'm sure at any LGS you're more then welcome to play Forgeworld, I know I am wherever I play down here. Let's just face facts, tournaments won't EVER go 100% Forgeworld until Forgeworld just starts releasing Codex-type books instead of hundreds of IA lists with bunches of errata and changes in consecutive books.
I mean is it really that hard for Forgeworld to release a book Codex: Elysians, or Codex: Death Korps?? In the end, Forgeworld is more of a narrative team then a straight up rules team, and I know this has been said and fought down, but I believe that to be the reason they don't just release Codex type books.
I'm all for 100% Forgeworld, but I understand the restrictions at tournaments, it's already 110% of their work to get the venues, prizes, and players... now they have to go through the FW books and compile all the latest versions? Nah, just play in regular games, I don't find tournaments to be 'Standard' games.
Since you asked needle, no. Your viewpoint is unrestricted fw. Nearly 80% of those polled disagree with you. Not even 50% want even restricted forgeworld. Just the way it is. And as others have pointed out, the pro fw crowd would be better off noting that at least quite a few people are ok with a little bit. It destroys your position entirely to subsequently either spit on that outcome or try to spin it as broader than it is.
Matt also makes an excellent point. Tournament organizers are bracketed with myriad costs and concerns. None of these prevent playing with any rules, even ones you make up yourself, on a daily basis.
Dugg wrote: I am getting old, thanks for pointing that out. I forget that and where I left my keys more and more these days. You are a Class act GreyBush!
I am a bit surprised you "forgot" the last time we met across the Table. That was the time I showed you the proper way to play IG/SW and tabled you top of 3. Do you still get flash backs or wake up in a cold sweat over that one?
You didn't table me, I conceded! hahaha
@Thread
And guys, this argument has run its course. If you like FW cool, if not, cool. Room for both types of events.
Reecius, I like your posts man but you started this thread, then you want to end it when discussion points to data that doesn't line up with your stance. You just laid out the exact wrong takeaway to draw from this data, imo, so forgive me for picking out this phrase:
If you like FW cool, if not, cool.
That's not what I'm getting from it- in fact, just the opposite! That there is a middle ground! I'm getting fed up with the idea that I'm either on the short bus or not, the party bus or not, etc. The poll points to a lot of folks (and I'll call out Hulksmash here as one of them, since he voted in it) that want, and are open, to a compromise position. Allowing in some FW for a start, but not unlimited.
It really doesn't have to be the the jocks versus the nerds here. That baseball playing kid just learned about sabermetrics. And that nerd just discovered all the angles required to play racquetball well, or something. Again, forgive me the analogies but the point is, and I'm going to capitalize this:
It doesn't have to be one or the other!
Okay. Got that off my chest. But please, every time the discussion starts to go somewhere, I see you say "Haha guys it's cool nevermind I'll play with FW you do whatever you want". While that's fine to say, a lot of folks are actually interested in possible other outcomes than "live and let live" here, and some of those may indeed be more events starting to allow 0-1 selection of any FW unit or the like. To me, that'd be a great win for all sides. Blackmoor is open to it, and I have to assume you're open to it. What's not to love about that!
Cheers
Edit: Oh, and don't go getting Dakka added to China's ban list with first Alpharius, now you and Dugg posting from over there . They're going to wonder what's going on!
Any other Pro FW players surprised the pro votes where that high even? I was. I thought this was pretty cool actually. This means people are coming around. I am curious how many of the Con votes were outside of the US players. I would guess a majority, after talking so much with my buddies abroad that run events.
I have faith that this will happen, eventually. It might take some time. I know I'm a big Pro FW guy, but I think it's fun and enjoy it and I hope you guys come over to the FW side. IT'S A BLAST!!!
And guys, this argument has run its course. If you like FW cool, if not, cool. Room for both types of events.
Viva la variety!
Reese, now that you have seen the results from tournament players do you wonder how much money you have left on the table?
I have been a big supporter of Frontline Gaming events in the past, but after the inclusion of Forge World I have cooled on them. I did not go to Anime-Expo or Duelcon because of this, so I know that it cost you some money.
Reading HippestHippo’s post he is reluctant to buy a LVO ticket because of this. I am sure that I am not the only one and there are others who feel this way as well.
Dugg wrote: I am curious how many of the Con votes were outside of the US players. I would guess a majority, after talking so much with my buddies abroad that run events.
That is pure speculation that "con" votes were from non-US players
Dugg wrote:I hope you guys come over to the FW side.
The whole point of my above post is that it doesn't have to be a "side". There is a great compromise position, I don't know why you choose to completely ignore it in your posts (Reecius as well).
