http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3640318a_Warriors_code_V1.3.pdf

That is GW's tournament policy.

Of course, we don't have to use this if we choose not to, but this sets precedent that it's all in.

So do you want the D or the B(an)?!

It seems to be one or the other, now =)

Discuss.

Nope, thanks anyway GW.

Thank you GW !

Now i really need to watch the tournament threads.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Nope, thanks anyway GW.

Perfect response. This doesn't change anything about anything. More than the reaction to this, I'm interested in following this thread just to see how long it takes Blackmoor to point out that FW isn't listed as being allowed and using that as a justification to argue again that Reece should drop it.

It really doesn't change anything. Already many events from NOVA to LVO violate the policy and allow FW in some or all of their events (in their code, only FW models are allowed, while none of their rules are included).

I don't see the NOVA Narrative or the LVO, for example, following GW lead and banning Forgeworld rules.

*shrug*

Frankly GW's I guess trying to put TOs in a lose lose situation? It'd be nicer if they'd just say "Thanks for putting on the biggest and coolest events around that thousands of our attendees show up for and invest lots of money getting ready for!"

Is that just their official tourney rules, or are they telling you if you try and use other rules than this in a tournament you cant?

 tomjoad wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Nope, thanks anyway GW.

Perfect response. This doesn't change anything about anything. More than the reaction to this, I'm interested in following this thread just to see how long it takes Blackmoor to point out that FW isn't listed as being allowed and using that as a justification to argue again that Reece should drop it.

You know Alan isn't the only one against FW inclusion. I am as well, and there are many others. He is just the most vocal about it because it drastically influences his attendance at tournaments and most of the westcoast ones are run, or influenced by, Reece now so FW is in.

I am not passionate enough about FW being included, nor a good enough player to place high enough at a GT for it to matter, that I will not attend a tournament because of it. Reece knows I am just as opposed to FW being included as Blackmoor, it's just how vocal we are about it that differs.

The person this will really get going is Peregrine. Just saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MVBrandt wrote:
It really doesn't change anything. Already many events from NOVA to LVO violate the policy and allow FW in some or all of their events (in their code, only FW models are allowed, while none of their rules are included).

I don't see the NOVA Narrative or the LVO, for example, following GW lead and banning Forgeworld rules.

*shrug*

Frankly GW's I guess trying to put TOs in a lose lose situation? It'd be nicer if they'd just say "Thanks for putting on the biggest and coolest events around that thousands of our attendees show up for and invest lots of money getting ready for!"

Not to mention tournaments haven't required GW models only for a long, long time. So this document is pretty much moot from their own first few criteria onwards.

I wish there was an ignore button for GW corporate tournament announcements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
Is that just their official tourney rules, or are they telling you if you try and use other rules than this in a tournament you cant?

They can't do the latter so the point is moot.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The person this will really get going is Peregrine. Just saying.

Not really. We already know that GW's own events suck and their rules are irrelevant, so this just re-confirms my lack of interest in flying to the UK to play in a bad tournament.

MVBrandt wrote:
It really doesn't change anything. Already many events from NOVA to LVO violate the policy and allow FW in some or all of their events (in their code, only FW models are allowed, while none of their rules are included).

I don't see the NOVA Narrative or the LVO, for example, following GW lead and banning Forgeworld rules.

*shrug*

Frankly GW's I guess trying to put TOs in a lose lose situation? It'd be nicer if they'd just say "Thanks for putting on the biggest and coolest events around that thousands of our attendees show up for and invest lots of money getting ready for!"

For the purpose of the big tournaments this doesn't mean much. But for all those players that start the game at GW stores and are sluffed off to the FLGSes; it matters. Any FLGS that runs it's own tournaments without bothering to look up how Nova or Adepticon does it; it matters. Going forward this is what 40K is to any new player who hasn't found his way to Dakka, or the Bols blog roll.

 Peregrine wrote:
Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

This doesn't really mean jack diddly because those are for events at Warhammer World, so unless we all have to pack our bags and head to Nottingham, I think we're safe.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
It really doesn't change anything. Already many events from NOVA to LVO violate the policy and allow FW in some or all of their events (in their code, only FW models are allowed, while none of their rules are included).

I don't see the NOVA Narrative or the LVO, for example, following GW lead and banning Forgeworld rules.

*shrug*

Frankly GW's I guess trying to put TOs in a lose lose situation? It'd be nicer if they'd just say "Thanks for putting on the biggest and coolest events around that thousands of our attendees show up for and invest lots of money getting ready for!"

For the purpose of the big tournaments this doesn't mean much. But for all those players that start the game at GW stores and are sluffed off to the FLGSes; it matters. Any FLGS that runs it's own tournaments without bothering to look up how Nova or Adepticon does it; it matters. Going forward this is what 40K is to any new player who hasn't found his way to Dakka, or the Bols blog roll.

I agree. That's why (again) it doesn't change anything.

That said, that's only really how local GW's will necessarily always do it. Many of the LGS in the NOVA area, for instance, often use NOVA formatted missions and rules. The same is no doubt true in other areas. AT the least, many LGS type environments often use pieces or entireties of many of the big/popular formats.

Either way you slice it, events that were using GW guidance as a baseline will continue to do so, events that weren't won't (B/c these guidelines are silly), and that's sorta "that."

Personally I am no fan of forgeworld, not for the models, but the shady way the company is running it. Oh hey, we are going to sell you big expensive detailed models, but there not REALLY our models. We are going to change the rules frequently, and make access to those rules very restricted, and spread them out over multiple books. Is your friend running a contemptor mortis dread with the old more advantageous rules from a previous edition and your not sure if they have been updated to be more balanced in the last few years? Guess you better take his word for it. We COULD add these units into the parent codex when it gets reprinted, but LOL why would we do that when you could buy TWO books to do the same thing.

Oh and we don't want the headaches of figuring out if the rules we made for them are remotely balanced, so to avoid any kind of problems your not allowed to use them. At our own companies functions. The company that made them. Because we don't play test and theres no way we can know if someone will come with some obscure list with units we made and just make the game look like the joke of tabletop rules gaming we all deny it is.

