Redbeard wrote:

Kingsley wrote:...6th edition is quite balanced.

Right, moving on to someone who isn't living in lala land. Do you know what balanced means? And, can you extend that understanding to a matchup between, I dunno, a necron flyerwing army and an assault army (doesn't even really matter which one).

Realmgames wrote:

 skkipper wrote:
I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.

I run a retail store in southern California, our next 40K tourney is coming up in November and we have to weigh in on allowing FW or not. My stance on this will most likely not be becuase FW is OP or unbalanced but simply because it is a product that GW will not allow me to sell. I don't see a reason for me to support something that I cannot sell and support the store with.

nkelsch wrote:Anyone who says 6th edition is balanced is intellectually dishonest and just trying to win an argument, It is incapable of being balanced simply because of the design of the allies matrix. If the codexes were balanced on their own in 6th, then the addition of allies imbalances them as it gives some too much and others not enough. If the codexes are imbalanced and the allies balances them, then we wouldn't have whole codexes without battle brothers or the worst codex ever with no allies.

All this talk of preserving the 6th edition balance is a lie... it is about preserving relational meta which benefits specific people and playstyles. Not wanting to play something which is confusing or new is one thing but claming imbalance is sheneanigans.

 Kingsley wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Kingsley wrote:...6th edition is quite balanced.

Right, moving on to someone who isn't living in lala land. Do you know what balanced means? And, can you extend that understanding to a matchup between, I dunno, a necron flyerwing army and an assault army (doesn't even really matter which one).

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced! If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

Realmgames wrote:

 skkipper wrote:
I will not play in any event banning FW. I have made my stand.

I run a retail store in southern California, our next 40K tourney is coming up in November and we have to weigh in on allowing FW or not. My stance on this will most likely not be becuase FW is OP or unbalanced but simply because it is a product that GW will not allow me to sell. I don't see a reason for me to support something that I cannot sell and support the store with.

This is a good point, at least for RTT style events. One reason that I like these smaller-scale tournaments is they give people a chance to support their local store. Allowing stuff that isn't sold in the store goes against this to an extent. However, this shouldn't be a consideration for larger GT events, which don't have to deal with this problem.

nkelsch wrote:Anyone who says 6th edition is balanced is intellectually dishonest and just trying to win an argument, It is incapable of being balanced simply because of the design of the allies matrix. If the codexes were balanced on their own in 6th, then the addition of allies imbalances them as it gives some too much and others not enough. If the codexes are imbalanced and the allies balances them, then we wouldn't have whole codexes without battle brothers or the worst codex ever with no allies.

All this talk of preserving the 6th edition balance is a lie... it is about preserving relational meta which benefits specific people and playstyles. Not wanting to play something which is confusing or new is one thing but claming imbalance is sheneanigans.

Try again except without the buzzwords. I think you'll find your point no longer makes sense.

nkelsch wrote:
]point is you are delusional if you call 6th edition balanced and then use that statement to justify excluding all forge world. There are valid reasons to exclude fw, but saying 6th is balanced is not one of them and anyone who makes that argument is lying to win an argument.

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
]point is you are delusional if you call 6th edition balanced and then use that statement to justify excluding all forge world. There are valid reasons to exclude fw, but saying 6th is balanced is not one of them and anyone who makes that argument is lying to win an argument.

I disagree with your opinions on game balance-- I find 6th edition highly balanced. If you don't think so, maybe try using arguments instead of just calling people who disagree with you liars.

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced! If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced! If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

So, excluding Forge World, how does one counter the Cron Air Force with, say, Black Templars? And don't say "USE IG" because some of us don't have the points for allies.

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced!

If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

 BladeWalker wrote:
and I really like the point made by Realmgames about why would they allow units that they can't carry and sell in their store.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced! If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

If my entire army is Guardsmen with lasguns and flamers, I would expect to lose against any vehicles. This is as it should be. Unbalanced outcomes typically result from people fielding unbalanced armies and then getting nailed by rock/paper/scissors matchups-- taking a balanced army that can compete in any situation or matchup tends to fix this problem.

So, excluding Forge World, how does one counter the Cron Air Force with, say, Black Templars? And don't say "USE IG" because some of us don't have the points for allies.

nkelsch wrote:and you would be wrong... The nature of codexes and allies make it impossible to be balanced codexes and balanced allies as one will always unbalance the others, if either were balanced at all, and as long as tyranids exist in the current meta, the game is not balanced. There are so many levels of imbalance between units within the same codex, units across codexes, codexes against each other, imbalance in force org, low point games, high point games... It is impossible to make a balanced system where all armies work in all the different situations. And GW didn't even try. And somehow they took the wildly unbalanced 5th and through an update to the core rulebook made it balanced?

You either have to be delusional or lying to make that statement. No one anywhere can claim 6th is balanced because it simply isn't.

Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Yes, I know what balanced means. If your army is pure assault units, guess what-- it isn't balanced!

There's a difference between a balanced game and a balanced list. A balanced game doesn't cease to be balanced if someone brings an unbalanced list - that's the point of it being a balanced game.

Redbeard wrote:

If you don't have some means of dealing with flyers, you deserve to lose, since you've ignored a core part of the game in your planning efforts.

And yet some armies are designed, either ruleswise or fluffwise, to ignore dealing with flyers, as they weren't a part of the game when those armies were designed. How does a themed Nurgle or Slaanesh daemon army fight fliers? They can't. These were armies that worked, even if not top-tier, in 5th ed. In 6th, they're unable to contend with one specific type of unit.

nkelsch wrote:

 BladeWalker wrote:
and I really like the point made by Realmgames about why would they allow units that they can't carry and sell in their store.

That is an example of a legitimate reason for stores who run events, but that is a reason which most Indy events run by clubs and the larger Tourneys don't have.

 Peregrine wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 BladeWalker wrote:
and I really like the point made by Realmgames about why would they allow units that they can't carry and sell in their store.

That is an example of a legitimate reason for stores who run events, but that is a reason which most Indy events run by clubs and the larger Tourneys don't have.

No it isn't, because I don't see those TOs banning the GW kits that are only available from GW. If you're going to ban models that you can't sell in your own store then you need to ban ALL models that you can't sell in your own store.

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:and you would be wrong... The nature of codexes and allies make it impossible to be balanced codexes and balanced allies as one will always unbalance the others, if either were balanced at all, and as long as tyranids exist in the current meta, the game is not balanced. There are so many levels of imbalance between units within the same codex, units across codexes, codexes against each other, imbalance in force org, low point games, high point games... It is impossible to make a balanced system where all armies work in all the different situations. And GW didn't even try. And somehow they took the wildly unbalanced 5th and through an update to the core rulebook made it balanced?

You either have to be delusional or lying to make that statement. No one anywhere can claim 6th is balanced because it simply isn't.

Oh, so you thought 5th edition was "unbalanced" too? At this point I'm simply going to say "you're wrong" and be done with it. I don't have any interest in taking the time to explain a nuanced subject in detail to someone who keeps calling me a liar.

nkelsch wrote:
Yes, 5th was also unbalanced, we have a metric ton of data to prove this as well down to the codex creep and the undercosted units. You can't honestly make that statement and be genuine. You also can't claim 5th was balanced, then with the massive changes in rules that 6th also is equally balanced as the allied matrix makes that premise exactly opposite.

nkelsch wrote:Your argument that the game is balanced and lists are unbalanced is a dishonest doubletalk statement where you acknowledge there is imbalance, but you feel like as long as you can take a competative list, not use the neglected overcosted units and can fill holes with allies, then it is 'good enough'.

nkelsch wrote:That is not balance, and your fake version fo a balanced ruleset doesn't address Tyranids at all as they are the worst codex out there, with no allies and almost no add-on units while everyone else is getting magical 6th edition balance.

nkelsch wrote:When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta...

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Yes, 5th was also unbalanced, we have a metric ton of data to prove this as well down to the codex creep and the undercosted units. You can't honestly make that statement and be genuine. You also can't claim 5th was balanced, then with the massive changes in rules that 6th also is equally balanced as the allied matrix makes that premise exactly opposite.

Codex Creep is a myth.

nkelsch wrote:Your argument that the game is balanced and lists are unbalanced is a dishonest doubletalk statement where you acknowledge there is imbalance, but you feel like as long as you can take a competitive list, not use the neglected overcosted units and can fill holes with allies, then it is 'good enough'.