Many more folks will "come around", as you say, if you embrace a position that allows limited FW. Of those surveyed, less than 20% agree with the position you and Reecius have been pushing for!
I'm hammering on this because your posts/dialogue seem unchanged even when discussing a poll like this. Why won't you consider a middle ground position for starters? When Reecius says "Viva la variety", why would you (referring to Reecius now) not consider running an event that allows limited FW, just for variety and to let people dip their toes in? It does not have to be "all or nothing".
And guys, this argument has run its course. If you like FW cool, if not, cool. Room for both types of events.
Viva la variety!
Reese, now that you have seen the results from tournament players do you wonder how much money you have left on the table?
I have been a big supporter of Frontline Gaming events in the past, but after the inclusion of Forge World I have cooled on them. I did not go to Anime-Expo or Duelcon because of this, so I know that is cost you some money.
Reading HippestHippo’s post he is reluctant to buy a LVO ticket because of this. I am sure that I am not the only one and there are others who feel this way as well.
It's actually the reason I won't consider LVO as well - I know you guys put on a good show, but at the end of the day its a moderately expensive trip due to flying (compared to other GTs) and has a format (full FW) I don't care for at all. So if I went, i'd really just be going to be in Vegas, which I can schedule on my own. That being said, different strokes for different folks and such, and it sounds like it'll be a success regardless, but there may be room to take a middle ground and garner more attendees
Well, don't let this discourage future LVO's... I am not a tournament fan, but my friend and I are definitely in for this if you do it again the following year!
Matt1785 wrote: What's better then Vegas? 40K AND Vegas... yes.
40K, Vegas, and limited FW allowance, maybe?
I'm just saying "Viva la variety" means that, it'd be really great to see a variety of events offered out west. I'm on the east coast so it's not an issue for me, but it seems Frontline only runs "unrestricted FW" events now.
By the same token, it'd be great to see some limited FW allowance added to some events on the east coast that currently don't allow any FW (not all events, just some ).
The open season on FW has been a reason quite a few of the locals in my area who travel x'd vegas off their plans for next year.
Personally, I'm in the same boat at Target. You guys run great events from what I hear (I moved before you got rolling) but I'm just not enough of a fan of all FW40k to fly to Vegas for the weekend. And it's something I would likely put on my calendar if it was limited FW. But it'll likely be a great event even without me there (some would say better ).
Counter-point: Allowing FW units at LVO actually encouraged me to sign up.
I *like* the variety FW brings to the game. I *enjoy* having to adapt and overcome the challenges that FW units can bring to the table. I'm actually considering bringing a list w/o any FW units. Just to see if I can take on the "supposed unfair FW units".
My motto?
"Bring it bish!"
Played a Scorpian list recently with Loth.
Loth still went down under a hail storm of splinter cannons. 'cuz everyon knows it's just an beaky!
Just as a thought...I suspect that had you polled people on Special Characters in say, 2006, your responses would have been similar, with Special Characters still requiring opponents permission and often/usually banned at many tournaments.
Such a practice just a couple years later would engender nothing but ridicule.
Vaktathi wrote: Just as a thought...I suspect that had you polled people on Special Characters in say, 2006, your responses would have been similar, with Special Characters still requiring opponents permission and often/usually banned at many tournaments.
Such a practice just a couple years later would engender nothing but ridicule.
That is because GW removed the wording in codexes that special characters were with opponent’s permission...that and the fact that back then special characters sucked.
And if, as rumored, GW similarly changes/clarifes/WhateverVerbYouWant their stance regarding FW to make it "more mainstream", you will be right Vaktathi. But that has not happened yet... I will be happy when it does, one way or the other
I think the finecast going away / going to FW production rumor ties into this, too- that would certainly spur GW to make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that all FW products are allowed. So, maybe we'll finally get that over and done with in 2014
Vaktathi wrote: Just as a thought...I suspect that had you polled people on Special Characters in say, 2006, your responses would have been similar, with Special Characters still requiring opponents permission and often/usually banned at many tournaments.
Such a practice just a couple years later would engender nothing but ridicule.
That is because GW removed the wording in codexes that special characters were with opponent’s permission...that and the fact that back then special characters sucked.
The "Opponents Permission" thing remained a written rule in many codex books up until they got replaced in 5th edition, the rule still existed after the convention became ignored for many armies.
The convention of "opponents permission' however is something that people realized applies to literally everything and you can't force someone to play against anything they don't want to, leading to FW's statement of "Our units are official Warhammer 40,000 units. If someone does not wish to play against our units, as they may not wish to play against a Codex:Tau Empire Army for example, that is their decision." FW has stated that they make units intended to be used in 'standard' games of Warhammer 40,000, within the usual limitations of Codex selection and force organisation charts (almost word for word there).