That's my problem with forgeworld.

 Orock wrote:
Personally I am no fan of forgeworld, not for the models, but the shady way the company is running it. Oh hey, we are going to sell you big expensive detailed models, but there not REALLY our models. We are going to change the rules frequently, and make access to those rules very restricted, and spread them out over multiple books. Is your friend running a contemptor mortis dread with the old more advantageous rules from a previous edition and your not sure if they have been updated to be more balanced in the last few years? Guess you better take his word for it. We COULD add these units into the parent codex when it gets reprinted, but LOL why would we do that when you could buy TWO books to do the same thing.

Oh and we don't want the headaches of figuring out if the rules we made for them are remotely balanced, so to avoid any kind of problems your not allowed to use them. At our own companies functions. The company that made them. Because we don't play test and theres no way we can know if someone will come with some obscure list with units we made and just make the game look like the joke of tabletop rules gaming we all deny it is.

That's my problem with forgeworld.

Exalted for good measure.

 Orock wrote:
Personally I am no fan of forgeworld, not for the models, but the shady way the company is running it. Oh hey, we are going to sell you big expensive detailed models, but there not REALLY our models. We are going to change the rules frequently, and make access to those rules very restricted, and spread them out over multiple books. Is your friend running a contemptor mortis dread with the old more advantageous rules from a previous edition and your not sure if they have been updated to be more balanced in the last few years? Guess you better take his word for it. We COULD add these units into the parent codex when it gets reprinted, but LOL why would we do that when you could buy TWO books to do the same thing.

Oh and we don't want the headaches of figuring out if the rules we made for them are remotely balanced, so to avoid any kind of problems your not allowed to use them. At our own companies functions. The company that made them. Because we don't play test and theres no way we can know if someone will come with some obscure list with units we made and just make the game look like the joke of tabletop rules gaming we all deny it is.

That's my problem with forgeworld.

While lots and lots and lots of people have lots of problems with Forgeworld rules that are pretty widely variable, and while lots and lots and lots of people think FW rules are the greatest and should be legal everywhere, that's not really the thrust of this thread.

FW rules are just an example, b/c if you for some reason think these Warrior's Code rules are the "official" way GW thinks their game should be played in an organized way, any event that uses FW rules is not how GW thinks it should be done (while, simultaneously, any event that has a fortuned Revenant Titan standing on a skyshield and huddling within 9 void shields ... is totally legit and well reasoned!).

That said, your example is a good enough one. GW's own home events won't use FW rules ...

But whatever, they will use fortuned Revenants hiding inside void shield batteries. I don't know why anyone thinks those new options are good for almost ... anyone. I also don't know why tournaments want to legalize esca, then immediately and tacitly acknowledge it's not OK by banning half of it.

Good point, Orock. Definitely keep using the regular Codexes and digital releases that are definitely tested and balanced and everything. Thankfully, Forge World is clearly less fair than the "main" books.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Orock wrote:
Personally I am no fan of forgeworld, not for the models, but the shady way the company is running it. Oh hey, we are going to sell you big expensive detailed models, but there not REALLY our models. We are going to change the rules frequently, and make access to those rules very restricted, and spread them out over multiple books. Is your friend running a contemptor mortis dread with the old more advantageous rules from a previous edition and your not sure if they have been updated to be more balanced in the last few years? Guess you better take his word for it. We COULD add these units into the parent codex when it gets reprinted, but LOL why would we do that when you could buy TWO books to do the same thing.

Oh and we don't want the headaches of figuring out if the rules we made for them are remotely balanced, so to avoid any kind of problems your not allowed to use them. At our own companies functions. The company that made them. Because we don't play test and theres no way we can know if someone will come with some obscure list with units we made and just make the game look like the joke of tabletop rules gaming we all deny it is.

That's my problem with forgeworld.

While lots and lots and lots of people have lots of problems with Forgeworld rules that are pretty widely variable, and while lots and lots and lots of people think FW rules are the greatest and should be legal everywhere, that's not really the thrust of this thread.

FW rules are just an example, b/c if you for some reason think these Warrior's Code rules are the "official" way GW thinks their game should be played in an organized way, any event that uses FW rules is not how GW thinks it should be done (while, simultaneously, any event that has a fortuned Revenant Titan standing on a skyshield and huddling within 9 void shields ... is totally legit and well reasoned!).

Why do you have to out my new most broken strategy for clawing my way into the top brackets with the least amount of skill and work required!

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

It's tournament guidelines for one location, a place that only runs only a couple major tournaments a year. The same place which, last week, said Escalation would not be included

Far as I'm concerned, once they shut down US events and stopped running US tournaments GW's opinion are mute. Just a bunch of brits trying to force rules on the colonies :p

No Escalation without representation!

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

It's tournament guidelines for one location, a place that only runs only a couple major tournaments a year. The same place which, last week, said Escalation would not be included

It was still published by GW.

MVBrandt wrote:


I agree. That's why (again) it doesn't change anything.

That said, that's only really how local GW's will necessarily always do it. Many of the LGS in the NOVA area, for instance, often use NOVA formatted missions and rules. The same is no doubt true in other areas. AT the least, many LGS type environments often use pieces or entireties of many of the big/popular formats.

Either way you slice it, events that were using GW guidance as a baseline will continue to do so, events that weren't won't (B/c these guidelines are silly), and that's sorta "that."

I just preemptively feel bad for the 13 year old kid who gets a Baneblade for his birthday and decides to bring it to that tournament he just head about at the LGS. The nice salesman at the GW store said it was totally legal in any game of 40K. The rule book and official website even backs it up.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

Since when is a set of rules for tournaments part of the rules for the normal game? You realize that GW's events have always done things that aren't part of the normal rules, right? Like limiting how many points you can spend on allies for the first year or so of 6th? These rules are no more relevant to the rest of us than any other random TO's personal house rules.

just preemptively feel bad for the 13 year old kid who gets a Baneblade for his birthday and decides to bring it to that tournament he just head about at the LGS. The nice salesman at the GW store said it was totally legal in any game of 40K. The rule book and official website even backs it up.