Games can be balanced and have bad options, since internal balance (balance of options within one army) is much less relevant than external balance (balance of armies against one another). Starcraft: Brood War is a generally balanced game despite the fact that it has a few outright terrible options (Scout, Infested Terran) and several normally bad or extremely situational ones (Queen, Valkyrie, Dark Archon, Carrier, Battlecruiser).

nkelsch wrote:That is not balance, and your fake version fo a balanced ruleset doesn't address Tyranids at all as they are the worst codex out there, with no allies and almost no add-on units while everyone else is getting magical 6th edition balance.

Tyranids are currently one of the best armies in the game. Tyranids being bad is essentially a myth-- not only were they not that bad in 5th edition, but 6th edition gave them multiple huge buffs.

nkelsch wrote:When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta...

That's what I am talking about as well.

nkelsch wrote:
documented

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta...

That's what I am talking about as well.

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
documented

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I tried to reply to the rest of your post but I found it difficult to understand. Is English your first language?

Delusional: A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Documented: To support (an assertion or claim, for example) with evidence or decisive information.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta...

That's what I am talking about as well.

Army 1: Heavy Support: Tank, AV 13/11/10, BS 4, 3HP, Autocannon: 100 points
Army 2: Heavy Support: Tank, AV 13/11/10, BS 4, 3HP, Autocannon, Searchlight, Smoke: 60 points

When we say that the game is imbalanced, a 40 point difference between identical vehicles in different codexes is what we're talking about. That's what we mean when we say that we're talking about points, and codex creep.

How do you justify this difference in your 'balance' concept?

 Kingsley wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:When most of us talk about balance, we are talking about points values, costs and the meta...

That's what I am talking about as well.

Army 1: Heavy Support: Tank, AV 13/11/10, BS 4, 3HP, Autocannon: 100 points
Army 2: Heavy Support: Tank, AV 13/11/10, BS 4, 3HP, Autocannon, Searchlight, Smoke: 60 points

When we say that the game is imbalanced, a 40 point difference between identical vehicles in different codexes is what we're talking about. That's what we mean when we say that we're talking about points, and codex creep.

How do you justify this difference in your 'balance' concept?

Simple. Things change over time. Let's take Space Marine Devastators as an example. This unit is almost objectively worse than Blood Angel or Space Wolf Devastators. After Codex: Space Marines, GW realized that Devastators probably cost too much, so that unit and its equivalents got their costs reduced in future books. But that doesn't mean that "Codex Creep" is real, because balance changes go both ways. Codex: Space Marines also has 40 point TH/SS Terminators. After Codex: Space Marines, GW realized that TH/SS Terminators probably cost too little, so that unit and its equivalents got their costs increased in future books. Space Wolves pay 63 points for a TH/SS Terminator (albeit one with Counterattack) and Blood Angels pay 45 for an inferior model.

The myth of Codex Creep is that all changes make units better and thus new books are always better than old ones. In fact, there's a pretty even mix of units getting better and units getting worse. Thus, while some units might not be optimal in older books relative to new ones, other units are even better. A good example of this is Codex: Black Templars. In many respects, Codex: Black Templars is outdated-- but it's still a very competitive book, since, while it is missing some options that later books have, it also has some options that later books lost. For instance, Black Templars can take 5 man Terminator squads with two Cyclone Missile Launchers and Tank Hunters, which no other book can do.

By playing to an army's strengths, you can ensure that your army stays strong across a long period of time, new releases or no new releases.

nkelsch wrote:
First of all, you have no evidence that the studio designs in this manner, and designing future units does not fix the imbalance with older codexes... so by your own example it proves the imbalance as when a unit is obviously undercosted, fixing similar units it in future books only leaves the older codexes further out of balance which proves the imbalance and codex creep as those older units int hose older codexes become more out of date with ever new release.

Redbeard wrote:Well, if that's your idea of balance, then I guess its balanced in your universe. Most of us have a more realistic understanding of what balance means, and we understand that when a unit costs 40% less in a newer codex, that's a sign of imbalance, not a sign of balance.

Redbeard wrote: Under your definition of balance, everything Forgeworld has ever published is perfectly balanced. Afterall, some of it is good, and some of it is bad, so it all balances out.

 Phazael wrote:
The "Is English your first language" quip is probably the dog whistle insult of the year on this board.

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
documented

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I tried to reply to the rest of your post but I found it difficult to understand. Is English your first language?

 Phazael wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
documented

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I tried to reply to the rest of your post but I found it difficult to understand. Is English your first language?

That post oozed of snark. I fail to see how anyone reading it objectively could draw any other conclusion. I know I for one had zero issues understanding what he was trying to say, unless you were confused by his use of complete sentances and accurate punction..... (hint: thats snark)

Phazael wrote:But looking at the substance of your post, I agree completely with those units being the biggest problems. What I cannot understand is how you can aknowledge those flaws on one hand and claim that the game is perfectly balanced on the other. Either you are being disengenious to win an internet argument (a time honored tradition) or you are simply denying actual evidence that conflicts with your preconcieved notions (aka being delusional /drumfill), so which is it?

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
First of all, you have no evidence that the studio designs in this manner, and designing future units does not fix the imbalance with older codexes... so by your own example it proves the imbalance as when a unit is obviously undercosted, fixing similar units it in future books only leaves the older codexes further out of balance which proves the imbalance and codex creep as those older units int hose older codexes become more out of date with ever new release.

Sameness is a low-level form of balance.

Ah yes, the law of comparative advantage is "unrealistic." Good argument.

Not so. Forge World has items that shouldn't be allowed in the game from a fundamental design perspective because they are stupid or unfun. For instance, the Lucius-Pattern Drop Pod allows Dreadnoughts to assault out of Deep Strike. This is not something that should be in the game. Units assaulting from Reserves have been totally removed because it is a fundamentally unfun gameplay element.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
First of all, you have no evidence that the studio designs in this manner, and designing future units does not fix the imbalance with older codexes... so by your own example it proves the imbalance as when a unit is obviously undercosted, fixing similar units it in future books only leaves the older codexes further out of balance which proves the imbalance and codex creep as those older units int hose older codexes become more out of date with ever new release.

Sameness is a low-level form of balance.

This is a BS argument. So, because we could all play the same space marine army, everything is balanced. Right...

Redbeard wrote:Your lack of understanding of economics is second only to your lack of understanding of game design... Comparative Advantage has nothing to do with balancing factions in a game, because we're not trading, we're playing against each other. If your army gets an underpriced unit, it doesn't make mine better, no matter how you spin it.

Redbeard wrote:Except for Zagstruk and Vanguard, and probably another unit or two (Ymgarls, right?). So, yeah, another case where we show specific examples that invalidate your argument.

Redbeard wrote:As for 'assaulting from Reserves being "unfun' - I disagree. It's no more or less fun that being shot at by something that came out of reserve. Or, for that matter, losing a unit to an interceptor gun before being able to put it on the table.

 Kingsley wrote:

But that's the point you're missing. The reason Codex Creep is fake is because units don't get less expensive across the board. Some get less expensive, some get more expensive. My "underpriced" unit is balanced by your "underpriced" unit; my cheaper Devastators are balanced by your cheaper TH/SS Terminators.

Redbeard wrote:Except for Zagstruk and Vanguard, and probably another unit or two (Ymgarls, right?). So, yeah, another case where we show specific examples that invalidate your argument.

I expect those to go away in their next Codices, as did every other instance of this rule in the game and the general case of units assaulting from standard Reserves or Outflanking. It's a failed mechanic that nearly everyone I've met hates.

The problem with units being assaulted from Reserves is that they don't get a chance to do anything about it.

In 6th edition, random charge ranges and Overwatch mitigate this to an extent, but generally speaking the disadvantage of assault units is that they pay for their greatly increased killing power by being exposed to more risk, most notably while traveling across the board to engage their targets.

Assaulting from Reserves eliminates this. Having someone's Callidus Assassin pop out of Reserves and charge your Devastators without a chance to react was one of the least fun parts about earlier versions of the game.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

But that's the point you're missing. The reason Codex Creep is fake is because units don't get less expensive across the board. Some get less expensive, some get more expensive. My "underpriced" unit is balanced by your "underpriced" unit; my cheaper Devastators are balanced by your cheaper TH/SS Terminators.