It would appear the situation isn't much different, even many FW units also suck (just as with SC's, some suck, some are really good).
RiTides wrote: And if, as rumored, GW similarly changes/clarifes/WhateverVerbYouWant their stance regarding FW to make it "more mainstream", you will be right Vaktathi. But that has not happened yet... I will be happy when it does, one way or the other
I will be too, I hope this happens, however as I explained earlier, I don't know if we'll ever get such a statement, because from GW's perspective, they already have and they don't need executive management to do it.
I think the finecast going away / going to FW production rumor ties into this, too- that would certainly spur GW to make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that all FW products are allowed. So, maybe we'll finally get that over and done with in 2014
Vaktathi wrote: Just as a thought...I suspect that had you polled people on Special Characters in say, 2006, your responses would have been similar, with Special Characters still requiring opponents permission and often/usually banned at many tournaments.
Such a practice just a couple years later would engender nothing but ridicule.
That is because GW removed the wording in codexes that special characters were with opponent’s permission...that and the fact that back then special characters sucked.
But when FW removes same special wording it doesn't count. Amazing the double standards some people have about the same company.
Vaktathi wrote: Just as a thought...I suspect that had you polled people on Special Characters in say, 2006, your responses would have been similar, with Special Characters still requiring opponents permission and often/usually banned at many tournaments.
Such a practice just a couple years later would engender nothing but ridicule.
That is because GW removed the wording in codexes that special characters were with opponent’s permission...that and the fact that back then special characters sucked.
But when FW removes same special wording it doesn't count. Amazing the double standards some people have about the same company.
I hate to point this out, but BFG, who's FW is far more broken then 40k's will ever be, allowed FW at Adepticon last year.
The world did not end. No villages were burned, no women raped, no daemons summoned.
The change to meta was far, far less than the release of, say, FAQ 2010.
This is the same group of people who screamed and shat themselves when space marines were offered the ability to swap the BC for single str 2 lance weapon on the SM strike cruiser for no additional points. For those not into the game, they are two broadly similar weapons at roughly the same str value.
FW ships for BFG are freaking awesome. But there aren't nearly as many units for BFG as there are for 40k from FW.
The same is true for fantasy, chaos dwarfs are easy to allow as it's just one list in one book. 40k is a very different beast, and the work required to include it is a lot more severe than for BFG or fantasy.
Haha, you guys, read the title of the thread, this was obviously a joke from day one. I totally accept that I started this so, fair enough, I take responsibility for that, but I reserve the right to declare when it has gone to absurd level! haha
@Blackmoor
Blackmoor, bud, you do support our events by coming to most of them but you have talked more gak about them than any single person on the internet, ever, by a large margin. If you come or not you will still talk about what happened, probably critically and then follow it up with, but I like the guys and will probably go to the event, like you always do. Either way it doesn't matter, because you'll still find something to be critical about, haha, it's just the way you are. Some people will come with FW, some won't. The people posting on these and other forums tend to represent a very vocal minority of people so we don't worry too much about this chatter here. It is almost entirely anecdotal, anyway.
@RiTides
I am not saying stop the conversation, I am saying it's run its course and we're bored with it. Look at Doug and my posts through the thread, we're just goofing off at this point because what's been said has been said. Some people seem to think Adepticon's poll is a victory one way or the other when all it is is a sample of opinion of people who go to that specific event and it shows what we already know: a lot of folks want it both ways. Our polls have showed the people who go to our events want FW so there you have it.
You guys can keep going round and round with it if you choose, but I am tired of it, personally. I am getting off of the merry-go-round.
@Hulk and Co.
If you guys choose not to go because you may play against FW, OK. That is your choice. Some folks choose not to go because it is in Vegas (believe it or not) or because we use layered missions or because they don't like us or because they don't like no comp events, or no sports, or player placed terrain, or no player placed terrain, or competitive events or whatever. On pretty much every issue you can think of pertaining to running a tournament we've had folks tell us this issue or another is a deal breaker for them.
Long story short, we can't and won't please everyone. We don't even care if we please everyone, haha, just as many as we can. We strive to please everyone but accept it is an impossible goal to achieve in actuality. And, according to our polls, data shows us unequivocally that the people that want to go to our events want FW. if that changes, so will we. Easy peasy.
So, come and have fun to our event if you want, it looks like it's going to sell out with or without you FW opponents either way so no sweat off our back. We'd love to see you come of course, genuinely, but we won't shed any tears if you don't.
And just for the record Blackmoor, this is not meant to be an attack, just some friendly teasing as you so publicly oppose 