Sucks for that kid then I suppose. There is absolutely no guarantee of people wanting to play against X unit, regardless of if GW says so.

If the mythical little timmy bought 6 Necron flyers at the beginning of 6th and gingerly skipped down to the LGS to play.. He'd probably be disappointed at a lack of opponents also.

He'll get over it, or he won't.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
It was still published by GW.

But it was not published for standard 40k. It was published for specific events at a specific location and has nothing to do with the game played by the rest of us.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
It was still published by GW.

But it was not published for standard 40k. It was published for specific events at a specific location and has nothing to do with the game played by the rest of us.

Neither was the majority of FW.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

It's tournament guidelines for one location, a place that only runs only a couple major tournaments a year. The same place which, last week, said Escalation would not be included

It was still published by GW.

yes, but it's only relevant at Warhammer World, and even then only for Throne of Skulls events, interpreting it as being relevant to anything outside of that would erroneous.

I dunno, I'm just at the point were I just don't get the anti-FW feeling. I mean, we've got codex armies capable of making rerollable 2+ Invulnerable save deathstar units, ridiculous allies combinations, formations that don't take FoC slots and don't pay additional points imparting very powerful abilities, armies that can ally with slight variations of themselves, superheavy tanks and titans and flyers in normal sized games...and people still treat FW like it's some 3rd party homebrew and I'm looking around going "hey ahh...have you *SEEN* what GW's putting out these days?"

I mean, GW wouldn't make this stuff or employ people to create it at their HQ if they didn't want people to use it. The Warhammer World staff may just not want to have to deal with verifying lists including FW stuff and chose not to include as a unilateral decision on their part for their events, doesn't necessarily reflect GW's intended stance for use outside of there.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Neither was the majority of FW.

The statements in the books saying "this is for standard 40k" disagree with you. If you can't see the difference between a FW book saying "this is official and intended for standard 40k" and a GW tournament policy document that only applies to events at one GW store, well, I don't know what to say to you since you're obviously not looking for a constructive discussion.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Everything GW publishes for standard 40k, including codices, supplements, Forge World, and White Dwarf, is part of the game. You can choose not to play with or against any of them, but don't pretend that your choice is anything but a house rule.

You may want to take a second look at your sig then. Turns out GW just published something, their tournament guidelines, that flies in the face of your own assertions.

It's tournament guidelines for one location, a place that only runs only a couple major tournaments a year. The same place which, last week, said Escalation would not be included

It was still published by GW.

yes, but it's only relevant at Warhammer World, and even then only for Throne of Skulls events, interpreting it as being relevant to anything outside of that would erroneous.

I dunno, I'm just at the point were I just don't get the anti-FW feeling. I mean, we've got codex armies capable of making rerollable 2+ Invulnerable save deathstar units, ridiculous allies combinations, formations that don't take FoC slots and don't pay additional points imparting very powerful abilities, armies that can ally with slight variations of themselves, superheavy tanks and titans and flyers in normal sized games...and people still treat FW like it's some 3rd party homebrew and I'm looking around going "hey ahh...have you *SEEN* what GW's putting out these days?"

I think nothing is happening to the game to make the majority of those leery of FW any less leery, and things are happening that are making people even leery about non-FW stuff.

No one is denying there's a large, large # of players who really want FW in events ... which is why nearly every major event allows them in various ways (from "some at-con events" to "all at-con events").

But when GW releases its OWN HQ Tourney rules and doesn't even include 'em, it's not engendering confidence.

I think we can all agree very few people will be happy if tournaments worldwide start mimicking the warriors' code, so this is another post of GW POSTED SOMETHING OFFICIAL, BOYS that's utterly pointless.

Reece, got enough threads yet?

 tomjoad wrote:
Good point, Orock. Definitely keep using the regular Codexes and digital releases that are definitely tested and balanced and everything. Thankfully, Forge World is clearly less fair than the "main" books.

At least GW dosent pretend they don't exist. And local tournaments more and more are putting reasonable restrictions in place for broken stuff, like our store has a 0-2 on any unit not troops, to try and cut down on cheese. I would love it if we could just cherry pick as a democracy and vote for every single unit, FW or GW, to be banned or restricted for competitive play. But since we cant, and one persons opinion on a forgeworld unit might differ from anothers, the easiest thing to do is restrict it all from competitive play.

The day the TO's get together, give gw the finger, and come up with a definitive list of banned/restricted/allowed units as a whole (as in FW AND GW units), I will gladly wish forgeworld blanket bans a bon voyage.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Neither was the majority of FW.

The statements in the books saying "this is for standard 40k" disagree with you. If you can't see the difference between a FW book saying "this is official and intended for standard 40k" and a GW tournament policy document that only applies to events at one GW store, well, I don't know what to say to you since you're obviously not looking for a constructive discussion.

You're also not looking for a constructive discussion. Your position is "if you aren't using FW at all events and in all formats and in all ways, you're not playing the game right." It's a frustrating point of view for most TOs and others, since no amount of middle ground will satisfy. And look, I don't think you HAVE to look for constructive discussion with anyone, but to decry someone for what you perceive not to be when it isn't something you practice (namely, there's no possible give in your outlook prior to entering into any discussion involving FW) personally seems a little backwards. In other news I'm a big fan of not listening to GW's own prescriptions for what to play or how, and instead just putting on a wide variety of events that give all player types the opportunity to enjoy and play around with their hobby models!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
Good point, Orock. Definitely keep using the regular Codexes and digital releases that are definitely tested and balanced and everything. Thankfully, Forge World is clearly less fair than the "main" books.

At least GW dosent pretend they don't exist. And local tournaments more and more are putting reasonable restrictions in place for broken stuff, like our store has a 0-2 on any unit not troops, to try and cut down on cheese. I would love it if we could just cherry pick as a democracy and vote for every single unit, FW or GW, to be banned or restricted for competitive play. But since we cant, and one persons opinion on a forgeworld unit might differ from anothers, the easiest thing to do is restrict it all from competitive play.