That's not balance, that's imbalance. That forces me to take a unit I potentially don't want, in order to make up for the unit you're getting on the cheap. What if TH/SS terminators aren't good overall (with a lot of 6th ed changes, I'm not sure that they're still better than tactical terminators)? My "cheap unit that balances yours" is meta'd out, yours isn't - so it's still unbalanced.

 Redbeard wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Redbeard wrote:Except for Zagstruk and Vanguard, and probably another unit or two (Ymgarls, right?). So, yeah, another case where we show specific examples that invalidate your argument.

I expect those to go away in their next Codices, as did every other instance of this rule in the game and the general case of units assaulting from standard Reserves or Outflanking. It's a failed mechanic that nearly everyone I've met hates.

Why, do they all play shooty armies? I doubt they'll be going away.

 Redbeard wrote:
It's another example of how you don't understand balance. In 5th ed, assault and shooting from reserve were balanced. An assault unit that arrived from reserve could deal damage, a shooting unit that arrived from reserve could also deal damage. In 6th, only shooting units can inflict damage out of reserve (with a couple of specific exceptions). How is this not an imbalance that favours shooting over assault?

 Kingsley wrote:

Assault from reserve isn't a balance issue, it's a fun issue. Good players knew how to counter it-- except for the Callidus Assassin, who essentially couldn't be countered, but that was a special case-- but it was extremely unfun for those who didn't. Shooting from reserve doesn't pose the same problems and thus is still allowed.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

Assault from reserve isn't a balance issue, it's a fun issue. Good players knew how to counter it-- except for the Callidus Assassin, who essentially couldn't be countered, but that was a special case-- but it was extremely unfun for those who didn't. Shooting from reserve doesn't pose the same problems and thus is still allowed.

Why doesn't it pose the same problem? You're deliberately being vague and ignoring questions that contradict your stance. How is it less fun to be assault out of reserve, than it is to lose an entire unit to three deep-striking Flamers of Tzeentch? Or a Land Raider to Dante's infallible Deep Striking w. a couple of inferno pistols?

I've been on both sides, and there's no difference. Someone brings a Vendetta out of reserve and tri-lascannons my warlord to death, with "nothing I can do to prevent it" is no different than if they brought in a daemon prince and assaulted the warlord. In each case, I'm out a warlord. In each case, I could have positioned my model better to protect it. In each case, I was unable to do anything to prevent it. What's the difference? Why are flyers fun and assault units not-fun? You're making arbitrary distinctions with no basis in reality. Stuff arriving from reserve and killing your stuff (with you not having anything to do about it), is equally as unfun, whether it's done by assault or shooting.

nkelsch wrote:
I see now... Blindly defending an indefensible position of "6th edition is balanced" is really "I prefer 6th editions meta and FW changes the meta I want to promote so I am against it." That is a position a lot of people do not respect.

Trying to say FW further imbalances an imbalanced game is a valid position and something people can disagree on as the degree of added imbalance is not clear due to how allies have impacted 6th. In 5th there was data that showed it further imbalanced an imbalanced game, but with allies, it is assumed the imbalance will further favor imperial codexes and punish xenos. We can make assumptions, we can try to extrapolate 5th edition data to believe this, but it is a point people disagree on. I guess when more FW 6th events are run, we can see what the results are.

Claiming 6th is balanced is by no means a position that is valid or a foundation for any other arguments to be based on like "it imbalances a balanced game!"

 Kingsley wrote:
"Imperial Codices are favored" is another Internet myth.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
"Imperial Codices are favored" is another Internet myth.

Err, what? Isn't part of the anti-FW argument that Imperial armies are favored, and FW favors them even more so we shouldn't make the problem any worse?

 Kingsley wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
I see now... Blindly defending an indefensible position of "6th edition is balanced" is really "I prefer 6th editions meta and FW changes the meta I want to promote so I am against it." That is a position a lot of people do not respect.

Trying to say FW further imbalances an imbalanced game is a valid position and something people can disagree on as the degree of added imbalance is not clear due to how allies have impacted 6th. In 5th there was data that showed it further imbalanced an imbalanced game, but with allies, it is assumed the imbalance will further favor imperial codexes and punish xenos. We can make assumptions, we can try to extrapolate 5th edition data to believe this, but it is a point people disagree on. I guess when more FW 6th events are run, we can see what the results are.

Claiming 6th is balanced is by no means a position that is valid or a foundation for any other arguments to be based on like "it imbalances a balanced game!"

"Imperial Codices are favored" is another Internet myth.

 mikhaila wrote:
After reading the opinions of all the people wanting FW allowed at tournaments, and hearing it echoed by several dozen people in my area, I started allowing FW in my tournaments.

After 6 tournaments, only one person ever brought FW pieces in, and that was only 1 time. No one else owned the models or cared, or knew about them.

Not even going to worry about including them in future tournaments. Everyone wants to fight hard for inclusion, but it's just hot air on the interwebs.

And GW quit selling the FW books to independent stores, so there is no reason for a store to support FW.

nkelsch wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:"Imperial Codices are favored" is another Internet myth.

Except there is massive amount of data to the contrary, and 3+ armor saves have huge advantages and are not balanced right now since the counter of playing 6+ units in mass quantities is forcibly removed from the game due to game time limits and logistics of playing 200+ model swamps.

 Phazael wrote:
Just like "most" people agreed GK were the top army and SW and IG kept n winning everything. Crons have yet to win an event since their release in either edition. Belief in internet hype sold a lot of Draigowing and Cron flyer armies, though.....

 Phazael wrote:
Just like "most" people agreed GK were the top army and SW and IG kept n winning everything. Crons have yet to win an event since their release in either edition. Belief in internet hype sold a lot of Draigowing and Cron flyer armies, though.....

 Valhalla130 wrote:
This may have been brought up prior to my post, I don't know, but as an IG player, what about FW things that have since popped up in the regular codex, like the heavy bolter or flamer turrets? Are those overpowered and shouldn't be allowed?

I would think that just having more options would never be a bad thing. I can understand the arguments for lack of access to a unit or option, but anyone can go online and find the stats for these things. Saying they would have no idea how they work before they face them is silly.

 mikhaila wrote:
People should be expected to go look for 6-8 books worth of material somewhere on the internet to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament? And it's 'Silly' to say they shouldn't have all that information in their head somehow?

 Peregrine wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
People should be expected to go look for 6-8 books worth of material somewhere on the internet to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament? And it's 'Silly' to say they shouldn't have all that information in their head somehow?

You're right. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect people to go look for 6-8 books worth of material to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament, and silly to say they should have that information in their head somehow. I eagerly await your announcement of your new rule that only C:SM may be used in your tournaments.

Also, it took me less than five minutes to find a download for every single FW book, which is about as hard as it was to find a download for every single codex. The "FW is hard to find" argument is just insane.

 helium42 wrote:
People learn the regular codexes from playing them regularly. Even in gaming groups that regularly use FW models, people won't learn even a fraction of those 6-8 books because of the few units they are likely to run into.

 mikhaila wrote:
People should be expected to go look for 6-8 books worth of material somewhere on the internet to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament? And it's 'Silly' to say they shouldn't have all that information in their head somehow?

usa_supersonic wrote:
I am against- only think playing big pies or Strentgh D in the game.

usa_supersonic wrote:
I am against- only think playing big pies or Strentgh D in the game.

 mikhaila wrote:

 Valhalla130 wrote:
This may have been brought up prior to my post, I don't know, but as an IG player, what about FW things that have since popped up in the regular codex, like the heavy bolter or flamer turrets? Are those overpowered and shouldn't be allowed?

I would think that just having more options would never be a bad thing. I can understand the arguments for lack of access to a unit or option, but anyone can go online and find the stats for these things. Saying they would have no idea how they work before they face them is silly.

People should be expected to go look for 6-8 books worth of material somewhere on the internet to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament? And it's 'Silly' to say they shouldn't have all that information in their head somehow?

 schadenfreude wrote:

Examples: grot tanks are fine, and nobody is going to have an aneurism over grot tanks. Dkok artillery becoming t7 and 4w with every guardsman addition a wound combined with an aegis defense line for the guardsmen well now that might cause people to have a stroke.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Rhino's don't have 4+ coversave or 3+ armor save.