The day the TO's get together, give gw the finger, and come up with a definitive list of banned/restricted/allowed units as a whole (as in FW AND GW units), I will gladly wish forgeworld blanket bans a bon voyage.

W.I.P.

MVBrandt wrote:
But when GW releases its OWN HQ Tourney rules and doesn't even include 'em, it's not engendering confidence.

See, you even said yourself why these rules shouldn't inspire confidence, or destroy confidence, or really do anything at all besides let us all laugh at GW for a bit:

I think we can all agree very few people will be happy if tournaments worldwide start mimicking the warriors' code, so this is another post of GW POSTED SOMETHING OFFICIAL, BOYS that's utterly pointless.

And this is exactly correct. Nobody is using these rules in their own events, and I doubt very many people even think they're a good idea. So why treat them as anything more than some random sales intern throwing together some random words about BUY MORE GW PRODUCTS!!!!!!! without having any clue what they're doing?

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
But when GW releases its OWN HQ Tourney rules and doesn't even include 'em, it's not engendering confidence.

See, you even said yourself why these rules shouldn't inspire confidence, or destroy confidence, or really do anything at all besides let us all laugh at GW for a bit:

I think we can all agree very few people will be happy if tournaments worldwide start mimicking the warriors' code, so this is another post of GW POSTED SOMETHING OFFICIAL, BOYS that's utterly pointless.

And this is exactly correct. Nobody is using these rules in their own events, and I doubt very many people even think they're a good idea. So why treat them as anything more than some random sales intern throwing together some random words about BUY MORE GW PRODUCTS!!!!!!! without having any clue what they're doing?

My initial and continuing input on this thread re: FW is that I don't think the NOVA, or LVO, or AdeptiCon, or anyone else is going to suddenly change what they do since according to Warhammer World we're illegally allowing FW rules. We're in agreement here. Any ongoing difference in opinion between you and I on whether every tournament organizer should be peer pressured into legalizing FW in every single event and event format they run is indie of this discussion, in which we completely agree. The Warrior's Code is neither official nor in any way relevant to any of us.

MVBrandt wrote:
Your position is "if you aren't using FW at all events and in all formats and in all ways, you're not playing the game right."

You're right. But that is my personal opinion, motivated by a desire to make tournaments as inclusive as possible and not tell people that they're unwelcome because they play DKoK instead of screamerstar or Riptide spam. That's entirely different than saying ridiculous things like "FW rules weren't published for normal 40k", which is just factually wrong. The statement I objected to wasn't an attempt at having a discussion about what the rules should be, it was an attempt to catch me in some kind of "hypocrisy" and win a forum argument.

It's a frustrating point of view for most TOs and others, since no amount of middle ground will satisfy.

That's because things like allowing 0-1 FW unit are not really a middle ground. In fact there really isn't much middle ground at all, either I can go to an event or I can't. Having a 0-1 option is still effectively the same as saying "stay home, you're not welcome here".

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Your position is "if you aren't using FW at all events and in all formats and in all ways, you're not playing the game right."

You're right. But that is my personal opinion, motivated by a desire to make tournaments as inclusive as possible and not tell people that they're unwelcome because they play DKoK instead of screamerstar or Riptide spam. That's entirely different than saying ridiculous things like "FW rules weren't published for normal 40k", which is just factually wrong. The statement I objected to wasn't an attempt at having a discussion about what the rules should be, it was an attempt to catch me in some kind of "hypocrisy" and win a forum argument.

It's a frustrating point of view for most TOs and others, since no amount of middle ground will satisfy.

That's because things like allowing 0-1 FW unit are not really a middle ground. In fact there really isn't much middle ground at all, either I can go to an event or I can't. Having a 0-1 option is still effectively the same as saying "stay home, you're not welcome here".

Well, then you are as open to constructive discussion as the person you went after for not being open to it. Namely, you aren't at all.

I also don't mean to say this aggressively ... cordial tone I hope .. just struck me as odd that you'd target someone for a lack of interest in constructive discussion when you also lack that interest, on this subject.

Once again, about the Warrior's Code I totally agree with you.

I like the part about "not getting bogged down in the details" followed by 3 pages of fine print details.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
But when GW releases its OWN HQ Tourney rules and doesn't even include 'em, it's not engendering confidence.

See, you even said yourself why these rules shouldn't inspire confidence, or destroy confidence, or really do anything at all besides let us all laugh at GW for a bit:

I think we can all agree very few people will be happy if tournaments worldwide start mimicking the warriors' code, so this is another post of GW POSTED SOMETHING OFFICIAL, BOYS that's utterly pointless.

And this is exactly correct. Nobody is using these rules in their own events, and I doubt very many people even think they're a good idea. So why treat them as anything more than some random sales intern throwing together some random words about BUY MORE GW PRODUCTS!!!!!!! without having any clue what they're doing?

My initial and continuing input on this thread re: FW is that I don't think the NOVA, or LVO, or AdeptiCon, or anyone else is going to suddenly change what they do since according to Warhammer World we're illegally allowing FW rules.

Two counters. First, since when is Warhammer World the arbiter of all play/tournament legality, and since when did any of those events base their events off of Warhammer World's rules? I don't recall such events enacting the same restrictions on allies that Warhammer World had last year for instance.

Also, the title of this thread is funny.

"It's all in" apparently doesn't include FW rules... but includes everything else and the kitchen sink...

Oh GW, what are you doing...

MVBrandt wrote:
I also don't mean to say this aggressively ... cordial tone I hope .. just struck me as odd that you'd target someone for a lack of interest in constructive discussion when you also lack that interest, on this subject.

I wasn't talking about their certainty in their position being right (which you're quite reasonably saying that I have), I was talking about how the comment I objected to was just an attempt to "prove" my "hypocrisy" in my signature rather than to have a constructive discussion. Holding an extreme no-FW position can be constructive. Posting something that is little more than "Peregrine sucks" isn't.

Muahahaha, it's madness! Madness I tell you!!!

All this says to me is that we are going to have to choose which rules to use and which not to use.

Easy, peasy.

What it means though, is that unless someone wants to play with the FW Named Daemons and D Slappers, they can't say they want to play "pure" 40K anymore!

Actually, that's a nice takeaway- this finally may do away with the idea that there is one "right" way to play, and everyone else is doing it wrong...

But it does leave very open to interpretation how to proceed, and it will be up to TOs to figure that out for their events... and hopefully there will be some homogeneity in that regard, and not a completely different type of game for any particular GT.

 Reecius wrote:
Muahahaha, it's madness! Madness I tell you!!!

All this says to me is that we are going to have to choose which rules to use and which not to use.

Easy, peasy.

What it means though, is that unless someone wants to play with the FW Named Daemons and D Slappers, they can't say they want to play "pure" 40K anymore!

Untrue, Reece. Your warhammer world link excludes FW.

@Mike

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/L/lordsofwar.pdf

But seriously, who cares?! haha

The point of this thread is celarly to overreact and go crazy!! Ahhhh!!, Ahhh!! It's all madness!

Get with the program! hahaha

@RiTides

Yeah, it's up to us to figure it out. It always was, really.

Everything will be fine, I think in the long run this will actually be good as it gives us so many more options.

For now though, business as usual.

6 months ago I might have been hesitant to start just ignoring GW's published stuff... but like the increasing plastered drunk in the bar during a serious moment with the guys, sometimes the loud idiot in the room just needs to be tossed out into the street and ignored until he comes to his senses.

Yeay lets all jump on the crazy train !!!

But... I want to field Zarakynel AS Zarakynel, not as a no name keeper. That would be awesome, and now worth her height above ALL los blocking terrain.

Serious note, even for 666 points, I'd feel dirty playing that in a game. A GC that is T7, has a 3+ inv, and can move 12 inches? Assaults at I10? Laugh as your opponent as he removes your models? Not a way I'd prefer to play.

With all these crazy nonsense changes to their game, my hopes of a better balanced system for 7th have gone down the crapper

Forgeworld out, superheavies and D in

Top lel, sounds like a fantastic event

 Reecius wrote:
@Mike

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/L/lordsofwar.pdf

But seriously, who cares?! haha

The point of this thread is celarly to overreact and go crazy!! Ahhhh!!, Ahhh!! It's all madness!

Get with the program! hahaha

@RiTides

Yeah, it's up to us to figure it out. It always was, really.

Everything will be fine, I think in the long run this will actually be good as it gives us so many more options.

For now though, business as usual.

I don't care lol, just pointing out the lol. The warriors code you linked doesn't allow the Forgeworld lords of war, or any other Forgeworld.

GW Circle Jerk Rules wrote:So you’ve chosen to attend one of our events here at Warhammer World

Guess that means they specifically only want you using those rules there. To be honest, when they start providing tournament support again, and do so on the same scale as we can provide without their hands in it, then their opinion can matter again, otherwise they can keep pumping out stuff that we can sift through and decide yay or nay on using.

It's weird, they mention FW but not the rules?

Oh well, I just posted this up because it was interesting.

I don't think that many folks took it as anything more than what it is: the GW tournament format.

No one I knew of in the USA used the ToS format back when it was around, either. Not that it was bad, it's just not what anyone chose to use.

 RiTides wrote:
Also, the title of this thread is funny.

"It's all in" apparently doesn't include FW rules... but includes everything else and the kitchen sink...

Oh GW, what are you doing...

Yeah FW is too out there, but a revenant titan on a skyshield with void shields is totally fine.

It's almost like GW is trying to piss off the people with negative opinions about them so all they left are the idiot goobs that think they're the best.

MVBrandt wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
Good point, Orock. Definitely keep using the regular Codexes and digital releases that are definitely tested and balanced and everything. Thankfully, Forge World is clearly less fair than the "main" books.

At least GW dosent pretend they don't exist. And local tournaments more and more are putting reasonable restrictions in place for broken stuff, like our store has a 0-2 on any unit not troops, to try and cut down on cheese. I would love it if we could just cherry pick as a democracy and vote for every single unit, FW or GW, to be banned or restricted for competitive play. But since we cant, and one persons opinion on a forgeworld unit might differ from anothers, the easiest thing to do is restrict it all from competitive play.

The day the TO's get together, give gw the finger, and come up with a definitive list of banned/restricted/allowed units as a whole (as in FW AND GW units), I will gladly wish forgeworld blanket bans a bon voyage.

W.I.P.

If that means what I think it means, when can we expect this glorious USA 40k tournament format list?

Wow GW is supporting tournament again.... ohhh, wait no they don't. So who really cares what there rules are, it not like they keep track of rankings or offer prize support.

 Reecius wrote:
Muahahaha, it's madness! Madness I tell you!!!

All this says to me is that we are going to have to choose which rules to use and which not to use.

Easy, peasy.

What it means though, is that unless someone wants to play with the FW Named Daemons and D Slappers, they can't say they want to play "pure" 40K anymore!

 RiTides wrote:
Actually, that's a nice takeaway- this finally may do away with the idea that there is one "right" way to play, and everyone else is doing it wrong...

But it does leave very open to interpretation how to proceed, and it will be up to TOs to figure that out for their events... and hopefully there will be some homogeneity in that regard, and not a completely different type of game for any particular GT.

This. Theres tons of ways to play 40k and always has been. I can't stand the "pure 40k" concept and I'm glad to see it's gone right down the crapper

How can you not adhere to the Warrior's Code? Huh? DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS? WHEN YOU MESS. WITH THE WARRIOR!!!??!! AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Warrrrioorrrrss, cooome out and plaaaayyyy!!

Yeah, the Warriors code is Eldar Titan+Coteaz+Skyfire=who goes first, wins! Weee!