And you won't force a break test on that unit. How many shots does it take to inflict a wound on the artillery piece (assuming focus fire to avoid the 2++ cover of the infantry) at BS4?

So to kill a single gun you're looking at 52 St6 shots, 36 St7 shots, and 24 St7 AP3 or less shots. Yeah, make it break sounds really reasonable at that point....

To kill a rhino just off hull points and we'll give them a cover save of 5+:


St6 AP4 or worse: 7 shots per hull point
St7 AP4 or worse: 5 shots per hull point

So you can see it's a bit of difference.

And those aren't taking into account the fact that you can actually kill a rhino in a single result, something you can't do to T7 artillery.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Rhino's don't have 4+ coversave or 3+ armor save.

How are they automatically getting a 4+ cover? Also, only the gun itself has a 3+ save, everything else has a 5+.

And you won't force a break test on that unit. How many shots does it take to inflict a wound on the artillery piece (assuming focus fire to avoid the 2++ cover of the infantry) at BS4?

Why are they automatically getting a 2+ cover?

So to kill a single gun you're looking at 52 St6 shots, 36 St7 shots, and 24 St7 AP3 or less shots. Yeah, make it break sounds really reasonable at that point....

ignoring that the last wound is effectively meaningless (again, as either the gun is dead or the crew are dead), and that you just need to kill 2 crew to force a morale test (if the wounds are all being allocated to the gun, then so much the better)...it doesn't look all that much different from killing a couple of rhino's as you show below.

To kill a rhino just off hull points and we'll give them a cover save of 5+:

St6 AP4 or worse: 7 shots per hull point
St7 AP4 or worse: 5 shots per hull point

So you can see it's a bit of difference.

Right, now lets double that since I did say "a couple" of rhino's, and you're looking at needing 30 S7 shots to kill both through HP's, suddenly not so far off.

And those aren't taking into account the fact that you can actually kill a rhino in a single result, something you can't do to T7 artillery.

And you can't force Ld7 break tests on it either, and the Rhino can reposition if it needs to, as well as being completely immune to S4 attacks.

There's also no reason flyers are going to disappear just because Interceptor suddenly comes into play, you've got some time to engage those platforms before your flyers come on, and between all the damage mitigation most flyers are getting, it's not the hugest deal in the world, they're not going to routinely be scything your flyers down as soon as they come in, on average they may knock off an HP. Flyers against Interceptor are still much better off than an assault unit coming in trying to outflank or the like.

Hulksmash wrote:

Parts of your reply show a severe lack of understanding. You first part it was already discussed they are behind a 50pt fortification. Hence 4++ cover. The unit can GtG to get a 2++ for the infantry. They can then be ordered back into the fight by a command squad. I hope this makes sense.

The rest of your post smacks of "yeah, but" and is generally incorrect so I'm going to leave it at that. IG works on synergy.

And though i disagree wtih Phazael quite often regarding his views on balance and the game he does explain the AA thing above. Oh, and most IG invest in leadership bonuses.

And immobile weapons are fine since they will do more damage over time

and the odds of getting thru their blob to them are extremely low.

Which is pretty much exclusively 70pt (minimum) targetable T3 5+sv IC's.

 Hulksmash wrote:

In some ways it's similar to my main other issue with forgeworld. Inclusion of special rules that are extremely rare in standard 40k get handed out a lot more frequently by FW. The other notable rule is interceptor.

Basically I'm for Forgeworld. I enjoy forgeworld. But I am against certain elements that will make the game unfun for others

and against creating edition 5.5 where flyers don't exist (due to massive use of interceptor models).

 Phazael wrote:
You are already buying the blob (which, incidentally is the single best bubble wrap and close combat unit in the game for the points, bar none) which comes with the command squad. For 50 points you give 60ish models 3+ cover, which is less than a point per model. The Lord Commisar is the cheapest HQ option out there and he gives the blob stubborn (savings of 35 on the one wound guy you would otherwise need) and radiates LD10.

Not exactly a huge investment in points. And are you going to tell me that 52 point twin linked las cannons with interceptor are not going to be useful without the fliers?

TLDR version: Guard are nasty enough in this edition (with or without MEQ pals), but FW turns the nobs up to 11.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Which is pretty much exclusively 70pt (minimum) targetable T3 5+sv IC's.

Missed this gem. How are you exactly picking out this guy? How many precision shots (let alone S6 ones) are you packing that bypass 3+ cover saves (2+ with a 10 point cloak), a 2+ LOS he can hand off to all of his derps and 5 officer derps he can toss under the bus before you ever get to challenge him? You make it sound like these choices are situational, which they are not. They are absolute staples of IG in the present environment and very powerful in the broader game.

But for sake of argument, lets say you are scared of losing this dude. You can just ally some SM and put a generic librarian with divination on the table and stuff him in with the blob and now they have ATSKNF and can (with default divination) get rerolls to hit with everything. And he comes with a drop pod of TACs you can dump on an out of the way objective, reducing the need for the more vulnerable IG troop options to be your contesters. And you still have the pile of LD10 Sabres being bubble wrapped by all of this crap.

Trust me when I say that this stuff is bad enough without the Sabres involved in the equasion. If Eldar or Necrons had twin linked skyfire/interceptor Lance/Tesla artilery pieces with 4w for 50ish points, you guys would be singing a totally different tune, in all likelyhood.

Again, like FW, but for every Tetra, Wraithseer, or Grot Tank, there is a Lucious, Deathwind, or Sabre waiting to bust the game.

 Phazael wrote:
Well Red, perhaps the science fiction game decided to make guns more dominant than guy with pointed stick? (no disrespect intended)

Literally every army has access to meaningful AA options.

@Muhwe
But everyone in favor says they are the same company and work together when designing their FAQ's and rules. There is sarcasm there obviously but most posters in favor have gone to great lengths to show them as a single company with a single vision.

Was primarily referring to CC here. While not as powerful as in previous editions for sure, it's not by any means inconceivable that an enemy assault unit could engage said blob with regularity, and if they can get at the Commissar and kill him (not hard), then the whole thing falls apart.



But for sake of argument, lets say you are scared of losing this dude. You can just ally some SM and put a generic librarian with divination on the table and stuff him in with the blob and now they have ATSKNF and can (with default divination) get rerolls to hit with everything. And he comes with a drop pod of TACs you can dump on an out of the way objective, reducing the need for the more vulnerable IG troop options to be your contesters. And you still have the pile of LD10 Sabres being bubble wrapped by all of this crap.
And relatively little of this is really involving forgeworld except a couple of AA guns it looks like.

Phazael wrote:
Right on all fronts, but a couple of exceptions:
First, the Lord Commisar is not easier to get to. Assuming you can just stroll across the table without getting lit up in the first place (and remember you are eating 5d3 flamer hits and a metric crapton of flashlight overwatch on the way in)

the Commisar cannot be singled out without challenges or precision strikes (assuming your character is not being fed a random SGT to take him out of play), if he even bothers to close in to base to be eligible for wound allocation. If he even is, well 2+ LOS all day to stick it to one of the 45 red shirts in the unit. I am not sure if you are assuming you can still direct attacks at ICs or something, but sniping out characters in 6th is nigh impossible outside of challenges.

And the issues exist without FW (aside from Intercept on core troops all over the place) making it a billion times worse. If you cannot see the difference in adding twin linking, T7 4w 3+/4+cover Skyfire and Interceptor for a marginal amount of more points makes in this list, well then I am not sure what to say.

When you toss some grot tanks in a list in place of warbuggies, it does not make any tangible difference. When I can remove all other las cannons, hydras, and Vendettas from my list and largely still have my bases covered (and all in core troops) and any army that can ally IG (eg all of them but Nids) can do this, you are completely shutting out entire segments of the game (reserves and flyers) without even getting into how these replacement units are practically invincible.

 RiTides wrote:
V- Commissar won't take 1st challenge.

Instead of repeating that you need to read the saber rules before discussing, please do so (not intending to be rude).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
V- Commissar won't take 1st challenge.

then his Ld10 goes out the window

 Peregrine wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
People should be expected to go look for 6-8 books worth of material somewhere on the internet to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament? And it's 'Silly' to say they shouldn't have all that information in their head somehow?

You're right. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect people to go look for 6-8 books worth of material to learn what someone 'might' bring to a tournament, and silly to say they should have that information in their head somehow. I eagerly await your announcement of your new rule that only C:SM may be used in your tournaments.


Also, it took me less than five minutes to find a download for every single FW book, which is about as hard as it was to find a download for every single codex. The "FW is hard to find" argument is just insane.

 Oaka wrote:
I think most people agree that Forgeworld units are overcosted for what they do, so it's unlikely that someone takes them simply to win games. I'm bummed because they're some really awesome models that can't be used as a counts-as codex choices in a tournament that bans Forgeworld.

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm not 100% up-to-date on what's available to every army, but what do Tyranids have? As an aside, saying 'every army' is incorrect. Every faction might be better. I've got plenty of armies with no AA options. My Nurgle Daemons, for example, are all assault, all ground-pounding.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Phazael wrote:
Well Red, perhaps the science fiction game decided to make guns more dominant than guy with pointed stick? (no disrespect intended)

It's a game. There are flying tanks that drop off crazed warriors with power weapons right into close combat. There are units that tunnel through the ground with sharp pointy claws, and others that can teleport right next to you and kill you. The whole bit about "sci fi means guns" is pretty much discounted when the most popular sci-fi series of all time features a sword as it's defining weapon, and arguably the second most popular shows trained colonial marines getting ripped apart by clawed Aliens.

There's nothing inherent in Sci-fi that discounts close combat, as you have so many different ways to rationalize how something got close to your men with a sword. Being able to assault from deep-strike and/or reserve is not based in sci-fi, it's a game design decision (and a poor one, as the example with flamers of tzeentch shows).

Literally every army has access to meaningful AA options.

I'm not 100% up-to-date on what's available to every army, but what do Tyranids have? As an aside, saying 'every army' is incorrect. Every faction might be better. I've got plenty of armies with no AA options. My Nurgle Daemons, for example, are all assault, all ground-pounding.

 mikhaila wrote:
You have poor logic skills. Trying to infer that not allowing FW means we should not allow regular books is stupid and dramatic, not an argument in favor of FW.

Normal GW codices are on the shelves, generally with store copies, and readily available. FW books aren't.

Kudo's that you found all the illegal pdf's of the FW books. Give yourself a pat on the back. They aren't allowed in my store, the same way I don't allow pirated copies of any other game books.

 Hulksmash wrote:
In my opinion it actually is a Forgeworld issue. Artillery in the rest of the game cannot be done on the same scale. Most artillery (in the 3 books it's available out the door) has only 2 wounds. Also note that they don't have the ability to go to ground and then pop back up. And is generally in a rather small unit.

 Phazael wrote:
If Sabres and Hyperios were Heavy Support choices

The fact that things like the Hyperios, an immobile heavy weapons platform, is a fast attack option (notoriously useless for marines) suggests a concious effort on the FW guy who wrote the rules to make them an optimum choice with no downside.

vhwolf wrote:
I just sat down and pointed up the 50 man blob squad w/ flamer and Power Weapon plus commisar and sabers with defense line. It is 990 in points. Just food for thought and each three sabres will run about $110 before shipping.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

vhwolf wrote:
I just sat down and pointed up the 50 man blob squad w/ flamer and Power Weapon plus commisar and sabers with defense line. It is 990 in points. Just food for thought and each three sabres will run about $110 before shipping.

That is immaterial when events like the BAO will allow counts as for FW models.

 Phazael wrote:

Daemons have some descent flying options, thanks to flying MCs with access to shooting attacks. If anything, its the Skyfire/Interceptor craze of FW that poses a bigger issue to Daemons, at least if you have not played a game with two flying GD and some DPs hosing down the table. When you take Nurgle Daemons you are making a concious choice to limit yourself to one part of the book, despite having the resources to address those problems. Thats a lot different than Nids who literally have nothing to address flyers and are designed almost entirely around assault. Getting angry at the guy picking paper when you picked rock is self defeating when you could have brought a more balanced army.

 Phazael wrote:
Your own discription was a dedicated assault army. I mean, I am sure the Zulus were pissed when the Brits showed up with a shooting army, too,

but unless you want to share their fate you need to balance your army out.

Really, the simple addition of two flying MCs with a shooting attack would address the AA issues and thats a minor alteration, plus they are not exactly terrible outside of the AA role.

The whole point of a new edition is, in fact, to change the way the game is played.

vhwolf wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

vhwolf wrote:
I just sat down and pointed up the 50 man blob squad w/ flamer and Power Weapon plus commisar and sabers with defense line. It is 990 in points. Just food for thought and each three sabres will run about $110 before shipping.

That is immaterial when events like the BAO will allow counts as for FW models.

Nice try on the arguement but almost every orginizer has said it has to be an acceptable counts as so it is still going to cost a bit of cash to make something that looks and feels correct. Also I was just giving the info not saying anything else one way or the other.

 kronk wrote:
Pro:

* The TO wants to use them.

* The Players in his area want to use them.

 RiTides wrote:
Orks have a tradition of "moar dakka" not just choppas. Shoota boyz and lootas being king is fine with me for a change. And with their terrible BS but lots of shots, and now snapfire, they should be able to generate enough dakka to deal with fliers, imo.

I agree changes are made to sell models. But I also agree with Hulk that if someone's reason for allowing FW is to counter fliers, as many have admitted, then that's not a good reason to allow FW.

There are other good reasons, but just like saying the game is balanced isn't reason enough to disallow FW, saying it would balance out fliers isn't reason enough to allow it.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:


That is certainly the case for smaller tournaments, what I and I believe Blackmoor have been discussing is the inclusion in larger gt style events.

 Blackmoor wrote:
Can someone bullet-point the reasons why we should have forge world in tournament play?

For an example the anti-forge world would be:

Price: Makes an expensive game more expensive

You don't need to bring forgeworld

Inaccessible Rules: You need to order the books from Forge World and are not readily available.

easier to get forge world then demon update or flyers or sisters codex from white dwarf

Confusion: Even TOs and people who use them are unaware of the nuances of their rules.

example?

Balance: Only units that you will see at tournaments are the broken overpowered ones.

really i would bring grot tanks and decimators. most forgeworld would be brought for fun

Access: Imperials get the lion’s share of the units and the best ones.

allies?

Perceived Imbalance: With allies 6th edition is balanced.

yep allies

Irrational fear of Fliers: No proof that fliers are dominating without forge world.

does forgeworld break flyers? nope

Blackmoor wrote:Can someone bullet-point the reasons why we should have forge world in tournament play?

For an example the anti-forge world would be:

Price: Makes an expensive game more expensive

Inaccessible Rules: You need to order the books from Forge World and are not readily available.

Confusion: Even TOs and people who use them are unaware of the nuances of their rules.

Balance: Only units that you will see at tournaments are the broken overpowered ones.

Access: Imperials get the lion’s share of the units and the best ones.

Perceived Imbalance: With allies 6th edition is balanced.

Irrational fear of Fliers: No proof that fliers are dominating without forge world.

muwhe wrote:


Off the top of my head ..

• Forgeworld books say they are “official” for use in games of 40k.
• Allowing Forgeworld produces more variety and diversity in armies.
• You enjoy the additional challenges and complexity of having more variety and diversity in the game.
• Your opponent / attendees want to play with them.
• You like to support a portion of the company that speaks, listens, and supports veteran hobbyists.
• The game is about playing with great looking models and Forgeworld produces fantastic models.
• Playing with Forgeworld models at events allows other people a chance to experience and enjoy them.
• The addition of Forgeworld models and rules brings additional visual and tactical interest to the meta that at times can grow old and stale.
• They are cool and fun!

 Blackmoor wrote:

muwhe wrote:


Off the top of my head ..

• Forgeworld books say they are “official” for use in games of 40k.
• Allowing Forgeworld produces more variety and diversity in armies.
• You enjoy the additional challenges and complexity of having more variety and diversity in the game.
• Your opponent / attendees want to play with them.
• You like to support a portion of the company that speaks, listens, and supports veteran hobbyists.
• The game is about playing with great looking models and Forgeworld produces fantastic models.
• Playing with Forgeworld models at events allows other people a chance to experience and enjoy them.
• The addition of Forgeworld models and rules brings additional visual and tactical interest to the meta that at times can grow old and stale.
• They are cool and fun!

Thanks Hank!