We've been trying the Super Heavies with D Weapons, and it is honestly bad comedy. When you mix in the Formations and Void Shields and what not, forget it.

@Dakkamite

Yup, GW flushed that idea down the toilet!

"Pure" 40K now is so insane that it is not a game I would want to play except for laughs.

It's all good though, honestly I am not worried, just laughing at the insanity. When the dust settles, we'll largely be playing the game we were before.

The dust has already settled. GW can't sell Super Heavies even when they allow them.

We all know they don't work in a tournament. This is GW trying to blow the dust in our eyes. Ahh, it burns... I still won't buy a super heavy... Ahh

 Reecius wrote:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3640318a_Warriors_code_V1.3.pdf

That is GW's tournament policy.

Of course, we don't have to use this if we choose not to, but this sets precedent that it's all in.

So do you want the D or the B(an)?!

It seems to be one or the other, now =)

Discuss.

So they have a new Tournament policy, but don't actually, like RUN their own tournaments anymore (in-store events don't count. Not even on the same scale as the tourneys they USED to do).
Thanks but no thanks. Go teach your own grandmothers to suck eggs, GW. We don't want any.

Lol, well GW your 3/5 of an opinion on how a tourney should be run is noted. Now hush on your comments because until you bring back Ardboyz, no ones F'n caring what the hell you have to say....
Now go re-write the Chaos Space Marine book!

Haha, yes, please rewrite Chaos! That would be nice.

Tournaments will adjust, people will still go and have fun. We're still selling LVO tickets among the madness so it hasn't turned everyone off.

The cool thing I think now though, is that we have more options. Once folks acclimate to the idea that we don't have to play "by the book" anymore we can create whatever we want. It's kind of cool, really.

But yeah, the ToS format honestly doesn't sound like that much fun to me personally at this point although I could be wrong, they may have a great time.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Neither was the majority of FW.

The statements in the books saying "this is for standard 40k" disagree with you. If you can't see the difference between a FW book saying "this is official and intended for standard 40k" and a GW tournament policy document that only applies to events at one GW store, well, I don't know what to say to you since you're obviously not looking for a constructive discussion.

There is no such thing as a constructive discussion with you on this topic.

Haha, how did this devolve into another FW debate?

 Reecius wrote:
Haha, how did this devolve into another FW debate?

Hey man, you linked the "super official GW published tournament rules that include everything" except FW.

No one to blame but yourself for this one Reece. Well, and perhaps Peregrine, Mike, and I....

How am I supposed to make a BoB and Fred - Quitting DPs, comic with them running around like chicken little with the sky falling?

Damn it! I just wanna drink and play 40k!


BTW - All I see is a green curtain rustling with a 40 k voice coming from behind it. Eff them. The "Warrior 's Code" is the worst 'face saving' effort I have ever seen . . . by a game company. And that is just damn sad.

I'm still trying to work out why this is a thing?

Doesn't warhamere world also say only use GW models? Well feth I guess a lot of people won't be using their armies in tournaments now because this is apparently gospel.

My question is, how seriously should we treat a document that talks about an Iyandan supplement?

Or maybe there's a limited version of the Iyanden supplement out there somewhere with better rules, available for 5 USD?

I really don't see the issue here. These guidelines have been around for years, they sound very much like the tournament guidelines that were around over a decade ago when I stoppoed going to tournaments. The only slightly dubious area is the requirement to have major conversions approved before hand and that is doubtless to prevent modelling for advantage.

GW has never allowed non GW miniatures in their own tournaments and the rest of the guidelines are just good gaming etiquette.

I don't see why there is even any discussion about FW in this thread when FW models are clearly allowed to be used, FW rules have never been allowed in GW tournaments to the best of my knowledge.

 Orock wrote:

Because we don't play test and theres no way we can know if someone will come with some obscure list with units we made and just make the game look like the joke of tabletop rules gaming we all deny it is.

That's my problem with forgeworld.

Its not FW, that is GW's company policy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Madcat87 wrote:
Well feth I guess a lot of people won't be using their armies in tournaments now because this is apparently gospel.

As long as you don't play at Warhammer World this is of no consequence and besides the ban on non GW models is hardly new.

To paraphrase Ice Cube.

'As long as the melon fethers still buying it, the media aint gak!'

Gw do not care about their player base - (they tacitly acknowledge they are a toy company above all else).

if GW continue in this current vein of releasing nonsense then it will take an exceptional individual or group to create something the majority can agree on for competitive play.

Short of stripping everything back to the basic mechanics and working up how would this even work?

Warhammer World doesn't just do Tournaments, they do Campaign weekends as well.

I imagine that forgeworld isn't specifically mentioned because it'll be dependent on particular events.

And, considering Forgeworld release / change rules quite frequently, maybe they just simply want the flexibility to list those books individually for specific events.

 Kirasu wrote:

just preemptively feel bad for the 13 year old kid who gets a Baneblade for his birthday and decides to bring it to that tournament he just head about at the LGS. The nice salesman at the GW store said it was totally legal in any game of 40K. The rule book and official website even backs it up.

Sucks for that kid then I suppose. There is absolutely no guarantee of people wanting to play against X unit, regardless of if GW says so.

If the mythical little timmy bought 6 Necron flyers at the beginning of 6th and gingerly skipped down to the LGS to play.. He'd probably be disappointed at a lack of opponents also.

He'll get over it, or he won't.

Psh I bought 9 and forced people to play me! Little timmy did it wrong imo! (He also didnt have his all transport speed freak army with him just in case I am assuming).

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
Haha, how did this devolve into another FW debate?

Hey man, you linked the "super official GW published tournament rules that include everything" except FW.

No one to blame but yourself for this one Reece. Well, and perhaps Peregrine, Mike, and I....

Fair enough!

But in my defense, I thought it included FW! haha, I missed that it was excluded. I saw it said Forge World models in the opener so assumed it was in the list, too.

Reading fail on my part and unintended consequences inbound!

SOme of the justification in that article from GW is dumb. For example:

A Daemon Prince with no wings that
nonetheless has the flight upgrade (no-one is
that psychic)


Hello, Mephiston from Blood Angels is.

carmachu wrote:
SOme of the justification in that article from GW is dumb. For example:

A Daemon Prince with no wings that
nonetheless has the flight upgrade (no-one is
that psychic)


Hello, Mephiston from Blood Angels is.

Mephiston cannot take a flight/wings upgrade. All he has is a psychic power to a similar effect, but psychic powers have never had to be modeled (and you probably couldn't, under the current rules, as most psykers generate them randomly).

carmachu wrote:
SOme of the justification in that article from GW is dumb. For example:

A Daemon Prince with no wings that
nonetheless has the flight upgrade (no-one is
that psychic)


Hello, Mephiston from Blood Angels is.

Mephiston isn't a Daemon Prince. Not in that context anyway.

Think you guys are missing the point a bit. Mephiston can effectively fly using his psychic might, but they're trying to claim no one is that powerful when talking about a daemon prince who can fly without physical wings.

But of course Mephiston is a Space Marine so it makes perfect sense that he would be able to and a being born of the fething warp can't.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Think you guys are missing the point a bit. Mephiston can effectively fly using his psychic might, but they're trying to claim no one is that powerful when talking about a daemon prince who can fly without physical wings.

But of course Mephiston is a Space Marine so it makes perfect sense that he would be able to and a being born of the fething warp can't.

If a Daemon Prince has a psychic power to fly, you don't need to model it. Again, Psychic Powers don't need to be represented on the model.

I don't really get the logic you guys imply.

The "Molten Beam" psychic power is effectively a Meltagun. Still, I don't need to model my Psykers with a Meltagun, only because they could have that power. Inversely, I still must model troops with Meltaguns with actual Meltaguns. The requirement isn't "suspended" only because a Psyker can mimic the effect with a Psychic power that doesn't need to be modeled on the actual miniatures.

The same applies to psychic powers that provide jump pack/wing-type effects.

It's because they're using a fluff explanation for why the wings have to be modeled on and the fluff explanation is stupid.

I wouldn't really call those little forced jokes in the brackets "fluff explanations".

They are just that, little (mostly not-funny) jokes. Like the one about swarms.

That's what you're upset about?

They're pointing out GW is using fluff instead of rules as justification. If they were using only rules, upgradeflight isn't the same as psychicflight, per your argument here.

Instead, because whoever wrote the rules is of average critical thinking skill, he opened up legit critique because psyflight of ANY kind is being used by him as insufficient to fly, whether by upgrade or psychic power. Basically, stupid reason is stupid.

MVBrandt wrote:
They're pointing out GW is using fluff instead of rules as justification. If they were using only rules, upgradeflight isn't the same as psychicflight, per your argument here.

Instead, because whoever wrote the rules is of average critical thinking skill, he opened up legit critique because psyflight of ANY kind is being used by him as insufficient to fly, whether by upgrade or psychic power. Basically, stupid reason is stupid.

I have a Daemon Prince who is modeled with a jet pack. He is now incapable of flight. Thanks GW!

I'm sure for 3.99 you can buy a dataslate that lets you give your demon prince a jump pack

 Kirasu wrote:
I'm sure for 3.99 you can buy a dataslate that lets you give your demon prince a jump pack

My Christmas wish has come true!!

Man those are some horrible rules. Talk about nazi`s. YOU DO NOT DO THIS! WE WILL CHECK ALL YOUR MODELS! DO NOT CONVERT!

Glad GW isn`t actually running any tourneys near me.

Reece, this isn't GW's 'tournament policy', this is the rules for playing events at Warhammer World (and as such I've updated the title of this thread to make it less volatile).

For example, if GW were to run new events outside of Warhammer World (Throne of Skulls tournaments, for example), there is no guarantee they would follow the same guidelines printed here (as in the past they haven't matched up exactly either).

I trust Reecius judgement on most things 40K. I personally believe he is one of the best players in the world.
He lives and breathes this stuff all day long.

He has no hidden agenda with this. He is trying to bring some sense and balance into tournament play.

We are at a point where tournament 40K is going to have to have some reasonable comp, or you can all go play Warmachine.

Personally, I think the following is all the game needs right now.

- No escalation
- No stronghold assault
- Limit of two codices to create army list
- Limit of one formation

This thread was more fun when it still had Reece's flame bait title

Aftermath, if you include a nerf to the 2++ rerollable I like your list a lot. Very solid.

Aftermath. wrote:
I trust Reecius judgement on most things 40K. I personally believe he is one of the best players in the world.
He lives and breathes this stuff all day long.

He has no hidden agenda with this. He is trying to bring some sense and balance into tournament play.

We are at a point where tournament 40K is going to have to have some reasonable comp, or you can all go play Warmachine.

Personally, I think the following is all the game needs right now.

- No escalation
- No stronghold assault
- Limit of two codices to create army list
- Limit of one formation

And formations use the ally slot and you're gold.

Why do people want to ban all the fortifications in stronghold? None of them are no-brainers, but many of them are really good for many armies. Several might give some armies a chance in competitive play they normally wouldn`t have

 Illumini wrote:
Why do people want to ban all the fortifications in stronghold? None of them are no-brainers, but many of them are really good for many armies. Several might give some armies a chance in competitive play they normally wouldn`t have

I don't know. I'm not sure either - I think its because people see the AV15 fortifications with D-weapons and they think its all like that. But the rules changes themselves are quite valuable (and make more sense and are clearer than the main rulebook), and the non-Massive Fortifications seem fairly well balanced. The only other questionable thing may be the fortification units, but I think the points costs will make those non-viable competitively.

Basically, I think people are just scared to say, "we should include part of Stronghold Assault."

 Centurian99 wrote:

 Illumini wrote:
Why do people want to ban all the fortifications in stronghold? None of them are no-brainers, but many of them are really good for many armies. Several might give some armies a chance in competitive play they normally wouldn`t have

I don't know. I'm not sure either - I think its because people see the AV15 fortifications with D-weapons and they think its all like that. But the rules changes themselves are quite valuable (and make more sense and are clearer than the main rulebook), and the non-Massive Fortifications seem fairly well balanced. The only other questionable thing may be the fortification units, but I think the points costs will make those non-viable competitively.