I just wanted to see the points for and against succinctly put.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Allan reasoned statements like that haven't been seen in this thread for pages. How dare you attempt to do so now!

 Peregrine wrote:
The main reason to include FW is very simple: the default rules for tournaments should be the actual rules of 40k as published by GW, not house rules imposing the TO's personal preferences about how the game should be. GW has explicitly stated that FW rules are part of standard 40k, so the default should be to include them, just like the default should be that every codex is allowed.

 Phazael wrote:
Forgeworld has stamped certain units in rescent books, but that stamp has never gone on any alternate army lists and there are caveats in the section where they talk about it.

There is literally no mention of Forgeworld in the entire 6th edition 40k rulebook on building armies and zero references to it in any codecii.

Back on topic: Again, if you guys want to include FW for reasons beyond "I hate flyers and I want some semblance of 5th back." then comp needs to come with it, or else its Sabrehammer 40k where in the grimdark future there are only Sabres (and the occasional Hyperios). That is of course unless you don't mind the same IG allies block being spammed all over the place, in which case carry on.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Allan reasoned statements like that haven't been seen in this thread for pages. How dare you attempt to do so now!

The problem is that there is no correct answer to the question of whether or not there should be Forge World at tournaments. Both sides have some valid points, and everyone has their opinions.

At this point it is out of the players hands and into the hands of the Tournaments Organizers to decide if they want to have Forge World at their events or not. All the players can do is vote with their wallets. If you like Forge World then you should attend these events that allow it, and if you do not, then you should stay at home.

 Blackmoor wrote:
Can someone bullet-point the reasons why we should have forge world in tournament play?

For an example the anti-forge world would be:

Price: Makes an expensive game more expensive

Inaccessible Rules: You need to order the books from Forge World and are not readily available.

Confusion: Even TOs and people who use them are unaware of the nuances of their rules.

Balance: Only units that you will see at tournaments are the broken overpowered ones.

Access: Imperials get the lion’s share of the units and the best ones.

Perceived Imbalance: With allies 6th edition is balanced.

Irrational fear of Fliers: No proof that fliers are dominating without forge world.

muwhe wrote:


Off the top of my head ..

• Forgeworld books say they are “official” for use in games of 40k.
• Allowing Forgeworld produces more variety and diversity in armies.
• You enjoy the additional challenges and complexity of having more variety and diversity in the game.
• Your opponent / attendees want to play with them.
• You like to support a portion of the company that speaks, listens, and supports veteran hobbyists.
• The game is about playing with great looking models and Forgeworld produces fantastic models.
• Playing with Forgeworld models at events allows other people a chance to experience and enjoy them.
• The addition of Forgeworld models and rules brings additional visual and tactical interest to the meta that at times can grow old and stale.
• They are cool and fun!

 mortetvie wrote:
On the other hand if the TOs are good and the tournament is a decent format but doesn't allow FW, I think the FW advocates will still play and have fun but oh well about using your FW toys.

The "most important rule" even says that not every situation is covered by the rules and the inclusion of FW is in this situation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
On the other hand if the TOs are good and the tournament is a decent format but doesn't allow FW, I think the FW advocates will still play and have fun but oh well about using your FW toys.

Or stay home. No FW = I'm not playing in your event, and I'm probably not going to buy anything in your store. I'm not going to buy an entire new army just so some TO with delusions of grandeur can make his own house rules about what should and shouldn't be legal.

The "most important rule" even says that not every situation is covered by the rules and the inclusion of FW is in this situation.

Nope. FW is explicitly part of standard 40k according to the rules published by GW. You can argue all you want that it should be banned for whatever reason, but like it or not it's part of the game.

 RiTides wrote:
Luckily for you, Unit11, there are plenty of events that allow FW. Most folks, however, are going to fall somewhere in the middle on this issue.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
On the other hand if the TOs are good and the tournament is a decent format but doesn't allow FW, I think the FW advocates will still play and have fun but oh well about using your FW toys.

Or stay home. No FW = I'm not playing in your event, and I'm probably not going to buy anything in your store. I'm not going to buy an entire new army just so some TO with delusions of grandeur can make his own house rules about what should and shouldn't be legal.

The "most important rule" even says that not every situation is covered by the rules and the inclusion of FW is in this situation.

Nope. FW is explicitly part of standard 40k according to the rules published by GW. You can argue all you want that it should be banned for whatever reason, but like it or not it's part of the game.

This post is how I feel. I've invested thousands of dollars into an entire armored regiment (here), and it has progressed ridiculously much since then.

Each company is between 1500 and 2500 points, built so I can field a good list using a whole company of Imperial armor taken from the Armored Battlegroup army list.

I will not have a TO tell me that I cannot play my 1st Concordian Armored Regiment according to its TO&E only because they disallow a book / list because of the frankly spurious reasons given here.

rigeld2 wrote:
Is there an FAQ that allows one of those vehicles to be a character/warlord? If not, it's not 6th edition legal.

 Peregrine wrote:

The "most important rule" even says that not every situation is covered by the rules and the inclusion of FW is in this situation.

Nope. FW is explicitly part of standard 40k according to the rules published by GW. You can argue all you want that it should be banned for whatever reason, but like it or not it's part of the game.

 TheContortionist wrote:
what forge world book is the most current?

how does it work

 Blackmoor wrote:
You sound so sure, yet a lot of people are arguing it. It is possible that you could be wrong?

 Peregrine wrote:
[

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackmoor wrote:
You sound so sure, yet a lot of people are arguing it. It is possible that you could be wrong?

People are arguing because they don't want it to be true. It is explicitly stated in perfectly clear terms that the rules are official and part of standard 40k. The only "ambiguity" is that some people can't stand the fact that the old "opponent's permission required" rule was changed to "part of standard 40k" and won't accept that it's official without a personal hand-delivered signed and notarized letter from GW's CEO stating that FW is official.

 Blackmoor wrote:
You Peregrine (If that is your real name) live in a world were only option #2 exists without the possibility of option #1. I live in a world were both exist, and I have to choose one.

 mortetvie wrote:
Its frustrating reading your posts sometimes because you come across as the ultimate FW fanboy who can't ever be wrong. Seriously, people have a legitimate argument against forgeworld being 40k legal and you keep going back to "the books say they are 40k legal" but that specific language isn't used in the sense that you are using it and doesn't prove your point.

but you gloss over the part that says:

"'...but owing to the fact that they may be unknown to your opponent, its best to make sure they are happy to play a game using Forge World models before you start."

FW clearly admits that the fact that FW models/rules are not widely known/available is a legitimate reason for your opponent not to be obligated to play against FW models...Codex units on the other hand cannot be objected to by an opponent with any legitimacy.

"irrationally [love] our product, so you'll save your sanity if you just identify them right away and don't bother playing against them".

 mortetvie wrote:
According to your reasoning, "intended" to be used in 40k games is not the same as actually being used in 40k games and "should" be considered official is not the same as actually being official so if you want to interpret things the way you are doing you defeat your own argument...

And its a clear and logical inference that when FW says that "due to a lack of knowledge or familiarity with the rules/units, opponent's may not want to play against FW units," that it's a legitimate reason for someone to not want to play against FW units...

Also in the BRB it says that when people can't agree on a rule, to just D6 it so roll a D6 right now and on a 4+ FW is legit, on a 1-3 its not and we can call it a day.

who knows better than GW about what should be included in the game

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
According to your reasoning, "intended" to be used in 40k games is not the same as actually being used in 40k games and "should" be considered official is not the same as actually being official so if you want to interpret things the way you are doing you defeat your own argument...

Except one is a statement of designer's intent ("for standard 40k"), one is a statement that it's polite to state in advance that you have FW rules and not show up with a last minute surprise. It's not the same at all.

 Blood and Slaughter wrote:
Although my personal view is that not allowing Forgeworld 40K Approved stuff is a bit reactionary and I'd actually like to see Forgeworld 40K Approved embraced more (despite as I said earlier not owning any models that need FW rules myself), it's only fair to point out that GW UK do not allow 40K Approved models in their own tournaments at Warhammer World.

 mortetvie wrote:
Way to twist words only when its convenient for you.

 mortetvie wrote:
Correction, it says these rules are INTENDED to be, but that doesn't mean that they ARE . Like YOU said... SHOULD does not mean MUST so the units don't necessarily HAVE to be official. Just going based off what you said and all =).