Basically, I think people are just scared to say, "we should include part of Stronghold Assault."

Just like they are afraid to say "we should include part of the superheavy units", and just like people in Europe used to ban all named characters for years and years (both 40K and FB) while Americans used all of them, because truth be told most of them sucked. If someone lazy has a problem with a Revenant, he bans all superheavies. If someone has a problem with a macro cannon, he bans the whole stronghold assault book. If someone has a problem with Mephiston or whatever, he bans all named characters.

Just go further back in history where many tournament organisers released detailed comp packs about what was allowed and what wasn't (and some still do). Don't blanket ban anything. Invest a bit more time and effort in the job. The goal shouldn't be balance, but better balance, and it won't take a committee of 5 experienced tournament players more than a day to come up with an army restrictions draft that will make the game playable.

Personally I'm getting the feeling that most of the (premature) panic is actually just about the strength D and how it removes Screamerstars in one hit. I wonder if people would consider a 900 point Revenant still horribly overpowered if all strength D was just comped to be S10 AP1 (or AP2). It has the same survivability as a bunch of Wave Serpents, but costs an absurd amount of points, so clearly only the firepower is a problem. The more that I think of it, 4 S10 AP1 ordnance large blasts for 900 points sounds about right (225 points per blast) considering the mobility. I'm sure someone out there would already call the Revenant garbage after that simple change, as opposed to horribly overpowered. Now those who like the model a lot and the playstyle it brings get to play with it, and those that have to go against it have a chance. Everyone's happy?

 Therion wrote:

 Centurian99 wrote:

 Illumini wrote:
Why do people want to ban all the fortifications in stronghold? None of them are no-brainers, but many of them are really good for many armies. Several might give some armies a chance in competitive play they normally wouldn`t have

I don't know. I'm not sure either - I think its because people see the AV15 fortifications with D-weapons and they think its all like that. But the rules changes themselves are quite valuable (and make more sense and are clearer than the main rulebook), and the non-Massive Fortifications seem fairly well balanced. The only other questionable thing may be the fortification units, but I think the points costs will make those non-viable competitively.

Basically, I think people are just scared to say, "we should include part of Stronghold Assault."

Just like they are afraid to say "we should include part of the superheavy units", and just like people in Europe used to ban all named characters for years and years (both 40K and FB) while Americans used all of them, because truth be told most of them sucked. If someone lazy has a problem with a Revenant, he bans all superheavies. If someone has a problem with a macro cannon, he bans the whole stronghold assault book. If someone has a problem with Mephiston or whatever, he bans all named characters.

Just go further back in history where many tournament organisers released detailed comp packs about what was allowed and what wasn't (and some still do). Don't blanket ban anything. Invest a bit more time and effort in the job. The goal shouldn't be balance, but better balance, and it won't take a committee of 5 experienced tournament players more than a day to come up with an army restrictions draft that will make the game playable.

Personally I'm getting the feeling that most of the (premature) panic is actually just about the strength D and how it removes Screamerstars in one hit. I wonder if people would consider a 900 point Revenant still horribly overpowered if all strength D was just comped to be S10 AP1 (or AP2). It has the same survivability as a bunch of Chimeras in cover, but costs an absurd amount of points, so clearly only the firepower is a problem.

+1

There is also a lemming phenomena that happens. If a few Internet celebs say the sky is falling, then a healthy percentage of lemmings will cry the sky is falling with them. They won't bother to look up themselves.

 yakface wrote:

Reece, this isn't GW's 'tournament policy', this is the rules for playing events at Warhammer World (and as such I've updated the title of this thread to make it less volatile).

For example, if GW were to run new events outside of Warhammer World (Throne of Skulls tournaments, for example), there is no guarantee they would follow the same guidelines printed here (as in the past they haven't matched up exactly either).

Hey, you changed my hyper-sensationalist, flame bait title!

Yak, you are always so wise and level headed.

Yes though, you are right. I was just kicking the hornet's nest

We are free to run our events how we want, you are right.

@Aftermath

Thanks! That was a really nice thing of you to say, I appreciate it.

@Illumini

It's just at this point in time. This by no means indicates what is to come for ever and always for all events. This is just what our attendees asked for for the LVO. I think other events will be open to some of this stuff going forward. I know I am.

I get what you're saying Therion, but I think the problem is that blanket bans are not only easier, since anything else requires changing stat lines, profiles, game mechanics etc. and not everyone can universally agree that should be done at all or to what extent (like you said, some may feel nerfing Strength D is too much/unfair, others will argue you aren't doing enough), but it's also the most "fair" way of doing it. If all you did was ban the revenant it would probably fix the most glaring issue with the book...but then Eldar/DE don't have access to a super heavy anymore. And even then it's still not entirely "fair" because the Imperium has access to several, and other races are either left out entirely or stuck with garbage for their one and only choice (like the flying hammerhead drone transport for Tau...oooh, scary). Same way with characters, it doesn't seem fair for some armies to have access to all their HQs and for others not to, and the "nerfs" might not sit well with everyone.

Also, anyone have a look at WD Daily today? Hilariously, Planetstrike, Cities of Death, and Apocalypse are all listed along with Escalation and Stronghold Assault, and Jervis Johnson refers to them all as "supplements", saying "you can use one, some, none or all of them in a game". So apparently they don't see any distinction between "expansions" and "supplements" like we do.

Sidstyle wrote:So apparently they don't see any distinction between "expansions" and "supplements" like we do.

Truth be told, even before expansions, supplements, dataslates, formations, digital releases and legal forgeworld documents of any kind existed at all GW, Jervis at the forefront, told the community that if we have a problem with a rule we should change it and play it the way we like it to be played. That's always been GW's policy and in the same time excuse for making poorly balanced or badly thought out rules.