 Peregrine wrote:
And I will never attend a tournament or other event that does not allow FW units even if my desired army list doesn't include them.

 Peregrine wrote:
In a sane world this is a very simple thing to handle. It's official, but unless you're holding a gun to their head your opponent can refuse to play against you (just like they can refuse to play against you for many other reasons). Only in the insane minds of the anti-FW crowd does an statement about being polite and avoiding conflict turn into a direct contradiction of "these rules are official and part of standard 40k".

 Peregrine wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
Correction, it says these rules are INTENDED to be, but that doesn't mean that they ARE . Like YOU said... SHOULD does not mean MUST so the units don't necessarily HAVE to be official. Just going based off what you said and all =).

Given that the statement is written by the people who have the power to decide what is and isn't part of the 40k rules I'd say that "intent" is the same as "fact".

 Sidstyler wrote:
People can keep saying they will refuse to attend events that don't allow FW, but assuming that they already haven't been this whole time, I personally don't think it's going to make any more of a difference. I highly doubt allowing FW would really boost attendance that much in any case, hence why more TO's probably haven't changed their minds.

If the pro-FW crowd can't make their point without constantly resorting to personal attacks then I don't see any point in continuing this pointless "discussion". It's gotten to the point now where, apparently, if you don't like FW you're "insane". Really? Toy soldiers. Come the feth on.

 mortetvie wrote:
Given that the statement "It is best to make sure they are happy to play a game using FW models before you start" is written by the people who have the power to decide what is and isn't a part of the 40k rules, I'd say that "its best to make sure" is the same as "fact." They clearly intend for FW models to be cleared with your opponent before a game. Even if its only to be polite, as you claim, they still said it and intended it to be the case.

The question of “is it official?” continues to come up regularly from 40k players about Imperial Armour models and rules. By the above question I take players to mean a) can they use their model and the rules for it in tournaments, b) use them without their opponent’s consent, like codex rules.

a) Tournaments are organized independently of Forge World, we have no say in the restrictions applied to tournaments (and quite right too). Therefore we (Forge World) cannot sanction the use of Imperial Armour models in tournaments. the decision must be made by the tournament organizer. Some tournaments allow all Forge World models; others ban the use of aircraft and/or super-heavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures (as these do affect game balance in smaller sized games usually played in tournaments). Others restrict players to Codex forces only. Any of these options are fine with Forge World, we have no axe to grind over which option is used.

That said, some confusion does exist because Forge World models being used that are actually just Codex equipment. There was one reported instance of a player complaining about his opponent’s use of our Emperor’s Children Dreadnought even though it complies with the standard codex rules – stating “that’s a Forge World model you can’t use it”. But it had Codex rules!

To explain further, some Forge World models are completely new, and have new rules, which we publish on our website, in the Imperial Armour Update book, or within Imperial Armour volumes. Other models do not need rules, as they already exist in the Codexes. So if you upgrade a Rhino with extra armour, and use the Forge World Rhino extra armour kit to do it, the standard rules apply, and therefore there is no problem with using these models in a tournament as they are just codex equipment.

b) Opponent’s consent. In the past we have talked about getting your opponent’s consent to use Forge World models. Of course, players don’t like this approach, because it gives the opponent sanction over their army. I agree with them, and find the issue of consent difficult. Armies do not get to choose what their opponent will field against them, they just have to deal with it. The very idea that some vehicles are legal and others are not seems odd to me. All the vehicles covered by Forge World exist in the 41st Millennium and, being a war torn universe, most find their way onto the battlefields. Now background descriptions might restrict their availability, but players should not.

Also, in game balance terms, rare and powerful equipment, monsters and characters are problematic. Players naturally want to use them, because a) they are cool models and b) the powerful rules mean they help win games. Of course, this means that these “uber-killers” turn up far too often in games.

As explained above, to compensate, opponents have to skew their army to counter the uber-killer. the game becomes just about stopping it, and this actually doesn’t make for a very entertaining battle because the game balance has been so badly thrown out by its presence. The use of the uber-killers can be easily fixed by considering the context. By this I mean the context within the game takes place. In stand-alone points-based games, the uber-killers of the 41st millennium have no place, but this does not mean they have no place in 40k in general. The solution is to play different styles of games, which will allow players to get hours of gaming fun from their large models.

As far as we are concerned, Codexes and the rulebook are official, everything else is up to the players to use or ignore at will. Want to play on a ruined city board using the Cities of Death rules variants? Fine. Want to play on a ruined city board without using the rules variants, just using the rules as published in the 40k rulebook? Also fine. The two things that matter are that both players know this before they start, and both players agree that’s the way they want to play the game. So is Cities of Death official? You can’t use it in a tournament! The Imperial Armour rules are just the same…

Ultimately, however you want to play the game, make sure everybody is having fun!

Warwick Kinrade
October 2007

 mortetvie wrote:

Given that the statement "It is best to make sure they are happy to play a game using FW models before you start" is written by the people who have the power to decide what is and isn't a part of the 40k rules, I'd say that "its best to make sure" is the same as "fact." They clearly intend for FW models to be cleared with your opponent before a game. Even if its only to be polite, as you claim, they still said it and intended it to be the case.

Sure, they want it to be the case that you're polite, but they've explicitly avoided using the "requires permission" language they've used in the past. It's a very deliberate choice NOT to make it a requirement to obtain your opponent's permission to use your FW units.

 Peregrine wrote:
Whether or not you like FW's rules it's absolutely insane to say things like "FW is a third-party company" or whatever.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Whether or not you like FW's rules it's absolutely insane to say things like "FW is a third-party company" or whatever.

You're the one who can't read, then. I've never said FW was a third-party company. No one did. I've always acknowledged the fact that they are owned by GW.

Apparently you just don't understand what I actually said. I said FW publishing rules was comparable to BoLS doing the same, but that was more because of the fact that the FW design studio is a separate entity that's left to do its own thing, which is an indisputable fact about how FW operates, and my comparison to fan-made content is more to do with that fact than how the company is set up.

 Sidstyler wrote:
You're the one who can't read, then. I've never said FW was a third-party company. No one did. I've always acknowledged the fact that they are owned by GW.

Apparently you just don't understand what I actually said. I said FW publishing rules was comparable to BoLS doing the same, but that was more because of the fact that the FW design studio is a separate entity that's left to do its own thing, which is an indisputable fact about how FW operates, and my comparison to fan-made content is more to do with that fact than how the company is set up.

 mortetvie wrote:
Sure but it could also be argued that they explicitly avoided using the words "are official" and "are to be used in standard 40k games" because its a deliberate choice NOT to make it a requirement that FW be official .

 mortetvie wrote:
And the post above by SidStyler should be quoted for truth, thanks Sid for finding that, I think it makes the issue pretty conclusive.

 Peregrine wrote:
TBH it's a sign of how weak the argument is when you have to resort to nitpicking like that.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I already know it won't, though. The reason why it hasn't been posted yet is probably because it's considered "outdated" by the pro-FW crowd, who will just argue that the new "40k approved" stamp overrides FW's previous stance on their inclusion in games completely.

Which is complete horsegak, and dare I say "insane", but oh well.

 Sidstyler wrote:
So Warwick Kinrade has changed his mind and no longer thinks that two players should come to an agreement about which rules they plan to use before playing games, and now fully supports the "Ha, GOTCHA!" style of play people like you are arguing for?

So now GW does, indeed, officially sanction all of the rules they produce for tournaments that they themselves don't even organize and legally have no say over?

Really, the only thing you could argue as being "outdated" is when he mentions balance being thrown out, because obviously GW already did that themselves.

I honestly don't think anything else has changed, though. I doubt that in five short years someone's outlook has changed that much that they went from a "It's all official, just make sure you both agree and have fun!" position, to "Take whatever the hell you want and if they CRY ABOUT IT then TOO FETHING BAD!"

 Sidstyler wrote:
Asking someone for a game of 40k and failing to mention you were using FW rules before the models hit the table mid-game. Hence "Surprise! Bet you didn't see that coming!", or "Ha, GOTCHA!"

I just assume this is how everyone plans to play the game, otherwise why argue so strongly that FW is as much a part of standard 40k as the codices or rulebook?

 Blood and Slaughter wrote:

In my view the best arguments against Forgeworld are that some models are overpowered/underpriced (but none really so overpowered/underpriced they wouldn't have made it into some current codices, like Space Wolves or IG for instance)

 Sidstyler wrote:
When Imperial Armour units get ported over into codices (like the Tau piranha or the IG valkyrie), is it always a straight-up copy-and-paste job or do points costs, statlines, wargear options, etc. ever get adjusted in the process?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
On the warlord note, we've been alright allowing me to nominate one of my command tanks as a warlord.

If this isn't ok with you, then I won't have a warlord.

BTW, it implies that warlords can be vehicles if you roll a 6 on the "personal traits" table.

rigeld2 wrote:
And it's not okay with me for you not to have a warlord - unless I automatically get Slay the Warlord that is.

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 111 says you must nominate a warlord as part of building your army. If you do not it is not a legal army. Please find permission to field an army without a warlord.

 Blackmoor wrote:
I remember what I wanted to ask...

How is Forge World seen in the Warhammer Fantasy Community? Do they accept it? Do they embrace Warhammer Forge Units?

Warhammer World has in the past held and hosted plenty of events that allow Forgeworld

 kronk wrote:
Before people get any more wrapped up in trying to have a rational discussion with certain posters, take a look at their posting history.

If someone always comes off as if they are speaking from a self-assumed position of authority without regards to others ideas and opinions, then you're probably wasting your time.

 Peregrine wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Page 111 says you must nominate a warlord as part of building your army. If you do not it is not a legal army. Please find permission to field an army without a warlord.

It says you must nominate a warlord. It also says that the warlord is your HQ character with the highest leadership. It does NOT say that you must include at least one HQ character, or anything about what happens if you attempt to nominate a warlord and fail to find a valid choice. Since the nomination process very clearly happens after your list is chosen (otherwise you don't have a final set of characters to choose from yet) it is possible to enter the nomination process with a list which contains no valid option.

 mortetvie wrote:
At least people like Phil Kelly try to make balanced codex armies.

I do have a specific question for Peregrine - how can you reasonably argue that Forge World Units are acceptable and yet Forge World Army Lists are not?

 Blackmoor wrote:
I remember what I wanted to ask...

How is Forge World seen in the Warhammer Fantasy Community? Do they accept it? Do they embrace Warhammer Forge Units?

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Blood and Slaughter wrote:

In my view the best arguments against Forgeworld are that some models are overpowered/underpriced (but none really so overpowered/underpriced they wouldn't have made it into some current codices, like Space Wolves or IG for instance)

Actually, if we can take a break from questioning each others sanity for a moment (lol), I've been curious about this and thought I'd go ahead and ask someone who actually has Imperial Armour books to reference...

When Imperial Armour units get ported over into codices (like the Tau piranha or the IG valkyrie), is it always a straight-up copy-and-paste job or do points costs, statlines, wargear options, etc. ever get adjusted in the process? I always suspected that a little bit of "re-balancing" happened and that the unit wasn't literally ported over without any change, but without being able to look it up myself (and I sure as hell wouldn't waste my money on "outdated" books like IA3 in order to test the theory) I've never really been able to find out.

kronk wrote:Before people get any more wrapped up in trying to have a rational discussion with certain posters, take a look at their posting history.

If someone always comes off as if they are speaking from a self-assumed position of authority without regards to others ideas and opinions, then you're probably wasting your time.

RiTides wrote:Nice post, muwhe!

And see below, guys. It's easy... Don't feed the trolls! Anyone painting this issue as one-sided / black and white (on either side of the issue!) is just yanking your chain and looking for a response. Best thing is just not to give it to them.

 kronk wrote:
Before people get any more wrapped up in trying to have a rational discussion with certain posters, take a look at their posting history.

If someone always comes off as if they are speaking from a self-assumed position of authority without regards to others ideas and opinions, then you're probably wasting your time.

 BladeWalker wrote:
This thread DID become much more informative after the application of the Ignore feature.

I am confused on the difference between FW units and FW lists. Does that mean you can take certain units but you can't (for example) take a DKoK list in the events that allow FW stuff?

(Sorry if this is a dumb question, still trying to figure this out)

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

To be fair, as unbalanced as 40k is and always has been, it hasn't had anything like the extremes of Fantasy since 2nd edition in the mid 90's. As off kilter as 40k's balance is, it's never had an equivalent like 7th Fantasy Daemons or the like.

muwhe wrote:
Pretty much.

Forgeworld sort of does two things with Imperial Armor books ( outside of the model master and horus heresy books). They produce books that are of the “update” variety. These typically are pretty straight forward, contain a list of units ( typically across all races), unit background, rules and color plates etc.

Forgeworld also does Imperial Armor books that are “campaign books”. These are typically directed at a particular conflict, and include details about the forces involved, background, scenarios for playing out the campaign etc. Some of them contain “army lists” designed to create the feel of the forces .. forces of the Tyrant of Badab for instance. To my knowledge none of the army lists to date have been labeled as official for use in 40K or Apocalypse. Additionally, within these campaign books you will typically have outside of the army list units listed in a similar fashion to the update books.

Most event formats that allow Forgeworld allow the units and not the army lists.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

To be fair, as unbalanced as 40k is and always has been, it hasn't had anything like the extremes of Fantasy since 2nd edition in the mid 90's. As off kilter as 40k's balance is, it's never had an equivalent like 7th Fantasy Daemons or the like.

The thread about grey knights being the most op book gw has produced in a decade would disagree with your final assertion about daemons. I made that point about fantasy and daemons many times but was ignored.

If you made a army from the list in the FW book for DKoK how much of it would be actually playable in a regular 40k game with the "approved for 40k" units? Do most of the units transfer over or would you have to counts-as and leave out quite a bit? Thanks for the info.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

To be fair, as unbalanced as 40k is and always has been, it hasn't had anything like the extremes of Fantasy since 2nd edition in the mid 90's. As off kilter as 40k's balance is, it's never had an equivalent like 7th Fantasy Daemons or the like.

The thread about grey knights being the most op book gw has produced in a decade would disagree with your final assertion about daemons. I made that point about fantasy and daemons many times but was ignored.

The GK book was pretty borked, and the same guy wrote both of them, but having played against the worst of both, **** 7th Fantasy Daemons. Right where they poop. That's not to say GK's don't have serious, major issues, but the underlying core ruleset differences mean that they're just too good for what they cost, no unlike several other 40k armies of the time, as opposed to Daemons who really just abused the core rules to a point where they were fundamentally broken.

 Phazael wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Phazael wrote:

The 40k celebrity community worked really hard to ditch soft scores and now they are essentially in a mess of their own creation, as it pertains to FW and 6th edition balance issues.

To be fair, as unbalanced as 40k is and always has been, it hasn't had anything like the extremes of Fantasy since 2nd edition in the mid 90's. As off kilter as 40k's balance is, it's never had an equivalent like 7th Fantasy Daemons or the like.

The thread about grey knights being the most op book gw has produced in a decade would disagree with your final assertion about daemons. I made that point about fantasy and daemons many times but was ignored.

The GK book was pretty borked, and the same guy wrote both of them, but having played against the worst of both, **** 7th Fantasy Daemons. Right where they poop. That's not to say GK's don't have serious, major issues, but the underlying core ruleset differences mean that they're just too good for what they cost, no unlike several other 40k armies of the time, as opposed to Daemons who really just abused the core rules to a point where they were fundamentally broken.

This is a common meme, but objective reality tends to differ. First off, the DoC book was strong for a window of exactly 6th months. After that, it pretty much fell by the wayside to the DE > Skaven > VC > DE rock paper scissors that followed in the wake of those books. Also, the DoC release coincided with a brief window where GW ran some GTs and did not include any measure of comp in them, so the bandwagon Daemon players went out of their way to break the book. Finally, consider what existed before in the metagame for the longest time. You either played Brettonian Steamroller or Wood Elves, otherwise you got rolled. As bad as DoC were, I think you guys tend to forget how truely unstoppable those armies were in their prime and their dominance extended across an edition and a half. The major difference is the internet hate machine was not around when the DoC situation hit, so its not as enshrined in internet hyperbole. And really, 7th Ed DoC (or DE for that matter) have nothing on the long term stranglehold at the top that SW and IG have had in 40k, just looking at the RHQ listings on those armies for the last half decade.